Scramble for Internet: you snooze, you lose | IGF 2023 WS #496

Moderator 2

The discussions held at the Internet Governance Forum shed light on the ongoing struggle of Global South countries to ensure internet access and treat it as a basic human right. These discussions reveal a disparity in approaches to internet access and function between the Global North and the Global South. While the Global North countries have a different approach towards internet access, the Global South representatives focus on the fundamental aspects of internet functioning and the importance of internet as a fundamental human right. This discrepancy in perspectives highlights the disparities and challenges faced by countries in ensuring equal access to the internet.

Furthermore, following its withdrawal from the G8 in 2014, Russia has shifted towards aligning more with the Global South. Although specific reasons for this shift are not mentioned, this change in alignment could potentially impact Russia’s stance on global issues and its interactions with other countries in the future.

The discussions at the Internet Governance Forum offer a vital platform to address the crucial issues related to internet access and governance. By acknowledging and understanding the differing perspectives and challenges faced by countries in the Global South, there is an opportunity to bridge the digital divide and promote equal and inclusive access to the internet for individuals worldwide.

Moderator 1

The perspective of the global South is essential in discussions about fragmentation, particularly regarding technology and infrastructure issues. These countries often face challenges due to vulnerable infrastructure and poor internet governance, which can lead to frequent internet shutdowns. Such disruptions can have significant impacts on the economies, education systems, and overall development of these nations.

International cooperation is emphasised as a key approach to address these challenges. By promoting partnerships and collaborations, it becomes possible to ensure that all countries and regions have equal access to technological equipment and innovation. This is particularly important in bridging the existing digital divide between the global North and South.

Representatives from the global South tend to highlight the fundamental significance of the internet in discussions about fragmentation. They argue that access to the internet should be considered a basic human right, as it facilitates communication, access to information, and opportunities for socioeconomic development. Their perspective is influenced by the ongoing struggle to guarantee internet access for their populations, which is often hindered by various factors such as limited infrastructure, socioeconomic disparities, and inadequate internet governance frameworks.

It is interesting to note the stance of the Russian Federation in these discussions. Despite being geographically considered part of the global North, Russia has shown alignment with the perspectives of the global South. This shift in alignment became more noticeable after the country’s withdrawal from the G8 in 2014. It indicates that Russia is placing greater importance on addressing the challenges faced by the global South, particularly concerning fragmentation and internet governance issues.

In conclusion, the global South perspective holds significant weight in discussions about fragmentation, as these countries grapple with issues of infrastructure vulnerability and internet governance. International cooperation is crucial to ensure equitable access to technology and bridge the digital divide. The global South emphasises the essential nature of the internet as a basic human right, while the Russian Federation’s alignment with the global South highlights their shared concerns regarding fragmentation and the need for inclusive internet governance.

Roberto Zambrana

The internet was initially designed to connect the scientific and academic community, but it quickly expanded as people recognized the benefits and wanted to join for services like email and access to information. This early growth and widespread adoption of the internet marked a positive development.

However, as the internet continued to expand, issues started to emerge. One major concern was the security of the internet. With more users and an increase in the exchange of information online, there was a greater risk of cyber attacks and breaches. Governments also took actions that could be seen as leading to the fragmentation of the internet, potentially dividing it into smaller, controlled networks. These negative aspects raised concerns about the future of the internet.

Furthermore, the technical dimensions of the internet itself presented challenges. New protocols that altered the original architecture had the potential to lead to fragmentation. The introduction of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) was a significant advancement that facilitated the growth of the internet. However, changes like these could also contribute to fragmentation if not carefully managed.

Another factor that could contribute to fragmentation is the lack of actions to provide internet services to everyone. In many parts of the world, particularly in the Global South, over half of the population remains unconnected to the internet. This lack of accessibility and the failure of stakeholders to take action to address it hinder the expansion and unification of the internet.

Despite these challenges, there is recognition that maintaining respect for internet sovereignty is crucial. The internet should be treated as an entity deserving of respect, and there should be active exchange and adherence to the principles on which it was originally designed. This positive stance suggests that upholding internet sovereignty is necessary to preserve the integrity and functionality of the internet.

In conclusion, the internet’s original purpose was to connect the scientific and academic community, but it quickly evolved as people sought to benefit from its services. However, challenges such as security issues, potential fragmentation caused by technical changes and government actions, a lack of actions to provide internet services to all, and the need to maintain respect for internet sovereignty have emerged. These issues represent significant hurdles that need to be navigated to ensure the continued growth, accessibility, and integrity of the internet.

