The Internet in 20 Years Time: Avoiding Fragmentation | IGF 2023 WS #109

Henri Verdier

Henri Verdier, a pioneering internet entrepreneur, took a leap of faith in 1995 by starting his first internet company during a time when there were only 15,000 web surfers in France. Initially, Verdier harboured doubts about the potential of crowd-sourced knowledge bases like Wikipedia. However, he has since come to embrace the transformative power of the internet.

One of Verdier’s concerns is the fragmentation and privatization of the internet. It is disconcerting to see certain big states and tech companies disregarding the importance of a free, open, and decentralized internet. This issue raises questions about the future of an internet that is accessible and available to all.

Cyberspace has become intertwined with various aspects of life, including education, health, business, and even matters of war and peace. This highlights the enormity of the impact of the digital revolution in recent times. Furthermore, there has been a rise in digital diplomats as part of this revolution.

Understanding the distinction between technical fragmentation and legal fragmentation of the internet is crucial. Technical fragmentation leads to a higher temptation to disconnect from each other, while the legal aspect of internet governance empowers individuals to shape their own future.

In advocating for a free, open, and decentralized internet, Verdier acknowledges the importance of respecting each country’s right to establish its own legal framework. He believes in the right of the people to make decisions about their own future and is a strong proponent of an open and neutral internet. He opposes the idea of a unified market for tech giants such as Mr. Zuckerberg.

Another vital aspect is the need for network standards and legal standards to be interoperable. This ensures seamless connectivity and compatibility between different systems.

Verdier highlights the distinction between private online spaces, such as social networks, and the internet itself. He sees entering a social network as akin to leaving the internet, emphasising that social networks are “private places” built on top of the internet’s infrastructure. Additionally, Verdier expresses a preference for European rules over private rules from platforms like Elon Musk’s.

The golden age of the internet has ushered in an unprecedented openness of access to information, knowledge, and culture. This has been a monumental shift, allowing people from various backgrounds to engage with a vast array of resources. Furthermore, this period has uniquely empowered communities and individuals, enabling them to have a greater say in shaping their own futures. The permissionless innovation that characterizes this era has also spurred remarkable progress.

Verdier cautions that threats to individuals’ autonomy, empowerment, and creativity can stem from many sources, not solely rogue states. He has expressed concerns about the role of the private sector in potentially impeding these freedoms.

In conclusion, Henri Verdier, a respected internet entrepreneur, has witnessed and experienced the incredible evolution of the internet. While initially doubtful, he now recognises its transformative potential. However, he remains watchful of the dangers of fragmentation, privatization, and the potential threats to people’s autonomy and creativity. By advocating for a free, open, and decentralized internet, he strives to strike a balance between global connectivity and respecting the sovereignty of individual nations. Overall, his insights and observations shed light on the complex challenges and opportunities presented by the internet in the modern world.

Izumi Aizu

Predicting the future is a challenging task, especially when it comes to disasters and conflicts. These events are often unpredictable in nature, as exemplified by the earthquake and tsunami that occurred 12 years ago, which was not foreseen. Recent conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine were also unexpected. Despite advancements in technology, such as the Internet, smartphones, and AI, natural calamities and conflicts continue to impact the world unexpectedly. This suggests that while optimism about the future is important due to technological advancements, reality often brings unexpected events.

The future is multi-faceted, consisting of both positive and negative aspects. It is composed of different elements, including both dark and bright aspects. While there may be positive advancements, there are also dark and challenging aspects to consider. It is important to have a holistic understanding of the future, considering its multi-dimensional nature.

One perspective on the future of the Internet is presented by Izumi Aizu. He believes that the future scenarios of the Internet will be characterised by mixed networks co-existing with the traditional Internet, fragmented Internet with national bloc politics, and a globally unified strength Internet. This suggests that the future of the Internet may be chaotic and fragmented.

However, Aizu also believes in the Internet as a tool for global communication and knowledge sharing. Despite the potential fragmentation due to political and economic reasons, he emphasizes that the underlying ethos of the Internet as a communication tool is likely to persist. Aizu challenges the view that achieving a ‘better internet’ alone should be the ultimate goal. Instead, he emphasizes the importance of focusing on creating better societies and better people.

Aizu agrees with Sheetal Kumar’s statements about the need to harmonize legal frameworks to international human rights standards and make governance bodies more inclusive, particularly in the context of internet governance. He suggests that the future of technology, including the Internet, should be informed by current politics and environmental changes. This includes considering potential regulations on servers, data centers, and artificial intelligence (AI) due to environmental factors.

Furthermore, Aizu emphasizes that the focus should not solely be on the future of the Internet but on the future of humanity as a whole. He argues that it is essential to address global goals like good health and well-being, quality education, and sustainable cities and communities alongside technological advancements.

The current discourse on artificial intelligence (AI) is criticized for its lack of inclusivity. Aizu points out that important countries like China and India were not adequately represented in the discussion. This highlights the need for broader participation and diverse perspectives in shaping the future of AI.

The present state of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is perceived as peaceful but unremarkable. Although the IGF has evolved from being tense and fearful in the past, it is now considered to be less impactful and engaging.

In conclusion, predicting the future is a challenging task, particularly regarding disasters and conflicts. Advancements in technology do not eliminate the unpredictability of these events. The future is multi-faceted, composed of both positive and negative aspects. The future of the Internet may be chaotic, but it also holds potential as a tool for global communication and knowledge sharing. The focus should be on creating better societies and better people, rather than solely improving the Internet. Harmonizing legal frameworks and governance bodies to international human rights standards is crucial for responsible internet governance. Considering current politics and environmental changes is important when shaping future technology. Inclusivity is key when discussing topics like AI, and broader participation is needed. The present state of the IGF is perceived as peaceful but unremarkable, highlighting the need for more impact and engagement. It is essential for IP fundamentalists to expand their perspectives and engage with other global issues. By doing so, they can learn from and contribute to discussions on topics like climate change.

Olaf Kolkman

Predicting the future of the internet is a challenging task due to the complexities and rapid advancements in technology. However, there are differing viewpoints on what the future may hold.

One perspective is that openness is a key feature that should define the future of the internet. This notion is supported by the belief that the scientific method of sharing knowledge, criticizing each other, and making knowledge readily available has been instrumental in driving innovation and progress. Openness allows for collaboration and the exchange of ideas, thereby fostering continuous development and improvement. Furthermore, empowering communities through bottom-up methods, such as building Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) and providing cookbooks for community networks, helps ensure that everyone has equal access to the benefits of the internet.

However, there is another argument that proposes a future scenario where the internet becomes closed and proprietary. This model envisions a world where services are primarily developed to generate profits, prioritising monetary gain over network connectivity. Under this system, the concept of openness may be overshadowed by profit-driven motives, potentially hampering innovation and limiting access for certain groups of people.

Additionally, the lack of infrastructure is identified as a significant challenge that leads to fragmentation. Without adequate infrastructure, internet services may be limited or nonexistent in certain regions, impeding connectivity and hindering progress.

One area of concern is the influence of industry politics on standardisation bodies. It is recognised that choices made by these bodies can be influenced by industry interests and agendas, potentially impacting the open and transparent nature of internet standards.

The notion of consolidation is another topic of discussion. Even with open technologies, companies may seek to extract profits and monopolise the market, leading to consolidation and reducing diversity. This trend raises concerns about fair competition and innovation within the internet ecosystem.

On the other hand, innovation does not always require strict standards. For example, the development of blockchain technology by Satoshi Nakamoto, where an innovative approach was taken without relying on a predefined standard, showcases the possibility of permissionless, open, and individual-driven innovation.

Open architecture, open-source, open standards, and transparency are highlighted as essential components for a positive future of the internet. Open architecture allows people to build upon existing technologies, while open-source encourages collaboration and reuse of building blocks. Open standards and transparency promote inclusivity and foster trust among users.

Internet regulation and governance are acknowledged as crucial aspects for the future of the internet. A principle-based approach that considers factors such as individualism, autonomy, and societal values is suggested as a means of organising the internet. However, achieving global consensus on these matters is expected to be challenging given the diverse perspectives and interests of various stakeholders.

In conclusion, predicting the future of the internet is a complex task, given the rapid pace of technological advancements. While there are differing opinions on what the future may hold, the importance of openness, infrastructure development, community empowerment, and fair governance are recurrent themes in shaping a positive future for the internet.

Lorrayne Porciuncula

The analysis explores different perspectives on the impact and governance of the internet and technology. It begins by highlighting the initial optimism surrounding these tools, with the belief that they would serve as liberating and empowering forces. Lorrayne Porciuncula grew up closely involved in the evolution of the internet through her father’s local ISP in Brazil. She conducted a survey that revealed widespread optimism about the benefits that technology would bring to society. However, it is noted that the reality of technology’s impact is more nuanced than early optimistic predictions.

Porciuncula acknowledges that while the internet and technology have brought some positive changes, they have not fully lived up to the idealistic visions many had held. The argument presented is that the future concern lies more in the legal and regulatory aspect of technology rather than the technical layer. It is stressed that there is a need to consider how to build alignment across different national legal and regulatory frameworks to avoid fragmentation.

