Day 0 Event #82 Inclusive multistakeholderism: tackling Internet shutdowns

Summary

This panel discussion focused on the issue of internet shutdowns and the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach in addressing this growing problem. Participants from government, civil society, academia, and the private sector shared insights on the trends, impacts, and potential solutions to internet shutdowns.

The discussion highlighted alarming trends, with Access Now reporting a 41% increase in shutdowns in 2022 and over 270 shutdowns in 40+ countries already documented in 2024. Panelists emphasized the wide-ranging negative impacts of shutdowns, from economic losses to hindering democratic processes and humanitarian aid efforts.

The importance of data-driven approaches was stressed, with academics calling for interdisciplinary research to better understand the motivations behind shutdowns and their societal effects. The private sector perspective highlighted the need for transparency in reporting disruptions and the value of human rights due diligence in technology development.

Participants discussed the role of advocacy in preventing shutdowns, citing examples of successful interventions in countries like Mauritius and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The Global Digital Compact was identified as a key opportunity for advancing multi-stakeholder efforts to combat shutdowns.

The discussion underscored the complexity of the issue, acknowledging that some governments may resort to shutdowns out of a perceived lack of alternatives. Panelists agreed that addressing root causes of societal issues and promoting good state practices are crucial steps in reducing the prevalence of internet shutdowns.

Overall, the panel reinforced the critical need for continued collaboration among diverse stakeholders to develop effective strategies for keeping the internet open and accessible worldwide.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The increasing prevalence and concerning trends of internet shutdowns globally

– The importance of a multi-stakeholder approach to addressing internet shutdowns

– The role of data, research, and transparency in understanding and combating shutdowns

– The impacts of shutdowns on human rights, economic development, and society

– Potential solutions and advocacy efforts to prevent or mitigate internet shutdowns

The overall purpose of the discussion was to examine the issue of internet shutdowns from multiple perspectives (government, civil society, private sector, academia) and explore collaborative approaches to address this growing problem.

The tone of the discussion was largely serious and concerned about the increasing use of internet shutdowns, but also constructive and solution-oriented. Speakers emphasized the need for cooperation and shared examples of positive developments. The tone became more urgent when discussing recent trends, but remained hopeful about the potential for multi-stakeholder efforts to make progress on this issue.

Speakers

– Kanbar Hussein Bor: Deputy Director Democratic Governance & Media Freedom, UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office

– Felicia Anthonio: Keeping It On campaign manager at Access Now

– Joss Wright: Researcher at Oxford Internet Institute, Oxford University

– Alexandria Walden: Global Head of Human Rights, Google

– Scott Campbell:  Senior Human Rights and Technology Officer of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

Additional speakers:

– Nikki Muscati: Audience member who asked questions (role/affiliation not specified)

Internet Shutdowns: A Multi-Stakeholder Approach to Keeping the Internet On

This panel discussion, moderated by Kanbar Hussein Bor from the UK Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office, brought together experts from civil society, academia, the private sector, and the United Nations to address the growing issue of internet shutdowns. The conversation highlighted alarming trends, explored the wide-ranging impacts of shutdowns, and emphasised the critical importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration in developing effective solutions.

Trends and Impacts

The discussion opened with a sobering assessment of the current state of internet shutdowns globally. Felicia Anthonio, representing Access Now, reported that their ongoing work on the 2024 annual database has already documented approximately 270 shutdowns in over 40 countries. Notably, seven shutdowns have been recorded in countries that had never previously imposed such measures, including Comoros, El Salvador, Guinea-Bissau, France (disrupting TikTok in New Caledonia), Malaysia, Mauritius, and Thailand. Antonio also highlighted the worrying trend of cross-border shutdowns as a new development.

Panellists unanimously agreed on the severe negative impacts of internet shutdowns. Kanbar Hussein Bor highlighted the significant economic costs, while Alexandria Walden of Google emphasised how shutdowns affect basic services and democratic processes. The discussion made clear that beyond measurable GDP losses, shutdowns have profound effects on people’s daily lives, hindering access to education, healthcare, and vital information.