Dr Milos Jovanovic

Internet fragmentation is a complex issue that takes on three forms: Technical, Governmental, and Commercial. Technical fragmentation concerns issues with the underlying infrastructure of the internet, such as inconsistent network protocols and incompatible standards. Governmental fragmentation involves internet access and information flow being restricted by governments through censorship and content filtering. Commercial fragmentation involves business practices that prevent certain users from creating and spreading information, such as targeted advertising algorithms.

To maintain a sovereign internet, it is important to focus on critical infrastructure, ensuring the stability, security, and resiliency of the internet’s underlying infrastructure. This includes protecting information channels through encryption techniques.

However, geopolitical issues and interests hinder the development of a minimum common framework to manage internet fragmentation. Different regions hold different perspectives and approaches to internet governance, leading to fragmented development and lack of consensus.

Emerging technologies like Artificial Intelligence (AI), Blockchain, automation, and 5G/6G networks also impact internet fragmentation. AI presents challenges in defining its boundaries and ethical use. The implementation of these technologies can either exacerbate or alleviate fragmentation, depending on how they are developed and deployed.

Internet fragmentation is expected to continue and deepen due to a multipolar world and shifting power dynamics. Challenges exist in parts of the world, such as Africa, that are less connected. Bridging the digital divide and ensuring equitable access can help mitigate the negative effects of fragmentation and reduce inequalities.

In conclusion, addressing technical, governmental, and commercial aspects of internet fragmentation, ensuring critical infrastructure, considering the impact of emerging technologies, and promoting global cooperation are necessary to manage and reduce the negative impacts of fragmentation.

Olga Makarova

The analysis delves into two main topics: technological revolutions and internet fragmentation. It asserts that these revolutions follow a cyclical pattern that can be predicted. The cycle begins with an eruption and frenzy, characterized by rapid growth and excitement surrounding a new technological advancement. This is followed by a crash, where the initial enthusiasm subsides, leading to a decline in the market. Regulatory intervention then comes into play, as authorities step in to establish rules and guidelines to govern the technology. Finally, the revolution reaches its ultimate maturity, where the technology becomes an integral part of society. Currently, the analysis posits that we are in the midst of the fifth technological revolution, referred to as the information and telecommunication age.

Moving on to internet fragmentation, the analysis suggests that this phenomenon can occur due to a combination of technological, political, and economic factors. The internet is described as a collection of interconnected but autonomous systems. Fragmentation, as the analysis points out, lacks a clear-cut definition, making it a concept that is difficult to pin down. It argues that fragmentation may manifest in various forms, leading to potential consequences for connectivity and access.

Furthermore, the analysis proposes the idea of employing mathematical models to gain an understanding of and predict internet fragmentation. It highlights an older model from 1997 that quantifies fragmentation in terms of distribution, intentionality, impact, and nature. The analysis expresses optimism about the potential usefulness of mathematical models in comprehending the complexities of internet fragmentation.

In conclusion, the analysis provides valuable insights into the predictable cycle of technological revolutions, specifically focusing on the current information and telecommunication age. It also explores the potential for internet fragmentation, noting its potential consequences on connectivity and access. Additionally, the proposal to employ mathematical models as a tool for understanding and predicting internet fragmentation adds another layer of interest to the analysis. Overall, it offers a comprehensive overview of these topics, shedding light on past trends and potential future developments.

Otieno Barrack

The analysis explores the topic of internet governance, with a particular focus on its relevance in the Global South. It highlights the fact that many nations in the Global South are utilising systems and solutions that were largely designed in the Global North. This reliance on infrastructure not specifically tailored to their needs has resulted in a number of issues, such as internet shutdowns due to weak infrastructure.

The rise of internet shutdowns in the Global South is a growing concern, as they have a significant impact on local internet economies. This emphasises the need for internet governance to be applicable at a local level, despite its global public good nature. Design principles specific to internet infrastructure in the Global South need to be considered to ensure effectiveness and reliability.

Investment in the correct technological competence is also crucial. The private sector must invest in the appropriate technological capabilities to prevent infrastructure compromise. Poorly executed investments in technological competence can result in significant problems and hinder the development and stability of internet systems.

Additionally, the government plays a key role in creating a level playing field for all actors in internet governance. Their involvement ensures that the interests and needs of various stakeholders are taken into account. By fostering a fair and inclusive environment, the government can help promote the stability and growth of internet systems.

The analysis also highlights the negative effects of internet shutdowns on both local and global internet economies. Studies have shown that these shutdowns incur significant costs that extend beyond the immediate disruption of internet access. This further underscores the importance of addressing internet governance issues and safeguarding the stability and accessibility of internet systems.

In conclusion, the analysis emphasises the importance of relevant and applicable internet governance at a local level in the Global South. It stresses the need to consider region-specific design principles, as well as the significance of private sector investment in the appropriate technological competence. The role of the government in creating a fair and inclusive environment for all actors in internet governance is also highlighted. Lastly, the detrimental impact of internet shutdowns on local and global internet economies serves as a compelling argument for addressing these issues and ensuring the stability and accessibility of internet systems.