Furthermore, it is suggested that coordination and collaboration are essential in creating a more agile perspective towards internet infrastructure. This includes having a multi-stakeholder approach and addressing the challenges of cross-border coordination. Porciuncula emphasizes the importance of finding institutions and processes that are capable of considering various perspectives and adapting to the ever-evolving nature of technology.

The analysis also highlights the complexity of the internet and the need for international cooperation in its governance. It is recognized that the internet is difficult for one government to regulate and comprehensive governance requires collaboration on an international scale. The argument is made that the focus should be on governing the complex adaptive system of the internet through international cooperation.

Narratives are identified as playing a crucial role in discussions about the internet and digital society. Porciuncula emphasizes the importance of addressing issues such as walled gardens with competition tools and identifying the requirements society has for the internet. The analysis also notes that there is a lack of clarity about what society wants from the internet.

The need for remedies that allow users to switch between internet platforms is highlighted, drawing parallels with the example of telecoms where users have the right to switch. This is seen as a means to promote competition and reduce inequalities.

Addressing the complexity of internet governance requires a clear objective, an incremental and iterative approach, and multi-stakeholder inclusion. The analysis stresses the importance of considering the perspectives of underrepresented communities and incorporating them into the decision-making process. It is argued that multi-stakeholderism is not about relinquishing government decision-making power but rather about creating a more inclusive and democratic approach.

Lastly, the analysis suggests that sandboxes can serve as a valuable tool for testing new policies and understanding potential issues. By allowing for real-world testing of regulations, sandboxes can provide insights into the effectiveness of policies and help address any unintended consequences.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the need for a more nuanced understanding of the impact and governance of the internet and technology. While there was initial optimism about their liberating and empowering potential, it is recognized that their impact is more complex. The focus should shift towards the legal and regulatory aspects and finding alignment across national frameworks to avoid fragmentation. Additionally, a more agile perspective, international cooperation, and multi-stakeholder inclusion are crucial in addressing the challenges of internet governance. Clear objectives, an iterative approach, and multi-stakeholder involvement are necessary to tackle the complexity of the system.

Emily Taylor

In the discussions surrounding the future of the Internet, Emily Taylor raises the need to explore potential risks and scenarios. Taylor outlines three possible scenarios for the Internet’s future: muddling along as it currently is, fragmentation due to various factors, or a more positive collective future created by society.

Taylor also reflects on the optimism once associated with the Internet, expressing a desire to rediscover that sense of potential for liberation and empowerment. This highlights the importance of not losing sight of the positive aspects of the Internet’s evolution.

The discussions emphasize viewing technology as an integral part of society rather than something separate. Izumi’s views on the chaotic nature of the Internet and the need for focus on better societies and individuals support this argument. The concept of a better future should encompass technological advancements as well as advancements in society and individuals.

In conclusion, the future of the Internet requires consideration of potential risks, a renewed sense of optimism, and recognition of the integration between technology and society. This comprehensive analysis offers insights into the discussions surrounding the future of the Internet and the need to align technological advancements with societal progress for a more inclusive and beneficial future.

Note: There were no UK spelling and grammar errors to correct in this text.

Sheetal Kumar

The future of the internet is predicted to become increasingly intertwined with our daily lives and more challenging to separate from our activities, according to multiple speakers. They assert that advancements in technology have resulted in devices becoming smaller and faster, leading to the omnipresence of cameras through mobile phones. This development has made capturing and sharing images an effortless part of our routine.

Furthermore, the speakers emphasize the accuracy of past predictions regarding technological advancements. This observation highlights the potential for future visions and creations to shape the evolution of the internet. It implies that our anticipation and actions today can play a crucial role in determining the trajectory of technological progress.

Sheetal Kumar, one of the speakers, underlines the significance of actively shaping the future of technology. She stresses that technology should feel liberating for all individuals, especially those who lack positions of power. Kumar emphasizes the need to address and overcome current social inequalities in shaping the future of the internet. This call for inclusivity is accompanied by an appeal for engagement and cooperation among technology builders and standard-setters.

Moreover, the speakers stress the importance of harmonizing legal frameworks with human rights standards and making decision-making bodies more inclusive. This notion is grounded in the existence of international human rights law and standards. The speakers argue that aligning legal systems with human rights principles leads to more equitable and just outcomes. They advocate for increased transparency and a reinstated sense of user control in internet data, as recent trends have demonstrated a shift in control from users to corporate actors and governments.

Protecting the openness of the internet is seen as paramount. The speakers highlight the value of open access, enabling people to go online, build new applications, and develop technologies. They argue that maintaining openness fosters innovation, collaboration, and an inclusive digital environment.

In conclusion, the future of the internet is expected to be tightly integrated into our lives, making it difficult to disassociate from our activities. Promoting a future where technology feels liberating and inclusive is a shared goal among the speakers. They advocate for engagement, cooperation, and the alignment of legal frameworks with human rights standards. Reinstating user control and transparency while protecting the openness of the internet is also considered essential. Ultimately, the future world should be built upon the principles of liberation and the safeguarding of human rights.

Raul Echeverria

During the discussion, the speakers covered various important topics, including the challenge of internet fragmentation and its negative impact. They acknowledged the already existing fragmentation in the internet and expressed the mission to minimize it as much as possible, promoting a more unified and accessible internet for everyone.

Another significant aspect discussed was the need for gradual objectives and commitments in policy making. The speakers emphasized the importance of starting with simple agreements and progressively improving upon them. This approach encourages collaboration and partnerships among different stakeholders, in line with the goal of achieving the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 17 of “Partnerships for the Goals.”

To improve messaging and policymaking, the speakers emphasized the importance of clear and concise messages regarding internet fragmentation and its implications. Simplifying these messages would enhance policymakers’ understanding and enable them to make informed decisions. This approach aligns with SDG 16, which aims for “Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions” and underscores the need for effective communication in policy-making processes.

Additionally, the discussion shed light on the impact of fear on shaping future policies, particularly in relation to artificial intelligence (AI). The speakers observed that discussions at a global conference primarily focused on fears and concerns about AI, with a negative bias. They argued against formulating policies solely based on fear, advocating for a balanced and rational approach rooted in evidence-based decision-making.

The speakers also emphasized the importance of involving youth in policy discussions. They believed that regardless of their level of expertise, young individuals should have a voice in shaping the future. This recognition aligns with SDG 16 and highlights the value of diverse perspectives in the policy-making process.

In summary, the speakers stressed the need for collaboration, clear messaging, and gradual improvement in policy-making processes, while cautioning against the negative influence of fear. By involving various stakeholders, particularly youth, in discussions, they aimed for a comprehensive and inclusive approach to envision and shape the future of the internet.

Audience

The future of the internet is heavily influenced by innovation in use cases and applications. Younger engineers are seen as key drivers of this innovation, as they come up with new ideas that shape the development of internet protocols and technology. However, there are concerns about the current state of the internet. It has shifted from being a force for good to being driven by aspects such as surveillance, capitalism, malware, and misinformation. This observation highlights the need for measures to address these negative aspects and ensure that the internet continues to serve as a positive force in society.

Diversity and inclusion also emerge as crucial factors in the development of internet standards. The lack of female participation and end-user representation in standards bodies is seen as a problem that needs to be addressed. Having more diversity and inclusivity in these bodies allows for a wider range of perspectives, leading to more comprehensive and effective standards.

Predicting future advancements in technology should focus on understanding user demands rather than solely relying on technological capabilities and government regulations. The speaker suggests that the best way to anticipate future developments is by understanding what individual users want technology to do. This user-centric approach ensures that technological advancements align with the needs and desires of the people.

While there is technological optimism, challenges arise from governmental regulation fragmentation and enforcement contradictions. The existence of contradictory laws and regulations related to privacy and online content does not seem to inhibit governments from enforcing them, raising concerns about the effectiveness and coherence of regulation in the internet landscape.

Incentives, particularly money, play a significant role in driving internet development, especially in the context of web 3 crypto. However, it is acknowledged that money may not be the sole incentive driving technology development. Other factors such as societal impact, innovation, and user satisfaction should also be considered.

The influx of cryptocurrencies is expected to make the future of the internet more complex and fragmented. This observation raises concerns about the possibility of increased fragmentation and the need for regulation to address these complexities effectively. Government regulation fragmentation is seen as a major risk that could hinder the development of a cohesive and secure internet.

There is also a focus on the need for more inclusive regulation, particularly in the context of AI. The lack of consensus and the competition surrounding AI regulation are seen as challenges. It is suggested that businesses, civil societies, and the engineering sector should document the consequences of fragmented regulation to increase awareness and promote more balanced and inclusive approaches.

Inclusivity and engagement of users from the global south and countries with geopolitical differences are highlighted as essential for the future of the internet. By incorporating diverse perspectives, the development and governance of the internet can be more representative and inclusive.

There are concerns about the negative aspects of the internet, such as internet shutdowns and the exploitation of ICT by bad actors. These issues call for regulation and measures to ensure the proper and ethical use of technology.

The importance of aligning government regulations with human rights norms and standards is emphasized. Both governments and companies have responsibilities to uphold human rights through their actions and policies.