Joss Wright from the Oxford Internet Institute stressed the need for data-driven approaches to fully understand and quantify these impacts. This call for rigorous research was echoed by other panellists, who agreed that a more comprehensive understanding of shutdown effects could strengthen advocacy efforts and inform policy decisions.

Multi-Stakeholder Approaches

A central theme of the discussion was the critical importance of collaboration between diverse stakeholders in addressing internet shutdowns. Joss Wright articulated a vision of multi-stakeholderism that goes beyond mere representation to focus on leveraging diverse perspectives and capabilities in problem-solving. This sentiment was echoed by Scott Campbell from the UN Human Rights Office, who highlighted the reaffirmation of the multi-stakeholder model in the Global Digital Compact.

Kanbar Hussein Bor mentioned the Oxford Statement as an important multi-stakeholder effort in addressing internet shutdowns. The panel explored various roles different sectors can play:

1. Civil Society: Felicia Anthonio shared examples of successful advocacy efforts, such as interventions in Mauritius, where an attempt to shut down social media before elections was prevented, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. She also highlighted the importance of ECOWAS court judgments against internet shutdowns.

2. Academia: Joss Wright emphasised the need for interdisciplinary research to understand shutdown motivations and impacts, as well as to develop technical solutions. He stressed the importance of empathising with authorities’ perspectives to proactively prevent shutdowns, rather than simply opposing them outright.

3. Private Sector: Alexandria Walden discussed Google’s efforts in transparency reporting, including their Transparency Report and the Jigsaw team’s work on VPNs and the Outline product. She also highlighted the importance of human rights due diligence in technology development.

4. Government: Kanbar Hussein Bor outlined the UK government’s role in championing multi-stakeholder efforts and promoting good state practices, citing the UK’s decision not to shut down the internet during recent riots as an example.

5. International Organisations: Scott Campbell discussed leveraging the Global Digital Compact as a framework for advocacy against shutdowns and emphasized the need to address root societal causes of protests rather than relying on technological solutions like shutdowns.

Policy and Advocacy

The discussion revealed a nuanced approach to policy and advocacy. While all speakers opposed internet shutdowns, there was recognition of the need to understand government motivations. The panel agreed on the importance of showcasing examples of good state practices and developing alternatives to shutdowns that address legitimate government concerns.

Technical and Business Perspectives

Alexandria Walden provided valuable insights into private sector considerations, noting that shutdowns are “bad for business because they’re bad for everyone who uses our products”. She discussed Google’s efforts in measuring and tracking shutdowns for transparency, as well as developing circumvention tools and alternative connectivity solutions.

Joss Wright emphasised the need for interdisciplinary approaches that combine technical expertise with policy understanding. This sentiment was echoed in discussions about developing more nuanced technical solutions that could allow for some government control without resorting to full shutdowns.

Unresolved Issues and Future Directions

While the panel demonstrated a high level of consensus on the importance of addressing internet shutdowns, several unresolved issues emerged:

1. How to effectively prevent shutdowns in cases of protests or conflicts that are difficult to predict

2. Addressing the root societal causes that lead governments to implement shutdowns

3. Specific ways to institutionalise multi-stakeholder approaches at national levels

The discussion concluded with a call for continued collaboration and research. Key action items included leveraging the Global Digital Compact for advocacy, continuing private sector transparency efforts, and conducting more research to understand shutdown motivations and impacts.

In summary, this panel discussion provided a comprehensive overview of the complex issue of internet shutdowns, emphasising the critical need for continued multi-stakeholder collaboration to develop effective strategies for keeping the internet open and accessible worldwide. The conversation highlighted both the urgency of the problem and the potential for positive change through coordinated efforts across sectors.