Olga Makarova:
development. She studies the relationship between technological development and financial bubbles. In 2020 Forbes named Carlotta Perez of five women economists worthy of our attention. She came to the conclusion that every technological revolution follows the same cycle. It all starts with an eruption, followed by frenzy, lots of ideas, lots of money. Then a crash and a turning point. At this stage, governments step in to regulate. And then comes synergy and maturity. According to Carlotta Perez, we are still living in the era of the fifth technological revolution, the age of information and telecommunications. And we have not reached the turning point yet. So the question now, what could be the turning point? What will happen after? What should be the institutional recomposition? What might synergy and maturity mean for the Internet? Can we increase this process and how? Each technological revolution causes many changes in society. This one gave rise to Web 2.0 and digital empires. However, the national state systems has not passed away since the Internet advent. While our virtual lives are in full swing in the digital empire’s vastness, our real life still takes place within the sovereign state borders. So, the questions are, could the growing confrontation between sovereign states and digital empires be responsible for the turning point start? Do we need a mature Internet? And what should it look like? We have not got proper answers to all these questions, but we are confident that we don’t want many fragmented split Internets to overrun the mature Internet. Internet fragmentation has a myriad of verbal definitions, sometimes emotional, sometimes sophisticated, but never precise. Some form of fragmentation can be useful for the entire Internet. Google’s QUIC is a case in point. But no definition can answer one important question. The question is, where is the very red line that crosses the boundary between fragmented and unfragmented Internet? The problem is complicated by the fact that fragmentation concepts treat the Internet as an unfragmented, pre-existing whole. But that’s not true. The Internet is a structurally… What we have just discussed in the lecture questions is the uneven fragmentation of Internet activities. It is a fundamentally fragment set of autonomous systems. The following question arises. For many years it was the shift in lifestyles and gatherings to amplify the perception of fragmentation issues which everyone can reach in their own way. So we constantly bump into the various forms of mild slow which states where you stand depends on where you see. Foods are laid out to совfication, but because everyone doesn’t know why, an ambiguous, mathematical model could help, but it hasn’t been created yet. So the question is what needs to be done to reach consensus? It seems that in trying to find the consensus, we need to find the foundation of the model. The foundation of the model is the internet invariance defined by ISOC in 2012. It is a great foundation. Any bridge of any invariance could be considered a form of fragmentation. But we also have bad news. In a universally understood model, Junt kernel can be used for various options. Here they are. affecting the entire internet. For example, any attempt to confiscate all IP addresses of one or more states would have dramatic consequence for the internet. We will account an example of deep structural fragmentation. We will get a chance to see real split internets without trust, unique identifier, globality, and much more. A similar case almost happened in March 2022 when some officials sent a demand to deprive Russia of all allocated IP addresses. But the technical community made the only correct decision not to do so. And this saved not only Russian users, but also the entire internet. When someone tries to punish someone by stripping them of the internet’s core values, there is punishing the entire internet by stripping it of its core values. But how many people think it’s obvious? So while this case shows that only the existing internet government’s ecosystem can protect Russian internet users, I’m afraid we will have to prove it. And probably the only way to do it to create a mathematical model of risk assessment. The entire internet is similarly impacted by sanctions that limit the ability of market participants to make payments for the facilities and services necessary to provide global internet access. The question is how to prove it. Filtering and blocking undesired content and platforms is a political development. All states, without exception, do it. Each sovereign state has its own undesired content blocking policy. The concept of undesired content is read by each sovereign state in its own way. Some sovereign states may apply similar blocking policies for a certain period of time. If you want to see for yourself, check out Blocking Website as Proxies for Policy Alignment by Nick Merrill and Steve Weber of the Center for Long-Term Cybersecurity at the University of California, Berkeley. In March 2022, access to some global platforms was blocked in Russia, some of Internet traffic disappeared and we were sure we would never see it again. Fortunately, we were mistaken. Customers were looking for an alternative. Finally, the Russian customers changed their preferences and started using other platforms. The graphics shows the very relocation of Russian customers with their content from one platform to another. What do Metcalfe’s Law and Dunbar’s Number have to do with this case? Metcalfe’s Law states that the network influence is proportional to the square of the connected user’s number. Metcalfe’s law is constrained by practical limitations, such as infrastructures, access to technology, and bounded rationality, which can be defined by Dunban’s number. Dunban’s number is a suggested cognitive limit on the number of the people with whom a person can maintain stable social relationships. This example allows to suggest that before March 2022, there were several Russian clusters on these platforms connected to each other and to other clusters by Metcalfe’s law and Dunban’s number. Links to the other clusters have forced Russian users to look for global alternatives. However, the limited number of such links prevented fragmentation of the user experience. The blocking did not have a significant impact on the content and user experience. The blocking had a significant impact on some platforms in some region. The good news is that some bounds may affect individual platforms, but not content. The bad news is we cannot predict how many resources need to be blocked to reach the border of the unfragmented Internet and cross the red line. Today, we can only analyze as post-factual, but we need an accurate prediction. Experts suggest four ways to avoid Internet fragmentation. The questions are, which way is right? Why one and how to reach consensus? Look like we can’t do without dull figures. We have a set of technical, political and commercial developments that may have an impact on fragmentation. Each development can be quantified in terms of its distribution, intentionality, impact and nature. Each case can be viewed as a function of these variables. The function value can be used to quantify one or more key dimensions. The question is, why don’t try to define a formula for fragmentation? We seem to be in dire need of scientists and science centers. Has anyone ever tried to define a formula for fragmentation? The good news is that the answer is yes. A part of this model is in front of you. The bad news is that the model was created in 1997. The Internet has changed increasingly since then. So, we don’t know if we can use this model or not. We need to check up. But verbal descriptions are not always convincing. Sometimes they are complex, full of emotion, and virtual versions of Maezler. Dolphins have a more powerful impact. Let’s put aside irrationality. Let’s get scientists involved. Let’s get started trying. Thank you. And here are some important references that I used to prepare my presentation. Thank you.