Inclusive governance and the involvement of diverse stakeholders, particularly users, are seen as crucial. By including different voices and perspectives, decisions about the internet’s future can be more comprehensive and representative.

In conclusion, the future of the internet is shaped by innovation in use cases and applications driven by younger engineers. However, challenges exist in terms of the internet’s trajectory towards negative aspects such as surveillance and misinformation. Ensuring diversity and inclusion in internet standards bodies is key, and predicting future technology advancements should focus on understanding user demands. Regulation, especially with regards to cryptocurrency and AI, needs to be comprehensive and inclusive. Inclusivity, human rights, and the prevention of negative impacts on society should be at the forefront of decision-making.

Emily Taylor:
There’s an expectant silence, so I’m going to fill it. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening to those who are joining us online, and welcome to this workshop organised by the DNS Research Federation entitled The Internet in 20 Years Time. So this is organised around the theme of avoiding fragmentation, and what we decided to do was to imagine ourselves into a future in 2043, and we will be reflecting on the internet as it has become in our prediction, how we got there, what good would look like in 2043, and what action we might need to take now to fulfil the hoped-for future that we want. So my name is Emily Taylor, I’m a founder of the DNS Research Federation, I’m also CEO of Oxford Information Labs, and an Associate Fellow at the international affairs think tank Chatham House. I’m joined today by a wonderful panel of experts who are going to indulge this act of imagination, but I also hope that we can involve you, the audience in the room, and also online. Please feel free to ask for the floor at any stage, we’re not doing the sort of opening remarks, we’re going to just travel through those themes of imagining the future and how we got there. So if at any point you would like to join the conversation, please, you’re more than welcome to do so. So I’m joined today on the panel, I’m going to kind of run through from end to end, we have Olaf Kolkman, who I think is your current job title, Principal Internet Technology Policy and Advocacy at the Internet Society? Thank you. But we’re very, very fortunate to have Olaf, those of you who know him will know how deeply his understanding and communication of the technical layers of the internet and his ability to communicate that to non-technical people is much appreciated on this panel, and I hope we’ll be hearing that and the reach across into standards as well. We have Lorraine Porciancula, who’s the Executive Director of the Datasphere Initiative, and I hope I haven’t pronounced your name completely wrongly. We have Ambassador Henri Verdier from France, who is joining us today as well. We’re very delighted to welcome you to the panel, Ambassador. We have, you’ll see an empty seat beside me, that is for Raoul Echevarria, who’s joining us at about the hour mark. He’s the Executive Director of the Latin American Internet Association. We then have Izumi Aizu, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Info-Socionomics at the … Something like that. Something like that. Did I say that right? At Tama University here in Japan, and then Sheetal Kumar, who’s Head of Advocacy at Global Partners Digital. So welcome to all of you on the panel. So my first question to you all is, if we imagine ourselves in 2043, what does the internet look like? Let’s try the sort of, you know, your best guess. Before we get started on that, as we’re in your hands as futurologists today, how good are you at predicting the future? Would you say, does anybody want to share any anecdotes about their prowess at predicting the future? Olaf, have you got anything for us?

Olaf Kolkman:
I knew this was coming. I told this story to Emily once. In the second half of the 90s, sort of 95, 96 or so, I was making webpages in the university, studying astronomy. At some point, a PhD student that I was working with came to me and said, let’s bail out. Let’s start a company making webpages. And I told him in his face, no, I will not do this. This whole web thing will not go beyond academic libraries and preprints. So that is how good I am at predicting the future.

Emily Taylor:
Great to have you on this future gazing panel, Olaf. With that, Sheetal, have you got anything for us?

Sheetal Kumar:
I’m not sure if I have a mic here. Sorry. I think we might have to share. So I think the danger with these questions is it also forces you to reveal your age to some extent, which is part of the game, perhaps. But I do remember, perhaps, it’s not me, but I remember my parents saying that they, well, one of them, that they imagined 20 years ago that in 20 years we would have cameras on us all the time, which is true. We have our phones. And we would be able to access, you know, what we want to see on smaller phones because they kind of imagined that the devices, the pagers and then the big block phones that we had and we were carrying around would just become smaller and smaller and faster and faster. And that’s what happened. They should be on the panel. But I think that that lends us to, you know, the question of, like, how does that then evolve and what does the internet look like? I think it’s more perhaps a question for people, what does the internet feel like? And it’s, I think, going to be along the lines of, of course, what we create and what we envision and how we build that. But an internet that is more, just more in our lives, more embedded, more difficult to disassociate from everything that we live in and inhabit. So that would be my prediction.

Emily Taylor:
And we’ll come back to the vision of the future in a second, Shetal. Thanks for sharing that. Ambassador Verdi, I think if we do that one.

Henri Verdier:
Hello and thank you for the invitation. I started my first internet company in 1995 in France, so we were 15,000 web surfers and I didn’t miss internet. So here I was right. And I remember when, for example, do you remember when Bill Gates said that internet would never work and Microsoft.net would be better? So here I didn’t miss the story. But my company was a subsidiary of a publisher and I remember the birth of Wikipedia and I thought and I said that it was impossible to conceive an encyclopedia without a genius like Diderot or d’Alembert. So I said, this is impossible. And that was my first mistake in this story. Yeah, well, you know, what do they say?

Emily Taylor:
Predictions are difficult, especially about the future, right? But you got you got a lot of it right, like Shetal’s parents. So Izumi, how about you?

Izumi Aizu:
Thank you. I think many of you know the very famous term. The best way to predict the future is to invent it by Alan Kay. But 12 years ago, there was a big earthquake and tsunami happened. We have never predicted it, right, and we didn’t want to invent it either at all. If it’s positive, you can invent, you can make the future bright. But how many of us have imagined that Gaza thing just started to fire and what’s going to happen? How many of you, Ukraine, not to mention, but also 28 years ago, there was a big earthquake in Kyoto. I mean, Kobe hit us, many killed. So yes, while we are very much optimistic about the future with all the great things like technology, Internet, smartphone, AI, the reality may be composed by many different colors, dark, void, vacuum, green and white. So I don’t know how really to respond to your nice question, Emily, but I will try to come up later.

Emily Taylor:
Thank you very much. Lorraine.

Lorrayne Porciuncula:
Thank you so much, Emily, and thank you for an invitation of this panel. I keep thinking that, well, I grew up with Internet, right? It was very, it’s hard for you to predict something that it was part of the air, something that’s already a given, right? And so I remember when I was very young and my father had one of, had a local ISP in Brazil. It was one of the first in Brazil, actually. And I remember playing around servers in the cool rooms and all that. That was very much part of sort of my life, right? I’ve been part of that. And so trying to retrace when I started thinking about the Internet as something separate was probably when I was around my undergrad studying international relations and economics. And I was very much into Amartya Sen. And as a Nobel Prize winner, thinking about capabilities and how that is development, right? Rather than just thinking about how much money you’re going to make or GDP you’re going to grow in a country, it’s about capabilities of individuals or communities. And it struck to me particularly because that was around where, well, the green wave and the movements in Middle East were happening. There was the Arab Spring. And I remember the sense of excitement of what technology was going to bring. And the kind of empowerment and expansion of capabilities was going to bring. And this realization very naively at the point, and I think was shared by many people, that there was no way to fight this because it was going to come in terms of liberating people and populations. And technology was going to empower everyone. And it was interesting because I did do a small survey asking people about their predictions. And there were a number of questions, answers to that question. And a lot of people saying, well, there’s just a lot of positivity and optimism in terms of what it was going to bring to society. So when I think back to that, I think, well, maybe, I mean, we certainly are not there in terms of just being the solution to so many of the problems that we already have inherently as societies. But somehow it has brought good things. So the answer is way more nuanced, as with any prediction. It never comes in an extremist kind of scenario.

Emily Taylor:
Yeah. So we’re not going to get it right. But I think that that view from you, Lorraine, as somebody who never remembers not having the Internet, that the future is difficult to predict. It will have good and bad aspects, as Izumi has said. But it’s also, you know, one of the things I hope we can rediscover on this panel in a small way is that sense of optimism that you describe from your earlier time. And so we set out in an accompanying paper to this session, three possible scenarios for the future, which we published on our blog. I don’t know if you’ve seen it. I think it’s on the on the page for this workshop. But in in the sort of TLDR aspect, it’s we muddle along more or less as we’re going. And it’s a little bit worse, probably, you know, but somehow all holds together somehow, a bit like what we’ve got today. But in 20 years time, there’s a fully fragmented future, which is either divided at the technical layers, at ideological layers, at at regulatory layers or all three. And then there is the bright future, the where we all collectively get our act together and almost sort of deliberately work to create the Internet in that optimistic frame that you described so beautifully, Lorraine. So if I could just get a sense from our panel and and also please do, you know, raise your hand if you would like to to to join in this conversation. I’d like to hear from you, you know, according to your expertise or your area of interest, you don’t have to cover everything. What do you think is the most likely future that we will have for the Internet and why and at which layer do you see the most risk? Shall I start with you, Olaf, as you started by sharing so honestly your prediction about there being no future?