Kanbar Hussein Bor: Assalamu alaikum to everyone. Good afternoon. It’s a real pleasure to be hosting you for this event on multi-stakeholderism and internet shutdowns. I will be chairing you this panel today. My name is Canberra same bore. I am head of the democratic governance and media feeding department in the UK foreign Commonwealth and Development Office. I will quickly go through and introduce our panel members. I’ll say a few words, and then hand over to my colleagues to also say a few words. And then we hope that we’re going to have a interactive session. And please come forward with some questions we hope that there will be a good half an hour or so available for everyone to actually come in. So I’ll just go and introduce those panel members. So, I’m pleased to say that we’ve got Felicia Antonio from access now the keeping on campaign manager Felicia Do you want to say hello to everyone. Hi everyone. To join you today. Thank you. I’m also pleased that we’ve got a just right from the Oxford Internet Institute at Oxford University from the UK. Just would you like to say hello. Hello, pleased to be here. Brilliant. And in the room together, we’ve got Alexandria Walden from Google. Alex over to you. Got it. Okay, perfect. Hi. Thank you for inviting us to be part of the session today I’m Alex Walden I lead human rights at Google. Brilliant. And last but not least, we’ve got Scott Campbell from UNHCHR Scott over to you. Hi, Scott Campbell, leading the work on tech and human rights at the UN Human Rights Office based in Geneva. Brilliant. Well, just to start the session off really. I’ll say a few remarks. I hope you do take away from our session. There are three main messages from me. of the multi-stakeholder approach. Second is just to talk about the importance of trying to stop internet shutdowns. And finally, just a word on some of the ways in which we can try and prevent shutdowns and the impact that they may have. Firstly, internet shutdowns. I’m conscious I’m in a room where a lot of you are much more technical than I am. From my perspective and the UK’s perspective, we are taking a broad approach to internet shutdowns, what that means. You’ve got a spectrum of activity from one end, which might be classified as a technical shutdown, whereby you can have no access at all to the internet. But then there are a number of other measures in place as well, where for example, you can have efforts which are aimed at throttling the internet, whereby you can have almost some sort of access, but for all intents and purposes, that access deprives you of the ability to be online. From our perspective, that type of activity is a significant impediment to a free and open interoperable internet, but also it has a significant real world impact on the lives of people across the world. All of you can imagine, and I’m sure all of you know, what type of impact this could have. It could affect what you might categorize as farmers in a developing world who require and need access to climate data to ensure that they’ve got the best information available to maximize the yields that they are trying to extract. It can affect a citizen who wants to partake in the democratic process and is unable to express their views online. It might affect a business who needs the ability to access their financial services online quickly, and they can’t do that. Or it might affect an individual who needs to charge up their electronic car, and they can’t do that. So all of those type of impacts can have real world impediment to the ability of people to actually carry out their lives. Unfortunately, internet shutdowns are increasing in their prevalence. We are seeing more and more countries who are resorting to internet shutdowns. Access Now have reported a 41% rise of internet shutdowns from 2022. From the UK’s perspective, we have been championing the right for this. We have been championing the policy change whereby states no longer shut the internet down. We are arguing that this has a not only significant impact on democratic context, but also most recently in the situation of Bangladesh, it’s been reported that the shutdown there during the summer resulted in almost $300 million loss of GDP. So we have been using our G7 presidency in 2021 to argue that this is an important issue and states should refrain from doing so. We’re proud to be chairing the taskforce internet shutdown. from the Freedom Online Coalition and we’ve been using that for the last two years to come up with a number of measures to highlight the importance of this issue. In particular we have come up with a statement through the FOC on the importance of keeping the internet on in the context of elections. We also with UNESCO on the last year’s International Day for Universal Access to Information we came up with the Oxford Statement which underlined the importance of digital connectivity to both issues around development but also democracy. And last but not least we are using our platform here at the IGF as Task Force Internet Shutdowns to highlight this issue. My final comment on all this is that clearly this is a significant issue but most importantly all the all the measures I’ve just described they couldn’t have happened without the multi-stakeholder approach. You know through the FOC we’re proud that we’ve got colleagues that represented from academia, private sector, government, civil society coming together. Through the drafting of the election statement on shutdowns we brought together the multi-stakeholder community and I know from first-hand experience that diversity of views made that final product much more effective. And also when we went about the Oxford Statement we had representatives from over 60 to 80 different organizations all part of that multi-stakeholder approach who were able to highlight the importance of this. So a few framing comments from me but now let me pass on to our panelists to also express their views on this. So I might just start off with Felicia. Felicia can you talk a little bit more about the key trends you’re seeing in 2024 around shutdowns and some of the challenges you foresee in so far as trying to take a collaborative approach. Over to you Felicia. Thank you so much Kumbar and yeah