Moderator 1:
Thank you so much, Olga. That was a very, very interesting and comprehensive analysis. Thank you so much. I hope it will serve as a good basis for not only this discussion, but for many other deliberations on the topic. Because what we value usually in the Russian position is the comprehensive and inclusive approach with all the points. And we just witnessed the very, very profound approach to the topic. Thank you so much. We have Barak Otieno online. If you can continue from the region of Eastern Europe, which is Russia belonging to according to UN classification, even though it’s one-eighth of the world’s surface, we can move to Africa. And Barak, if you’re with us, can you please share the approaches of the technical community from your region?

Otieno Barrack:
Good morning. Good afternoon. Good evening, everyone. I hope you can hear me, Mr. Moderator.

Moderator 1:
Yes, yes.

Otieno Barrack:
Thank you very much. It’s 2am in Nairobi, but the beauty of the internet is that we have a common platform to be able to share in this course, especially on matters of global importance. I think looking at the subject and taking up from where the previous speaker has left, I would like to look at this from a perspective of Global South, especially in terms of the issues that we are dealing with insofar as internet development is concerned. My background is largely in internet infrastructure and internet policy development, both at regional and at policy level, and I’m a believer in the mantra of the Internet Governance Forum of thinking locally and acting globally. I think internet governance is more important if it is relevant at local level, despite the fact that it’s a global public good. And what I would like to stress insofar as internet fragmentation is concerned is that, especially for global South nations or developing South nations, it’s important that we take into consideration internet design principles. The Internet Society has continuously emphasized on the right internet design principles as it is. Most of the regions in the world, the global South, not limited, are using a system or a solution that was largely designed in the global North. And I think when I say design, context is very important. designing of buildings. You may find, for example, in parts of the global south, some designs which take into consideration environmental factors such that people don’t live in permanent houses, for lack of a better word. You find nobody communities that build temporary structures that consider the harsh or the hot weather in those particular areas. If I just juxtapose this or compare this to the internet, what should be the recommended design principles that each of the region should consider? I’m saying this because design is key, because it inevitably affects the structure of the internet and can easily result in fragmentation. We have seen the rise of internet shutdowns, especially in global south nations, where probably the design is not robust and there are single points of failure or single points where infrastructure can very easily be controlled or taken advantage of. Again, when we are looking at countries that have been affected by internet shutdowns, and I think the Internet Society and other organizations have actually done extensive studies on the cost of internet shutdowns on the global internet economy. We also see a scenario in which areas in which we witness a lot of internet shutdowns do not have established internet governance mechanisms. When I say internet governance mechanisms, I’m looking at national fora or opportunities such as this that bring together stakeholders to discuss on equal footing matters that affect internet governance in those particular jurisdictions. When I add to this, it’s also important for all stakeholders. to pay careful attention to their roles and responsibilities because this also inevitably affects internet, or rather affects the issue of internet fragmentation. When I look at, for instance, the technical, let me just look at the stakeholders in a local internet governance ecosystem, I’ll start with private sector. When private sector does not invest in the right technological competence, you find that we have half-baked engineers who then build infrastructure that can easily be captured, for lack of a better word, or that can easily be compromised. When I say compromised, it can be compromised either locally, or it can be by state actors, or it can also be compromised by non-state actors. We have seen situations in which cyber criminals take charge of internet infrastructure that affects various publics, or that affects various private sector interests. I would also like to consider, say, the role of government. Government is key because it creates a level playing field for all actors. So you find when governments don’t pay attention to internet governance conversations, there’s a likelihood that there’ll be a wrong impression, or feeling that they are under threat, and they are likely to respond wrongly whenever they feel that they are under threat by creating scenarios that result in internet shutdowns. As I have mentioned earlier, internet shutdowns have a profound effect on local internet economies, leave alone the global internet economy. Let’s bring into perspective the role of academia. shapes the skills of the engineers who build the local Internet and those who build the global Internet. So if academia is not paying attention to Internet architecture, to best practices, there’s a likelihood that we will end up with wrong architecture that can very easily result in fragmentation. And last but not least, I will talk of again two important actors and I’ll look at the media and I’ll look at the technical community. The media is an important watchman and the media should continuously point out whenever any of the stakeholders is not in step with what they’re supposed to do, or whenever any of the stakeholders is misusing the privileged opportunity that they have insofar as Internet governance. is concerned. So this would be my initial comments with respect to the subject of Internet fragmentation. And I must say that, especially for global South countries, there’s a scramble to implement various technologies, whether satellite related, whether fiber optic cable, which if we don’t pay attention to important Internet architecture development principles, it’s likely to result in a lot of Internet fragmentation. So I’ll stop at that and return the floor back to you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you.