Olaf Kolkman:
Yeah, I again, predicting the future is incredibly hard. And what you normally do with scenario thinking is you go into the extremes. Now, when I read this paper for the first time, what I what I sort of noticed is that the future is already here. What you’ve taken are points that we already see start happening to starting happening and that can explode and find their find their way into that future and become more prevalent. And if that happens, the world will look different. When I was thinking of the story of hope, and this is a way to sort of classify those futures, when I was young, again, what I liked about the Internet, what drove me towards the Internet and what made me the the professional that I am now is the openness, the openness, the really the scientific method of sharing knowledge. Criticize each other, having knowledge available. Everything I learned about the Internet, I learned on the Internet, and I shared my learnings and I contributed to that Internet as well. And that that feature of openness, I think, is is one that sort of classifies is another way to classify the scenarios that you have. A scenario that first scenario that you have a mixed scenario with a net closed networks or mixed networks coexisting with the traditional Internet is about being closed, about being proprietary, about developing services for which the services make the money and people pay for the services. And that’s the way that they connect. I connect to this service. And the network connectivity itself is not important anymore. And that’s different from the third evolution, which is more open and treats the Internet as a way to connect to the rest of the world and choose your services. So I leave it at this for the moment. We can go in deeper.

Emily Taylor:
Thank you. I’ve got three people waiting to join the conversation, and I’m so pleased to see that at such an early phase. And also, I would encourage any women in the room who would like to ask a question to either raise their hands. And I personally find the the mic in the in the aisle quite a big step. But if any if any women would like to join the conversation from the floor, please do. And some younger people. And Asians. Thank you. But let’s can we just run through some some very brief injections from you to the conversation if you’re ready to do so? Thank you very much. Sure.

Audience:
This is Barry Lieber. What I’m gonna say is going to follow on very nicely from what Olaf just said. I have a talk that I’ve given in a few places about Internet architecture, how we built the Internet. We collectively how we how we got where it where it is and where it’s going and in the how it got where it is. There’s a lot of what are the innovations that drove the architecture? And how did we add to the protocols, the suite of protocols that make up the Internet with things like media streaming and teleconferencing that we’re working? We’re now working on protocols for autonomous cars to talk to each other in a little pocket that. So there’s the where we’re going is a realization that the that what has driven the Internet is innovation in in use cases and applications and things that we that we can do with the Internet have built up the the suite of protocols and the technology that makes the Internet. So as we look for the future, where it’s going, it’s going to be I can’t predict specifics, but what I can predict is that it’s going to be some brilliant engineer who’s a third my age who has the next great idea for an application on the Internet that’s going to drive another set of standards and technology that builds the Internet 20 years from now.

Emily Taylor:
Thank you. And thank you for also highlighting the role of standards in shaping the way that we experience technology. So I hope that we’ll come back to that on the panel. Andrew, do you want to just give us a quick injection from you? And then after we’ve heard from Mike, I’m going to resume our panel discussion with Izumi.

Audience:
This might actually work quite well, follows quite nicely on Barry’s point. So I’m going to come at it from a different point of view. I think when we look back in 20 years, we’re probably at or close to an inflection point. Up until now, the Internet’s largely been a force for good. And I would observe that when we consider things like surveillance, capitalism, malware. disinformation and misinformation and CSAM, we’re at the point where the balance is shifting to it no longer being a force for good and actually being a force for harm rather than good, when you net out the various effects. If I look at, so this is where we get to Barry’s point, those sort of standards bodies, I literally this morning received an email telling me that from a survey of the ITF membership it’s around 10% female. I’ll leave that out without comment. There are no end-users or virtually no end-users present in the standards bodies. The ITF is not unusual in that regard. None of them are really very good in terms of multi-stakeholderism in any meaningful way. So I would suggest that when we look back in 20 years, I think the reason it’s an inflection point is we either change the SDOs to be multi-stakeholder and diverse in all sorts of different axes or potentially this will fail under the weight of the harms because we need to design this as a internet for the users not by the engineers. So we’ve got two very contrasting views already for the future.

Emily Taylor:
We’ve got from Barry the idea that you know there’s going to be some really unexpected piece of innovation that just comes out of nowhere and that sort of picks up a point from Izumi about you know when you look back at things we failed to to predict even in the last week these are unexpected things and a somewhat more pessimistic view from Andrew about you know and highlighting some aspects if you like of the standards development world that are not currently as inclusive as they should be and even the internet becoming a force for harm rather than good which I saw you know caused ripples in the room. Mike can you help us out with another vision and then we’ll resume the panel.

Audience:
Well my comments are going to feed in very nicely to both previous speakers. I’m at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace but I’ve had eight dream jobs. A couple back where I was at Georgetown teaching about communications culture and technology. My most popular class was called how to predict the futures parentheses s and I taught the students that the best way to understand what’s coming isn’t to look at what the technology can do it’s to look at and not to look at what governments think the technology should not do. The best thing to do is to look at what individual users will want the technology to do and that’s whether it’s digital technology whether it’s biotech whether it’s cars and I don’t think your panel is structured in a way to do that. So I want to rewrite your project description your program description to spend at least a few minutes thinking about what is it that are driving the companies and the governments to make the internet better because I’m a technological optimist and a political pessimist. In those countries that have policies that allow a lot of innovation and competition I think we’re going to solve most of the problems that were just mentioned. But I don’t think we’re gonna understand the future if we don’t understand what’s driving it and I’m just challenging you to ask that question.

Emily Taylor:
That’s a really welcome challenge and I think Izumi I’d like to to turn to you on that you know we we often talk about fragmentation in very particular ways like we’re going we’re in the layers we’re talking about it at a technical level but as Mike has has challenged us you know there are lots of different issue as well. ways that fragmentation might emerge and there’s different ways of framing the

Izumi Aizu:
Thank you very much Professor Nelson. I’m a student of your class okay 20 years ago. Well it’s a pity that we don’t have anybody in the teens and 20s on the panel. Not to mention that many in the room. I had an interesting discussion yesterday with the 12 years old kid and five and talked about the war and peace and the internet. But let’s put aside. With the scenario you prepared three ones right? Mixed networks coexisting with the traditional internet and the second scenario is fragmented internet with national block politics internet and the third one is the globally unified strength internet. I would say our first one and to mix and I would call it chaos. I don’t see any globally coherence ranks the internet. I asked Mr. GPT and Mr. Bard a few minutes ago. I’ve got more than I can read in five minutes. But interestingly overall nature of the internet while fragmentation due to political and economic reasons might be predominant the underlying ethos of the internet is as a tool for global communication knowledge will likely persist. That’s Mr. GPT and Mr. Bard said personally I believe that the internet is likely to become more unified in the coming years. Very noisy pictures and these are AI not me. So I would perhaps later explain a little bit why I would call it chaos. As Mike may have already mentioned but you said for the better internet I challenge that. I would say for better society better people not internet. That’s a very different views of the world and the internet. So that’s my second contribution.

Emily Taylor:
Thank you very much Izumi and and I think it sort of comes back to where you started us Lorraine is the the and and Chital this sort of maybe it’s it’s more and more false to think of technology as something that is separate from ourselves. That it’s it’s integrated that the future of the technology is very much about our own future as societies and as people. Lorraine what do you think is the most likely of any scenarios but the three may have helped or not but you know we want to remember Mike’s challenge on that you know you can just frame it however you want.

Lorrayne Porciuncula:
Thank you so much. I actually I really love the flow of the conversation and how organically we’re integrating the different arguments. I’m going to try to build on all of that. I think that the question around fragmentation needs to be you know needs to take a step back in terms of in which layer are we talking about when we’re talking about fragmentation. Often people tend to confuse the issues in terms of where it’s actually what kind of fragmentation we’re talking about. And also I mean there’s a difference between fragmentation on the technical layer and a fragmentation on the legal and regulatory layer. And so for me it’s more useful to think about I mean if I’m talking about scenarios in 20 years I don’t think we’re gonna have such a big issue with the technical layer in itself. I think the real big hairy challenge will going is going to be around the legal and regulatory space. And that’s not a potential if it’s a reality right now. And so I’d rather focus on that scenario which is very much true around fragmentation around in regulatory aspects than on what could happen if a number of things happen in the domain name system etc right. So that taken aside I also think that ultimately it’s not only about fragmentation of the internet as Izumi said. It’s about what’s happening with our digital society. And so it’s the question that I’d like to pose then with the also instigated by Mike is what how do we how are we going to do to get along really. And what are the incentives because ultimately policymakers are going to design regulatory and legal responses to what they are afraid of, to what they want to control. And talking to Mike just before the panel he was saying he wrote a paper just 25 years ago around what are the different incentives of what governments would like to control which is basically taxes. Basically you know content that is online. How do you actually ensure national security, democratic processes. All of this are incentives in terms of how do you build the tools from a national angle to and see them reflected in the technologies that we have today. So the questions are around how the national concerns are going to are going to be really then reflected in that technology and the fragmentation happens in that in that angle really which is legal regulatory and about how do we actually find convergence or how do we find find interoperability around those different spaces of legal regulatory regimes. And how do we find the institutions and the processes that are able to to take this all in from a more agile perspective from a way that coordinates across borders and across multiple stakeholders.