Moderator 1:
Thank you so much for your very comprehensive and interesting speech. And I believe that the global South perspective is key when we are speaking about fragmentation, exactly to avoid situations when fragmentation may be a result of the lack of technologies and critical infrastructure. countries of the Global South. And that’s why we need international cooperation to ensure that all countries in all regions have the same level of technological equipment. And I believe that we will continue with the Global South perspective now. And Roberto, please, we are now moving to the LAC region. Can you share the perspective of the technical community and civil society of the LAC region and tell us your insights? Thank you.

Roberto Zambrana:
Thank you very much, Roman. And also I want to say hello to everyone in this panel and attending the session and in the distance to Barack, a very close friend as well. Well, I would like to maybe review a little bit of the history of internet that many of us will know. And if we remember back at the end of the 60s, the first and most important motivation was to get together everyone. I mean, in that moment, what I’m calling about everyone was the scientific and academic community. So nobody was thinking about security, nobody was thinking about superignity. No. The idea was to actually try to everyone get connected to this network that was starting to grow. It reached some other places in Europe and Asia and, well, as we all know, these big networks that started to be called as internet, then try to connect everyone. And then in the 90s, that’s another fact that we have to remember is that when the private companies, of course, started to put this kind of services, not only for the scientific community, but for the citizens as a whole in all our nations. Once again, it It was important to get everyone connected. I will say that the people wanted to be connected. The people wanted to have these services that we had, like email, access into information, et cetera. So suddenly, many, many people started to join to this network. We are talking about not tens of thousands, but maybe hundreds of thousands and millions. And something that increased this growth was the invention of the HTTP, the protocol that allows to navigate the internet. But then, of course, some other issues started to appear as well. Security issues, people that was taking advantage of this kind of infrastructure to do some bad things. And I think that’s where the society initially, of course, started to worry about these issues, and then, of course, the governments. And they deployed some sort of actions that perhaps could be understood as various ways of fragmentation. We all know that now. But I will say that those are not the only actions that we could westernize about. I will say that in terms of technical dimension of internet, claiming that we can have a better internet, maybe a more secure internet, and that we may actually be, let’s say, putting some other features to current protocols, we could actually have some better way of connections, more secure connections, more efficient connections. And then, we can see in this other technical dimensions that could also threat to the way internet was supposed to be from the beginning, as Barack was saying, to think about what. that the architecture with the principles of the Internet, as we know, and as we want it to be in the future, could be threatened by this kind of new initiatives. And one reason for that is that if we remember as well, back in those years, at the beginning of the Internet, one important entity coming from this technical community was IETF, which is currently the one organization that works with this large technical community and allows, of course, to come up with very clever, very interesting, and very evolved protocols during all these years. And I could say that from the information that I got even recently, because there are some interesting options that we can find now in the boot, talking about these new protocols, of course, they didn’t come up in a community or from a community in this way. Those new protocols might be interesting, might be good, but, again, it’s difficult to think about the results of these initiatives if we don’t see a community behind this, a big community that can have, in this case, technical decisions coming from the bottom up. So that’s another thing that we need to reflect on. And finally, another way of fragmentation that I think, and particularly this affects us in the global south, is related with business models for providing Internet services, of course. And in this case, I wouldn’t say it’s an action that actually any of the multistakeholders is doing that might be actually another way of fragmentation. But in this case, I think it’s a lack of actions, actually. A lack of actions, independently, if this is coming from the government or from the private sector, or even from the civil society when they have to demand this kind of services. The problem is that this lack of action is preventing that many people, that I will say in the Global South, is more than half of the population, is still not connected. That’s another big problem. And of course, at least for me, that’s another important way of fragmentation, if we’re trying to analyze all these different ways. So finally, we were listening about the other approach. And I understand very well about sovereignty. I understand the position exercising the rights of using its mandate. I mean, I’m talking about the different governments in different places. And in the ones particularly that, of course, in the way to maybe face some particular problems regarding security or some other motivations, finally, they decide to define laws that could be understood as another way of fragmentation. And that’s something that I started to reflect on during the last year. If we consider internet as an entity, as once some years ago, we started to consider the world, the mother world actually, or the mother earth, better said, as an active entity, as an entity that we need to respect, as an entity that we need to exchange with. And if we go and analyze internet as another complex entity in which we actually, part of our lives, we spend this then we also need to respect some sort of rights and and I will relate those rights with the principles that Internet was designed from the beginning, and we all need to keep them also in the future, and we also need to talk about Internet’s sovereignty as well, and I think with that concept,