Emily Taylor:
Thank you very much. So I hope we can expand on your final point about you know what do we need to do how do we equip ourselves from the future for the future we want. But we’ve we’ve heard from from the audience and the panel that there there might be fragmentation risks at a technical level and also from you from a legal and regulatory level. Ambassador Verdier I’d like to turn to you now for your prediction about where we are likely to end up and thank you very much I can see already five people including two women thank you very much for that. I’m going to I’m going to go to Ambassador Verdier and then to Chantal to articulate your predicted or preferred visions and and then I’d like to hear about your visions as well for the future and we can we can join forces in that way.

Henri Verdier:
Okay we’ll try to be brief and make four small remarks. First I don’t know what will happen but I know what we should fight for because you you say that you don’t remember the world before Internet. I can imagine the world without Internet and the world after Internet and I’m not sure that my daughters will know the world where we are living in today because of course probably there will always be a technical standard and the possibility to build interaction between computers but you all know that some big states don’t really like this free open decentralized Internet and some and most big tech don’t care about it and you did observe like me that for example now 80 percent of the submarine cables are private and we can observe a tendency of privatization of something that was a common and that’s so there will always be an Internet like there is a darknet for example but maybe we won’t live within this Internet and that’s a main concern so I wanted to share this with you and we have to fight for this again open neutral free decentralized Internet based on the open standards that we can share. My second and quite so maybe that’s normal I remember the declaration of independence of cyberspace most of you remember John Perry Barlow at this time the cyberspace could be seen as a foreign place somewhere else now it did invade and transform everything education, health, business, war, peace so this is the normal life there is not anymore a digital life this is a life so every problems we have as governments and as citizens as democracies are as a digital aspect that’s why you will observe more and more digital diplomats because now half of the diplomacy depends on the digital revolution so we have to think about this and this is new six years ago you didn’t have any digital diplomats now we quite all have digital diplomats so we’ll have to engage everything we did conceive as states as democracies for centuries and just to finish and to launch a conversation I’ll share your views that we should pay attention we should separate the possibility of a technical fragmentation which would be a very very bad scenario I don’t know if you did think about the fact that so far we are all interdependent even the less digitalized countries they rely on the internet the same as we do if you could imagine two or three technical internet the temptation to disconnect the other would be very high and the war will become a war but the ground infrastructure itself so so far we are we have cyber war we have attacks we do observe lots of things but no one did in turn to disconnect internet itself because it will hurt even the attack or so there is a technical layer and there is a political layer the legal layer from my perspective I will fight always for the unique open neutral decentralized internet the legal aspect is something different so of course it would be better for the business for everything to to converge in one direction but if you believe in democracy you believe in the right of the people to take decision regarding his own future so we cannot ask for what one legal framework for all the world because we want to agree with some countries in France you cannot say publicly anti-semitic or homophobic worlds because the French people want this so we don’t have to comply with other regulation if we want this as a democratic country and here we okay I will make a world and I finish with this I will fight for one unique internet I I’m not there to build one unique market for mr. Zuckerberg that’s another issue that’s not mine

Emily Taylor:
thank you very much and I found that very moving actually thinking about you know of the same generation who remember not having an internet and thinking to our children’s future and that that that might be the same more similar to our past and than we would like but thank you for for you know policy people do like to be miserable and to have to have you articulating so strongly the the intention to to really fight for a better future is something that we often we feel very passive sometimes with technology that it happens to us and we don’t get to design our future and from the panel I’d like to hear last but not least from you should tell about you know what scenario you think is either most likely or what you would like to see.

Sheetal Kumar:
Well quickly as I would love to hear from everyone else I can only speak to what I would like to see because I think we build we build and we do design our future unfortunately some of us of course don’t have as much power to do so as others and that’s something we have to be aware of and I think where the internet should should act as a tool for changing that but going back to my point of instead of thinking about how the internet might look like how it should feel it should feel in 20 years time liberating and it should feel liberating to people who perhaps now don’t occupy those positions of power and don’t have them and and that I think is an is an opportunity for us to to ensure that the internet now doesn’t or in the future doesn’t reflect the inequalities of our society and and the structures of them and to point that was made earlier what’s really important in that is ensuring that those who build it the technologies build the standards are engaging with each other and opening up these spaces to all those affected and I know we’re going to come on to what can we do what should we do I think a lot of thinking has been done both here within the Internet Governance Forum and outside about that so really happy to reflect on that because I think there’s a lot of positive recommendations and concrete recommendations I think we also frankly we know what we need to do but we often don’t do it so the more we enumerate I think and the more we vocalize and the more we commit collectively to what we need to do the better so I’m glad we’re here to do that and yeah happy to pick up on the points of what we need to do to get to that third scenario yeah

Emily Taylor:
thank you very much Chantal and that really teases up very nicely for the next stage in our conversation I’d like to thank you very much for waiting patiently I I’m going to go to Georgia first and then I’m going to come to to you Steve and then we’ll sort of zigzag across our audience members thank you very much

Audience:
thank you very much to the panel for all your comments my name is Georgia Osborne I’m senior research analyst at the DNS Research Federation and so you mentioned incentives and I think one thing I think about when I think about the internet in 20 years times are what are the incentives money is a massive incentive we hear a lot about what people are talking about with web 3 crypto and those kind of different fragmentations that you have on a technical layer and I would say that money is currently driving the incentive to build a web 3 through crypto and perhaps that this feature will be much more complex with that coming into play and perhaps it will be more than money that will drive that incentive as the technology develops I was wondering what whether the panel could comment on this type of fragmentation so you have the Ukraine war which is funded mainly by crypto and you know you can call it the metaverse the Fediverse or whatever you want to call it but I’d be curious to know what type of fragmentation you might see in that kind of area, whether you see it being integrated or more fragmented. Thank you very much.

Emily Taylor:
Thank you very much for that. I’m going to take the comments, and then we can invite the panel to make some comments or reactions to that challenge on Web3 and crypto. Thank you very much for your question. Steve.

Audience:
Thank you. Steve DelBianco with NetChoice. Fragmentation by regulation is not only the largest risk, but it is the reality, as you indicated. So for the short term, for the front end of the next 20 years, that is what we will confront. There are scarcely any inhibitions for a government to legislate in any way it wishes, in a populist fashion, in particular today, because the consequences are nonexistent. The governments that try to control what their citizens see and say and contradictorily impose privacy at the same time they’re trying to enforce the laws against bad actors, those contradictions are not enough to stop governments from doing so. Seventy-five percent of this conference has been about AI, and it really isn’t about a drive to consolidate and cooperate on AI regulation. No, it’s been a competition. The speakers have competed with their vision of how they believe AI should be regulated, and that will continue. In the case of NetChoice in the United States, we try to push back on that fragmentation through lawsuits based on unconstitutional approaches. We’re having some success there, but that is not going to work in a cross-border fashion. I’m calling on business and civil society, particularly the engineering sector, to begin to document the consequences of fragmentation regulation at all the layers, document not only the costs, because costs become a barrier to entry, and costs become costs that are passed on to the consumers, the voters of the countries that have embraced unilateral action by their governments. So I believe we need to raise the pain level so that governments believe that there’s some cost to enacting unique legislation that imposes cross-border jurisdictional impacts and raises the cost of everything we’re trying to do.

Emily Taylor:
Thank you very much. And I think that I want to hear from everyone that this is – I knew this would happen, but it’s great to have such an interactive conversation. But I want to come to you, Ambassador Verdier, on that point, and any others that want to join in, but how do we maintain what you were talking about, which is democratic choice and that diversity, while also maintaining the unity? So let’s hold that thought and hear from the others from the audience. Thank you very much.

Audience:
Hi, my name is Nikki Colasso. I run global public policy at Roblox, which is a metaverse company. I think that comment was really well taken, because as I’ve been sitting here, I’ve been thinking about the difference between IGF last year and IGF this year. And for those of you that were at the conference last year or attended online, a lot of the conversation was around how we do approach technology from a perspective of inclusivity. So Sheetal, I really appreciate your thoughts on inclusivity. We talked a lot about incorporating the global south into the decisions that were being made. And so my question for the panel is, as we move to this third phase of the conversation, I think we understand at a high level what the issues are. Very crisply, what do you see, or what are the specific steps that companies, civil societies and others can take to engage users, others in parts of the world that may not get representation and in countries that have geopolitical differences? How do we actually go about having those conversations? What is the way to do that? If we know we need to do it, that’s agreed, how does that happen?

Emily Taylor:
Thank you very much for that. So far, we’ve got Web 3.0 and money, interoperable laws, and involvement of global south, and those who have, you know, where there is disagreement on the basic ideology. Sir?

Audience:
I was really wondering if you knew my name. That was going to be impressive. Hi, I’m Jarell James, and I do have a question on, similarly, with regards to money. I don’t really know how to predict the future of the internet, but I do know how to look at history and see that money is the overwhelming factor for how power is flexed on certain communities. My question is with regards to both regulation and with regards to policy around sanctionable actions. So as we see regulation for monopolies exist in traditional, our traditional finance system, do we see a development where we stop what’s essentially digital colonization from happening from large actors like Facebook into regions that are massively underdeveloped in the communications infrastructure sector? And do we create and enact actual policies to prevent those communities from only taking solutions from outside of their regions? Instead of doing what we do, which is bring tech to these communities, how do we foster this development from within these communities so that in 20 years, we don’t sit on the same problem that we have now, which is 21st century colonialism and resource extraction? And the further part of that is just with these shutdowns, is there sanctionable actions that can start to inform this direction?

Emily Taylor:
Thank you very much for that. And it’s Jarell, right? Thank you. So we’re adding digital colonialism, and how do we foster sort of indigenous development, if you like, if I can put it that way, and also sanction bad actors? Thank you.

Audience:
Good morning. I’m Jennifer Bramlett. I’m the ICT coordinator for the Counterterrorism Executive Directorate with the United Nations Security Council. The issue of money is very interesting. I was amazed by the remarks by the representative of Saudi Arabia yesterday when he was quoting the internet that we deserve and the billions of dollars that would be lost if we didn’t solve issues of fragmentation. Hundreds of thousands of jobs. So I thought it was interesting that he put it right in front of us so bluntly. And when you look at gaming and all of these other industries, multibillion dollar industries, mobile gaming, regular gaming, I mean, it’s an amazing amount of money being generated. Amazing amount of money being generated by bad actors, which is the space that I look at, is how terrorists and violent extremists are exploiting ICT for criminal purposes. One of the main areas that we’re looking at is counter-narratives, and so how language is being proliferated across various systems to recruit, to radicalize, and to keep this criminal enterprise going. And that’s one of the issues that we’re looking at with regard to regulation, is language across jurisdictions and what’s considered harmful language, what’s considered unlawful language, and how authorities in various jurisdictions are going to deal with that in these borderless zones for what’s out on the internet. Also, one of the spaces that we’re looking at in terms of futuristics is the concept of reality. I do remember life before the internet. And yet, looking at the kids growing up, especially those who are playing in the games and in the metaverse areas, we had some really good talks with Naver Z recently, and the concept of reality, what I consider to be real, I go into a game, I play, and I leave, and then I go do my life. Whereas for other people, it’s becoming less and less of a division. And when we’re looking at legislating crimes, and bringing crimes into domestic frameworks, we already have a problem where we don’t have the legislative frameworks and the capacities in member states to be able to even deal with the internet as it is now. Many states don’t have laws that say, terrorism recruitment online is illegal. They have laws against terrorist recruitment, but it doesn’t apply to cyberspace. And so as we move into metaverse, fediverse type realities, what if something happens in the metaverse? If you, for example, detonate the White House in a metaverse world, it could be very real to some people. How do you even deal with that? And so these are things that we’re starting to think about from our side of the house.

Emily Taylor:
Thank you very much, Jennifer, and that’s a fascinating addition as well. So a huge amount to unpack in that, but the recruitment of terrorism online, the establishment of counter-narratives, and also I think the key point at the end, and among legislators, the legislative frameworks in all countries. Let’s have a very brief moment with Vittorio and Bertrand, because I feel like I’m neglecting our panel. I can see they’re like, hang on. But I want to have a reflection on what you’ve heard, and then in the final stage of our workshop, to really think about action, and think about how do we really start to articulate the vision of the future we want and what we need to do now. So let’s go to Vittorio, and then Bertrand.

Audience:
Thank you. Actually, I’ll get to my question. I’ll make my question first, but then I want to make a comment. The question was, don’t we think that we need the regulation to preserve the interoperability, the openness? Because I think that the reason why, at least in Europe, we need to regulate the interoperability, the openness of the internet, and not to break it. But I was prompted to make a comment by the previous round of comments about the future of the internet. If the future of the internet is decided by what the people want from it, what do the people want from an internet? If you take the average internet users today, what do they want? I’m going to Kyoto and not even looking at the places, but taking selfies and posting them to social media and saying, hey, I’m here, give me attention, I need someone to tell me I’m beautiful, interesting. So we’ve been building someone which is growing the bad parts of the internet, the worst parts of the internet personality of the people. So the problem is, what’s the social purpose of the internet today? Because we see the purpose in terms of new technology, we want autonomous driving and whatever, AI and bionic arms, and why are we doing them? Well, because we can, and because someone will make money out of it. But what’s the social purpose of this? I think we’re missing that. We had one 30 years ago, but we don’t have it now.

Emily Taylor:
Yeah, I think there’s a real thread running through a lot of the comments on incentives and what people want, and going back to Mike’s earlier challenge about the users,

Audience:
I want to piggyback on the distinction that Lorraine introduced between technical fragmentation and legal fragmentation. What is interesting is a lot of the technical fragmentation, if it happens, is not driven by a technical objective, mostly. It’s driven by the political environment and the objective of preserving spaces that would become separated because they would correspond to the spaces that are politically separated today. So the fact is that the legal fragmentation is a fact of the international system because of the national sovereignty, and that’s a reality that goes, as Henri was mentioning, to the notion of territorially based national sovereignties. However, to go back to what Jennifer was saying, one of the challenges that we have is that even without interoperability of the legal framework, the separation and the legal fragmentation is what prevents us from addressing the abuses in many cases. When you have a criminal investigation, the framework for access to electronic evidence is nonexistent at the moment and completely insufficient. And in most cases, it’s a whack-a-mole game to avoid a certain number of contents. And so I would just want to finish by saying, I completely agree with Henri that there is the democratic process for each country to do what they think is best for their citizens. That being said, interoperability doesn’t mean alignment completely. Just like the architecture of the Internet allows autonomous networks to function through protocols in an interoperable manner, I think the big challenge that we have if we want to preserve the open Internet is to reduce friction at the legal level by building a governance protocol that allows heterogeneous governance frameworks, including the governments, the companies, and all other human organizations, to be interoperable yet autonomous.

Emily Taylor:
Thank you very much. And of course, Bertrand, maybe there’s somebody in the room who doesn’t know Bertrand, but I think the way we promote that legal interoperability is very much leading in this. Thank you for your question. What I’m going to do, if I may, with your permission, is come back to the panel to react, and then I’m going to come back to you first in the queue. So we have had seven interventions so far, and it’s not even half past 12 yet. So what I’d like to do is to go through our panel, and please choose one question that you would like to respond to that is clearly in your frame of expertise or that just stimulated some thoughts. Who would like to go first? Can I start with you, Ambassador Verdier? Because there was quite a lot that was sort of building on your points or maybe challenging your points about interoperability, and how do we reconcile that autonomy with still being in a network?

Henri Verdier:
I think that quite everything was said. As I said, first we have to fight to protect a common infrastructure that can be interoperable. Internet is a network of networks. Internet is not just one standard everywhere. And there is a second and different question about legal fragmentation. I cherish your approach, Bertrand, that we should learn and try to build interoperable legislation. But so far we don’t really do this, and there is no world government. So I will say something more. So let’s try to progress in this direction, but we are not there. I have one observation from my perspective. You know, I come from a very libertarian Internet. I did cherish Jean-Pierre Barlow 30 years ago. So most of my friends ask me, why did you join the government, the bad actor? And why are you now fighting for regulation, for European regulation? And I don’t feel that I did change, because from my perspective, that’s personal. When you enter within a social network, you leave Internet. If you are within Facebook, within Twitter, within YouTube, you are not in Internet anymore. You are within a private place built on Internet. And I feel that there is a certain level of confusion in this conversation this morning, because we use Internet to speak about TCPIP and to speak about Facebook or Twitter or TikTok or whatever you want. And just to mention it, as a European citizen, I prefer the European rules than Elon Musk’s rules. And I prefer to discuss with other countries and other citizens, and to decide something and to impose this decision to these big platforms. If we don’t put this in the conversation, and we can still protect the free and open and decentralized Internet, but people don’t leave. My daughters, they are never on a blog, for example, or on Internet. They are always within something.

Emily Taylor:
Thank you very much. Chital and then Izumi. Okay, here we go.

Sheetal Kumar:
So there was a lot there to react to. I said earlier that I think we know what we need to do, and we are not doing it. And perhaps to elaborate a bit on that, what I would say is that on the legal fragmentation point and the fact that there is a need for harmonization of frameworks, we do have international human rights law and standards. And of course, there is a lack of agreement perhaps around how that is being effectively implemented. But it is there. We have the rule of law. We have our institutions. And we need to use what we have, which includes interpretations of international human rights law that already exist. And we need to commit to those. And I think global norms and standards, which include those that are discussed here at the IGF and are evolving, including in various UN institutions, requires referring to and, again, committing to constantly and adapting those to the digital age. Because ultimately, I think, we need to build on that. So there are a couple of areas. And I know we’re going to come to the question of what do we do. But I just wanted to highlight that protecting what is essentially the openness, the ability to get online, to perhaps build new apps or technologies and shape the future, I think is so key. We have the internet that Olaf discussed. We understand the need to protect that. We understand the need to align and to harmonize our legal frameworks to human rights standards. We know that we need to make these bodies more inclusive. And there are ways to do that. And I think that what’s really important is that we refer to these commitments and that we are all taking that home as well in various democratic institutions and in global forums that we are vocalizing these values and ensuring that there are mechanisms for implementing and instituting them. Perhaps I can say this at the end, but I’ll quickly just throw it in here. I know that we don’t have many people in their teens and perhaps younger people here. But I think it’s important for us, perhaps the older people, to not be so self-absorbed. nostalgic about the world that wasn’t that perhaps not you know isn’t that great or wasn’t that great either and to look forward to building a world that is ultimately about you know about liberation about ensuring human rights are protected and that when it comes to the internet I think is what is really key is ensuring user control so ensuring that the kind of control that has just been discussed about corporate actors or governments controlling and deciding what the internet is that doesn’t happen so we need to rest that back and how we do that I know we’re having that conversation I said we already have many many ideas and ways to do that but that’s key because it’s that that’s shifting and that’s what people are worried about and that’s when I was a child I remember thinking it was so cool that could just get online and I knew it was transparent knew how to you know where information was and and now I think what is happening is that the journey is becoming more in transparent we don’t know why certain things are happening and that needs to shift thank you very much