Moderator 1:
it’s time to go back to Europe, and Dr Jovanovic, who also was a speaker in the previous edition of this session, can you please tell us something new, maybe, what you didn’t mention last time, and maybe reflect on those interventions which we expected from Europe today, hopefully, that will help you kind of in thinking about Internet fragmentation. Thank you.

Dr Milos Jovanovic:
Thank you, it’s my pleasure to be here in Kyoto to discuss this topic. When we speak about Internet fragmentation, the whole idea is that it’s a very complex issue. It’s a very complex issue, and it’s very difficult to see like three types of fragmentation. It’s technical fragmentation, governmental fragmentation, and commercial fragmentation. And speaking about geopolitical perspective, because I can’t, you know, separate all what’s happening in speaking about Internet fragmentation from the geopolitical perspective, I would put focus on governmental fragmentation, because I think it’s a very complex issue. And I think it’s a very complex issue, and it requires some, you know, group of users and certain users of the Internet to create, distribute, or access information. So it’s all about information. And you, Roberto, mentioned Internet sovereignty and information sovereignty. And I think it’s a very complex issue. And I think it’s a very complex issue. information sovereignty, and so on. And so it’s really important to discuss this. On another hand, we have technical fragmentations and the aspect about condition which underline infrastructure and some systems to fully operate. We saw some accidents in the past about it. And of course, we see commercial fragmentations, speaking about business practices, which prevent also certain users to create some informations and to spread information across the globe, speaking about their own interests and what they think is right. So when we speak about technical fragmentation, there are many aspects, speaking about routing corruptions, for example, which is really important. So blocking of new GTLDs, some alternate of DNS zones. This is really important, speaking about DNS system and who controls DNS system. When we speak about sovereign internet, which there are examples in China and other countries where they developed sovereign internet, it’s all about how we route our traffic inside of country. And speaking about small country, I’m from Serbia. I think we have a challenge regarding our inter-routes and all what’s happening right now. And it’s all about how we want to think in a way, how we want to secure our own infrastructure. Because when we speak about technical aspects, we usually speak about critical infrastructure. And it’s crucial for, I would say, sovereign internet of every state of the United Nations. After that, we came to some different approach, speaking about TOR, anonymization services, and VPNs, and so on and so on. This is also part of technical. fragmentation aspects. On the governmental side, there are, you know, also different points of view, and I will start with filtering and blocking services with some kind of censorship, but we shouldn’t say that it’s censorship if some governmental organizations say, okay, this is our right to protect interest of our citizens. You know, so that’s a good example, you know, and we see what’s happening right now in geopolitical perspective, you know, speaking about fragmentation processes, you know, between East, West, North, South, and, you know, for example, China is a good example. You can’t, you know, access many Western, I would say all Western services in China. When we speak about Russia, it’s also about Roskomnadzor and who protects, you know, rights of citizens of Russian Federation, all data should be stored, and so on, and so this is a part of governmental aspects, and, you know, that’s normal, because when we speak about Internet, I wouldn’t say that there is someone who has the right to say, you know, ownership of Internet is in our hands, so it’s, you know, decentralized network. That’s how I see, you know, from logical perspective, you know, there are different aspects, speaking about attacks on national networks, cybercrime, architectural and routing challenges inside of every country and between continents, you know. You know, last year when we were in Africa, we discussed, you know, lack of connectivity in some parts of Africa, you know, it’s a less connected continent, so that’s also an issue, you know, because if you speak about fragmentation, you know, we should, you know, see some parts of world where people do not have access to the Internet, you know, so after that, you know, when we discussed in last years and in different forums as well, you know, there are international frameworks, you know. We should speak about common approach, how to solve some challenges, nevertheless of, you know, what’s happening right now and with a geopolitical perspective, because, you know, if you want to achieve, you know, sustainability, which I think is really important, you know, we should focus on building minimum common framework, how to deal with such challenges, because, you know, living in a 21st century, many people do not think and they don’t think that such events are possible, and I would say geopolitical confrontation and, you know, fragmentation and so on and so on. But I think it’s crucial to understand that it’s very important to think how to sustain, to make this sustainable and to grant all people across the globe to access services. And, you know, we also have from governmental side, when I said accessing different services, many people would think about social networks, about controlling information channels, traffic flows and so on and so on. But I think, you know, it’s sovereign right of every state to control their own information flow. And in