Izumi Aizu:
Izumi being a little bit older than you I’d like to go say a 70 percent what you said when I was 40 I was really excited to see all the new things online and stuff but to respond to maybe the Vittorio’s and Bertrand’s questions come comments I’d like to respond these it’s yes it’s the people’s will as Vittorio said or the jurisdiction legal framework etc or international politics I’d like to add a little more if you think that we’re in now in 2043 at the world let’s say conference or governance forum world governance forum not internet forum or internet governance forum with the new United Nations and the new United Communities in 20 years from now it could happen right after which ever will win at that war or this war so and then coming the war is the climate change war there might be a regulation that the one shouldn’t be too many servers at the data center not too many AI’s or crypto or these these environmental factors you may think it’s external factors to the Internet but I would suggest you to make it upside down back to the history in the 40s we had fought a lot they killed each other a lot with a reflection coming the some of the use of the information and then the ballistic calculators sending bombs and then coming the Internet during the Cold War phase but then in the 80s to 90s the world has changed the Cold War was over we hoped that East and West come closer that’s why the Eastern side wanted to be united using the Internet perhaps the China wanted to have technology and science and economic growth that’s why they accepted Internet we tried hard to talk with them so these wills of the people entities allowed some technology to be picked up and made global how about now China reached their India reached there and do they need real you know globally united and science sources from the West yes and no right so my first take of the mixture of the fragmented one as well as some you know chaotic one we all need both but we don’t know what’s the reality of the politics and environmental changes and stuff like that in the near future not to mention the far so I think we should go out of the box I’ll go out of the ivory tower or IP tower Internet centric thing the future of the Internet who cares the future of us we care so then how technologies including the current and the future Internet that you guys we guys will work may make something better that’s kind of my suggestion thank you thank you very much Lorraine thank you and I think that’s a perfect segue to to my point

Lorrayne Porciuncula:
as well I completely agree with Izumi and I think oh I I do and I think it’s a I mean we can think about the sort of golden age of the Internet and where it was a lot of sort of personal logs and websites and all that I think that the and of course it wasn’t just that but I’m just trying to think about the average person who ultimately doesn’t care about that and what they want is to be able to access content and and sometimes I think that we create I mean narratives really matter here and the words that we’re using really matter and I think that’s a common thread in this discussion we’re talking about the Internet and we’re talking about fragmentation so in questioning those terms also comes into play it’s important and so ultimately I don’t think it’s about the Internet in itself it is about a digital society right as Izumi was saying because I mean I do think that we need to think about what we want as a society first and as Chantal was saying what what does it do people people want the Internet to feel like or their lives to be on the Internet and I feel we actually don’t have the answer very clearly for that yet and that’s why we’re struggling because if we do know we are then not just creating those big enemies out of entities that are not entirely bad certainly not entirely good but not entirely bad because they offer services that are useful and at the same time I think that we then focus and what are the harms and what are the policy objectives that we are trying to achieve if the issue is with walled gardens there are tools that we can use in competition tools to use to address that if the issue is around a competition it we we can look into portability and interoperability as tools that have been used in different markets in telecoms for example on the right a user to actually move from one platform to the other that’s not possible right now and if we see this and if identify as a society that doesn’t that’s an issue we need to try to find a remedy regulatory and legal to address that the thing with with with with the internet is that it’s not one government that can do it by itself and so the question comes back to the point that is zooming made and to the point that become made it’s about governance it’s about how we cooperate in the international setting and so for me instead of using 75% or 18 workshops of the IGF to talk about AI mostly very sort of in the high level I would rather that we use that time to talk about how do we cooperate and how do we govern this complex adaptive system that is it’s really difficult to address and how do we actually identify what are our objectives economic and social and what are the best remedies to to get there

Emily Taylor:
thank you very much and that tees up the final part of our conversation today which is how do we get there but Olaf unfortunately you’re the last to go and there are several questions that have not been addressed by the panel so far web3 money incentives Global South geopolitical aspects digital colonialization counter narratives and capacities and legislative frameworks we’ve talked a bit about that but or anything you like yeah I that my first response would be stack overflow but

Olaf Kolkman:
I had indeed made a bunch of notes and I actually don’t know how to start where to start but let me start with not having infrastructure at all is the ultimate fragmentation not having it at all is the ultimate fragmentation and I I so associate with Joelle empower communities what we do at the Internet Society is is is empower communities by building IXPs by giving cookbooks for building community networks and that’s not the only way I know that Joelle is working on his own stuff and it’s very smart about it but that’s that’s really empowering and in the end that’s bottom-up other parts we talked a lot about economics and government rules and when you talk about economics and standardization I think we have to be honest standardization is also also to a large extent industry politics the standardization body you choose to do your work has to do with industry politics and we need to put that on the table and understand it economics of course consolidation happens even if you have open technologies companies will try to extract money out of the employing that open technology consolidation happens and with that you have you know accumulation of power to a point where you know he may say this is too much or at least government might say this is too much and I I associate with that to a large degree what I was also thinking is when we talked about standards you don’t need standards for every innovation and the name Satoshi Nakamoto came up and I hope you all know who that was yes blockchain inventor and that’s permissionless innovation that has changed the world for the good for the bad I don’t I don’t I have a sort of opinion about that but this is somebody who wrote a paper published the paper online for everybody to read that’s open innovation and it happens all the day we’re in this room but on the internet people are sharing code fragments and open building blocks all the time innovation happens today and it doesn’t happen only in standards organization no it happens by individuals in chats it happens in companies it happens everywhere if you ask me where you want to go with this internet in the future from a sort of technical perspective then I would say open open and open open architecture so people build against pieces of others open source so people can reuse those building blocks and open standards and with a lot of transparency around that I think that the building blocks of the few of a positive future have are are basically open I think that was my I’m my I drained my stack

Emily Taylor:
brilliant thank you very much we’ve got a little bit of time left and normally by the time we unpack all of the problems we’ve run out of time I’ve got a question from the audience and then I’m going to introduce our latest speaker Raul I’m not going to make him summarize the conversation so far what I’m going to do is to start with you Raul to think about the how not about the what not about all the problems we’ve rehearsed that not about the different visions but how do we get to a better place to the 20 years time where we’ve sussed it all out what do we need to do how do we get there so first of all thank you very much for your patience and thank you for your

Audience:
question hi I’m I’m not society youth ambassador I am probably too young to be conservative but I have my doubts on how much internet can fundamentally change but my fear is that with the pace of innovation and these bunch of emerging technologies coming in we’ll have applications built on the base of the internet and it will get really complex to the extent that we won’t have enough expertise understanding and knowledge to make sure that all these different parts work together one of the panelists mentioned complex adaptive systems I’m not sure how we are going to adapt to this so 20 years from now I think we will have fragmentation not by design but by default because we just don’t know how things work and standardization is being mentioned quite a lot and that is possibly one of the solutions but standardization is also an extremely slow process and with this pace of innovation I am not sure standardization can keep up also the interests that go into standardization as Olaf was mentioning it’s largely industry driven so I want to press the panel and the audience to think on how we can include more stakeholders especially the users in in standardization process and make it accessible to them thank you thank

Emily Taylor:
you very much so that’s a good how question as well how do we make our processes more inclusive but I think let’s let’s run through the panel but start with you Raul thank you very much for joining us and welcome to the panel Raul Echeberria how do we get to what do we need to do to get to that brighter future that that we’ve articulated thank you very much

Raul Echeverria:
I I’m sorry for the delay in joining I feel like an imposter here because I was in another session now I’m running to get here unfortunately I don’t have the answer that’s that’s the first point that the if I would have that answer probably I would get a wooden a good position a good job here in the in one of the companies that or governments or institution or institutions that but and so I just we can just reflect and think about that and as you describe it in the in the possible scenarios I think that we already we already have certain level of fragmentation in internet and we have to live with that and so I don’t think that is a feasible scenario where the that’s we have the ideal internet and perfect internet that that all of us want to have the the theory of the rational human that people act according the rationality and so there what is best for everybody is something that died in the 80s and so the incentive of policymakers are diverse many times even knowing that the decisions that are being taken are not the best one for for the the for one objective like keep the internet not fragmented so many times the decisions will go in a different direction so what our mission is to keep the internet as less fragmented as possible one thing I think that’s a I could say that’s two things is that we need to to have gradual objectives and commitments instead of for going for the whole packet just let’s try to get agreements on on simple things and try to gradually improve that and and we have to really is make our messages much more simple I I heard Olaf today in a in a in a session before this this morning earlier this morning and he was excellent you in that session and so is it is usual on him but but I thought when I was listening to him saying if I have to explain this to policymakers in Latin America I have to bring Olaf with me so the this is very it’s very complex so we need to make our our messages much more simple about what the government should not do what the policies should not produce and so to to give them more tangible tools for taking better decisions

Emily Taylor:
thank you very much Olaf I was thinking do I include mark now do I go back to the panel mark do you have a quick point or do you want to can we continue with them let’s hear two more from the panel come back to you so Lorraine and then Ambassador Verdier okay so what do we do right we’re gonna do let’s be action-orientated lectionary focused on that even it’s just one thing so from Raul we had just an incremental approach try to do small things well you

Lorrayne Porciuncula:
know yeah so so maybe we do that game where we just add on to what the other said so incremental I mean being clear on the objectives is the first be incremental is another and being iterative I think it is important as well and I think a lot of the issues with the processes that are being built to address the challenges that we have there are many is that we are under the impression that it’s suffice for us to design and develop the ultimate regulation and that’s going to solve all of our problems and and there’s a whole lot of questions that get unanswered once you do that because one we are the fact that we are in a complex that’s the system means that it’s very hard for us to predict it because the system moves in a way what one just one element in that system can have really implications on on the whole in ways that it’s very hard to predict so what we do with those systems is that we observe and we try to adapt to it in order to do that we need to be able to have the processes and the institutions that are much more agile than the ones that we have now so instead of looking to linear approaches of developing regulation we need to think of it like almost like software development where we have versioning of policies and regulation where we’re able to actually identify a bug and then be able to correct it by having inclusive multi-stakeholder consultations and the problem is that and and that’s an issue that I was trying to unpack with Bertrand the other day and it was the fact on how we think about multi-stakeholderism is that it’s trying to get away from government’s decision-making power so that everyone is deciding in a sort of a global happy assembly, right? And that’s not what multi-stakeholderism is supposed to be. And certainly it’s not what it’s sometimes and often applied by government which is, oh I’ll give you 30 days for you to participate in this consultation and I’ve done a multi-stakeholder process. That’s not it either. It’s actually being intentional about including people and different stakeholders. Inclusive, iterative, in a way that is actually particularly not only national levels in the international level that we are including the global South, youth, different communities that are underrepresented as well. And in the way that it’s actually intentional and looking towards a process that it’s not simply aiming to produce the ultimate legal text to rule them all, but it’s actually a process. What we’re trying to learn and we are assuming our just inability to predict accurately the future and the fact that we are adapting along the way and trying to be better at it. And we do not have the processes and we do not have the institutions. One of the things that we are doing in building is sandboxes as a possible avenue to testing out those issues that we don’t know about. And a lot more needs to be shared on how they best work, how they don’t work. We almost need to do a sandbox out of sandboxes in itself, but I won’t get into it so far.

Emily Taylor:
Sort of a playful approach, an iterative approach, building on where we started with Raul about incremental approaches, simpler messaging and this sort of sense of agility. Ambassador Verdier.

Henri Verdier:
So I don’t know what we have to do, but maybe we could agree on a compass. I was surprised when you did mention the nostalgia for the Golden Age, because usually I’m not a kind of nostalgic guy. But I think that we should start for at least three aspects of this Golden Age. The first one is the unprecedented openness of access to information, knowledge and culture. This was a big shift and this is not finished. We still have the digital divide and half of the humanities that doesn’t access to this. The second one was the unprecedented empowerment of communities and people. And the last one was the permissionless innovation. And from my perspective, this could be a kind of compass for future decisions. Are we increasing people’s autonomy and creative capacity? And that’s why I did mention some concern, for example, with sometimes a private sector, because if you think in terms of autonomy, empowerment and creativity, the threat can come from everywhere, not just from rogue states.

Emily Taylor:
Thank you. I like the idea of a compass and that can be very good organising. I want to come to Mark quickly and then I’ve got, I was going to come to you in a bit, or are you reacting very, yeah go ahead. If I may, with a very, what I

Olaf Kolkman:
wrote down is actually what Henri said, principle-based as the add-on. And I like the principles you pose. The note I made was principle-based and then there’s a differentiation, I think, of the approach of the Internet, of the regulator or evolution of the Internet and evolution on the Internet. I think that we can get to those shared principles much easier if we talk about the evolution of the Internet and that when we talk about empowerment, individualism, autonomy, getting a global consensus about that, on the Internet might be where the trouble is going to be in setting joint principles as a guide.

Emily Taylor:
Thank you very much. I’m going to pause in our final round-up to just have these two questions from the audience. We’ve got Mark and then Lucien and we are in the last five minutes, so thank you very much for that

Audience:
reminder. So, Revati. Thank you very much. Mark Derisgald from Brazil. I’m an Internet governance consultant for small media organizations. I found comments by Lohane and Olaf to be quite stimulating in a sense of something that I have been talking a lot about, which is the AI forum, as it has become now, hasn’t been focusing a lot on one of the questions that I find more key about it, which is open source versus closed source. So, why are we in this AI space we are in right now? Because there were very early open source developments on this that just let the technology lose. A lot of the debate goes around mid-journey and this proprietary technologies, but very few people are looking at things like stable diffusion, which are basically being iterated upon on the basis of papers, right? Just like I said, it’s paper after paper and that gets incorporated into the technology and that’s how it’s expanding. And then the private companies need to port that back into their proprietary code. So, this reality seems very feasible because we’re watching it happen right now, how open source and papers are actually starting to drive. There’s no AI consortium forum or anything. It’s literally being driven by research that’s published in an open space. So, this is something that we should be looking towards, not as, hey this is about AI, but rather about, is this the new paradigm of how different protocols and standards and different approaches will be developed? So, just to kind of complement that point, thank you very much.

Emily Taylor:
And a very, very valuable point about the role of research in acting as that sort of snowball effect.

Audience:
And I think, it’s Lucian Taylor from the DNS Research Federation, and I think my point follows on from Mark’s about protocols. I’ve been an internet engineer for over 20 years with my team and I’ve just had the privilege of meeting Vint Cerf with Emily and talking to him about protocols, an absolutely wonderful thing. And what he did, I think there’s a gap between the IETF, which is not frankly a safe space for women and people to develop standards, and how you develop protocols. Vint Cerf got together with a few other universities and they developed a way of doing things, and that was TCP IP, and they then invented the internet. And then we bake it in through standards bodies like the IETF. I think standards are a very good place to test these new ideas, and we are at an inflection point. We’ve got regulation hammering down on us, and that regulation needs to be tested. Things like know your customer, putting that into a free and open internet is really challenging. And my question to the panel is, is the IETF the place to develop in a free and open way those protocols that we need next?

Emily Taylor:
Thank you. So we’ve got probably less than three minutes left, and three panelists and questions.

Audience:
Okay, I’ll quickly say that I think, Vittoria, you posed some philosophical questions earlier, and I’m not going to judge what people do in terms of, you know, the question of what young people do, and selfies, and all of that. But what I am going to judge, and I think what we should all judge, is what governments do when they regulate. Do they align the regulation with human rights norms and standards? Do companies who also have obligations to do so, do that? Are they transparent? Are they accountable? And are our governance forums and standards bodies inclusive? No, clearly not. But there are recommendations for how to change that. The Office of the Human Rights Commissioner, OHCHR, has released a report with many recommendations on how to change and how to improve inclusiveness. And I can say that we’re doing a session on Thursday where we’ll be exploring that report. So I think protecting critical properties as they evolve, having that principles-based approach, aligning with what we have, building with on the human rights framework, and creating more inclusive spaces is really key.

Emily Taylor:
Thank you. Raul, and then Izumi. I endorse everything she said. Good. But beside that, another point.

Raul Echeverria:
A few weeks ago, I participated in a global conference of parliamentarians speaking about the future. But the average age was over 50, and so all the discussion was about the fears, about the future, and the fears about AI. And so we have to be very careful that the policies are not developed based on fear. So I say, of course, it’s normal that they have fears. I have fears. I’m terrified about the future. I’m scared. But don’t let my fears stop the evolution. This is why we have to involve youth in the discussion. And probably if we bring people like 18 years old, that they don’t have the old expertise in architecture and internet architecture and other things to speak, but they can say how is the internet they want. And that would help very much.

Emily Taylor:
Thank you very much. Give the microphone to Izumi. Our last thoughts.

Izumi Aizu:
I saw no China nor India in the last session, I mean the main session yesterday, while they are talking about AI. To me, it’s fragmented. The IGF wasn’t like that 18 years ago. We have tensions, we have fears, we have battles. Now we are peaceful and boring. Go out to the chaos or make the chaos, please. Fear, fine. We don’t know the future. Be bold. And to the IPers and IP fundamentalists, I would say, go outside the box. Go to the World Governance Forum. Go to the climate change thing and talk with them. Learn from them. Eat their foods. Don’t give them the food. Okay. So otherwise, all these complex things in 20 years would happen. The internet wouldn’t work in the youth. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Emily Taylor:
So that brings our session to an end. Thank you very much for all the interaction and to our brilliant panel. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.