this circumstances, we should think about minimum common framework and how to make this all sustainable, because there are different interests of, you know, every player in this global arena, including, you know, global east, global west, global north, global south, you know, we should focus on building sustainable approach, and that’s my perspective. Moving back to commercial fragmentation, this is, you know, a challenge speaking about interconnection agreements, about policy interoperability, speaking about internet of things and emerging technologies, speaking about artificial intelligence, blockchain, there are different, you know, approaches and aspects and so on. So, blocking, discriminatory, you know, discriminatory aspects, speaking about net neutrality, what is neutrality, geo-blocking aspects, content, you know, potential cyber attacks on critical infrastructure as well, because if you use some, they would say, non-secure equipments. For example, in Serbia, in a country where I belong, you know, we have some agreement and our government signed that we will not use equipments in our critical infrastructure, which is from non-secured, you know, countries. So what that means, you know, this is also part of commercial fragmentation, you know. And for example, I will give an example from the United Arab Emirates. They signed a contract with Huawei speaking about 5G, you know. So speaking about commercial aspects, about infrastructure, about hardware, about, I would say, all what is critical infrastructure in every country, it’s also part of fragmentation on some, I would say, industrial level. So it’s a huge discussion, you know. If you want to use, for example, some Western hardware equipments and so on, do we belong in, I would say, geopolitical, you know, geopolitically to some, you know, aspects, I would say, and policy, and so should we respect this or not? So that’s always about, you know, what’s happening right now, speaking about NVIDIA microchips and some different server equipments and so on and so on. So I would say that, you know, we see internet fragmentation processes. From my perspective, it’s all started, you know, 2015, you know, 2015 year, 2014, you know. But now we are going deeply in these aspects, and we see three segments, I would say, technical, governmental, and commercial fragmentation, and it’s not all… It’s not only about, I would say, theoretically how we see, it’s about technically. And I know this forum, I mean Internet Governance Forum, there is, as Roberto mentioned, a huge technical community and in the last days we discussed some techniques speaking about anonymization and so on and so on. It’s also about how to secure your own information channels. So we speak about encryption techniques, which is really important, and you know, another topic which is very important is about how to secure metadata of communication. So this also includes ISP as a providers and other stakeholders in this process. So yeah, I want to conclude that right now I see, and I always mention this, you know, colleagues know, and Dr. Chukow and Mr. Glushenko also knows this, I always conclude, you know, speech with what we see right now as, you know, evidence, as a real thing, that we see three technical and I would say technological zones, you know, we see a Western European zone, we see Russian technological zone, we see Chinese technological zone, and it’s a good example when you visit China, you can’t use Western services. In Russia there is a strict laws, you know, all data of Russian citizens should be stored in the territory of Russian Federation. In a Western part of world it’s a huge discussion about Huawei equipments and the non-secure equipments, ZTE, Chinese initiatives, you know, we speak about 5G right after, I would say that China won 5G battle, and right after that, you know, American companies founded the 6G alliance, where they bring together all American companies in a position to try to won 6G battle, so it’s all about automation, about the new emerging… technologies, artificial intelligence, but this is a good, I always ask this, you know, who can define what is artificial intelligence exactly? And a few days ago, actually I think it was your day or first day, WindSurf proposed that artificial intelligence is machine learning. So when we speak about artificial intelligence, we speak about different algorithms, techniques, machine learning, data mining, and so on and so on. So speaking about only artificial intelligence, artificial intelligence, artificial intelligence, I think it’s useless. So we see some emerging technologies, of course, a machine learning, AI, blockchain, different processes, but it’s all about wider aspects. So it’s all connected with 5G, 6G, automation processes, smart city, sustainability, agenda 2030, and so on and so on. Global approach, speaking about fighting against, you know, against pollution, for example, China is a good example. 15 years ago, you know, you see how Beijing was and now. So there are initiatives in this, how we use technologies to fight against real, real problems. And I want to add at the end, you know, as a conclusion, that this fragmentation processes will continue. I don’t see that we are going in a direction of, as I proposed, you know, before, of minimum common frameworks, you know, how to deal with such challenges. I see, you know, strong direction in a way that this fragmentation processes will continue, will deepen, and this is all connected with geopolitical and strategical processes, which definitely started. And I would say that this is, speaking about internet technology and all aspects, it’s just a part of, you know, shifting of power from, you know, the West to the East, and of course we see some tendentions and some processes of global north-south cooperation because, you know, their colleague from Africa, they mentioned the challenges and so on, so, yeah, this will continue. I don’t see that internet fragmentation will stop, and I mean technological fragmentation and all, so, and I see this as a part of multipolar processes, so, the processes of rising of multipolar worlds. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Moderator 2:
Thank you very much, Milos. This is indeed a very insightful presentation, and as we see, even judging by the attendance of our today’s audience, this topic is still more interesting for global south representatives. We do not see global north here, and when global north countries host discussions on the topic of fragmentation, they discuss completely different things. Global south representatives tend to discuss the fundamental aspects of functioning of the internet, because they are still struggling to ensure internet as their basic human right, and this is the difference between approaches, and it’s not only in the sphere of internet, in the sphere, even in the sphere of the values, I would say, because very different level of development always causes such, let’s say, existential disputes, and we are happy to continue to convey the points of view of the global south countries, even though Russian Federation is… is the geographical North country. At the same time, after the commonly known events in 2014, when Russia withdrew from the so-called G8, me as an expert in this topic, in the sphere of G8, G20 and BRICS, I believe that it was the transition period of actually in a turning point of Russia to go into global South, which is quite interesting. We will see historically what it will lead to. The history seems to be repeating. I asked my colleague. Yes, yes. I asked my colleague, His Excellency Vladimir Glushenko, to summarize the discussion and share his vision and the vision of the expert community who participated in stock taking of GDC process conveyed by the Center for Globality Cooperation, please. Hello. Yes, good morning, everyone. Roman, thank you very much for giving me the floor. And I would like firstly to thank all our experts that expressed their very valuable and interesting views on such a hot, I would say, topic as internet fragmentation. Indeed, we have been discussing this topic for quite some time, if I’m not mistaken. The substantive discussions of internet fragmentation started at the IGF of 2019 in Berlin. And since then, really, this discussion has never stopped. Well, for me personally, I like the expression of, I don’t know which expert, but he or her or. She said that, indeed, the Internet has never been unfragmented. So there has been always a problem of fragmentation. And this is why the Secretary General of the United Nations, Antonia Guterres, just decided to suggest a global digital compact. And one of the priorities of this future document of the soft law is avoiding of Internet fragmentation. Really, it’s difficult to say at the moment that the global digital compact can do something to stop the fragmentation of the Internet, but it’s quite capable to formulate the universal rules and principles of decentralized development of national segments of the Internet. This document, I hope, can launch the international dialogue on the future of Internet on the basis of a common vision, if it contains provisions with clear criteria for the responsible behavior of all interested actors in the digital sphere. To my mind, in the most optimistic scenario, the global digital compact should define the framework and criteria for the operation and accountability of global digital platforms, ecosystems and metaverses. And it should also ensure that respect the right of UN member states to independently determine the parameters of the circulation of information and content within their jurisdictions. And this will greatly reduce tensions in the international discourse on the principles of freedom of expression and self-expression in the digital age. It will make it possible to demonopolize the rights and practice of individual countries and IT giants to censor the flow of information solely in their own interests. So, it was sort of a quote from the… from the contribution of the part of Russian export community. I’m not, of course, I’m not representing the whole Russian export community, but the organizations that took part in the discussion of the Global Digital Compact. And I’m sure that the discussion on the Internet fragmentation will, of course, continue. And to my mind, the name of today’s session, You Snooze, You Lose, is very well, very well characterizes the state of discussion around Internet fragmentation. I am sure that the IGF community has been doing very good work in this sphere, and specifically, I would like to thank the public network on Internet fragmentation for very substantive discussions and very interested outcomes. With this, I would like to thank again our today’s speakers and experts, and wishing all of you a very fruitful IGF. Thank you.

Moderator 1:
Thank you. Thank you very much, Vadim. And to be time efficient and not to delay the session, let us please conclude here. Thank you, everyone, for this morning exchange of views. It was very, very insightful, very interesting. I believe that those experts globally who will watch the broadcast and who were online with us and present in the audience had the chance to make their own conclusions about some new ideas our speakers presented. And I imagine that this is certainly not the last discussion. on this important topic and I kindly invite everyone to continue enjoying this beautiful forum sessions and have a productive experience for the next workshops and sessions. Thank you very much, have a great day and good ending of the forum. Thank you. And thank you technical team. Thank you. So, you.