Felicia Antonio: definitely I can speak to what we are seeing. I come bearing not so much of good news. And just before I jump into that, just to mention that for those who are not familiar with the Keep It On campaign and coalition, this is a global coalition that is dedicated to fighting internet shutdowns around the world since 2016. And it currently has over 330 civil society organizations as members. We track internet shutdowns. We advocate against them, we raise awareness and we work with diverse stakeholders, including governments, regional and international bodies, like the UN, the EU, the African Union, and the Freedom Online Coalition, as Kanbayu’s mentioned, industry players, journalists, researchers, among others, to push back against internet shutdowns. So we track shutdowns looking at the triggers, which simply triggers incidents that are likely to get a government to impose a shutdown. And our focus is on deliberate disruptions to the internet, complete shutdowns, throttling, as well as targeting the social media platforms or digital platforms. And so what we’ve seen over the years since we started documenting shutdowns is that protests, exams, elections, conflicts, major triggers of internet shutdowns. In 2023, unfortunately, conflict was the main trigger of shutdowns, where we saw 74 shutdowns recorded in nine countries in times of conflict. And then protest was the second highest of 63 shutdowns in 15 countries. And then we’ve also seen government. disrupting internet during school exams and then elections is also an area where governments are likely to disrupt internet access. So for 2024 we are currently working on our annual database and we’ve already seen approximately over 270 shutdowns in 40 plus countries globally. And the countries are likely to be more and if that is the case we’re going to see the highest number of countries where we’ve documented shutdowns in a single year and that is not good news. The number of shutdowns are also likely to be really high but these figures will be finalized early next year when we release our annual reports. And so this of course underscores a worrying trend that shutdowns are spreading increasingly becoming a go-to tool by both repressive and democratic countries. In 2024 we’ve also already documented seven shutdowns in new countries that are countries that have never imposed internet shutdowns. In 2024 we’ve seen countries including Comoros, El Salvador, Guinea-Bissau, France disrupting internet TikTok in New Caledonia, Malaysia and Mauritius as well as Thailand disrupting or imposing internet shutdown. And in that case we’ve also seen two members of the Freedom Online Coalition that is Kenya and France resorting to the use of internet disruptions. Another worrying trend we are seeing is the deliberate use of cross-border shutdowns and that is countries imposing shutdowns across borders in around the globe and this is really really concerning for us as a civil society. And so just looking at these trends have indicated some of the challenges is the fact that we’re seeing the democracies also resorting to the use of shutdowns and so it really makes our advocacy work difficult. And so I think it’s important for us to continue to hold each and every government that has found an internet account so that we can push back confidently and effectively against internet shutdowns. We’ve also seen that conflict-related shutdowns is really becoming a big problem which means that this has implications on, for instance, delivery of humanitarian aid during conflicts and we are also looking at what alternative sources of connectivity can be provided during conflicts to sustain or to ensure that the internet is still or remains open and secure for people as well as the humanitarian organizations that are operating on the ground. As you mentioned, having the international community support civil society advocacy is really crucial and so, for instance, the statement that the FOP put out prior to the 2024 election, where we’ve seen that 2024 was declared the year of elections, was really important for our work and we continue to use this in our advocacy and engagement with governments and our election watch initiative. In 2024, the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights also adopted a resolution which recognizes the importance of internet connectivity to the realization of free fair and credible elections. And so this was also really timely for advocacy against internet shutdown. And then in prior to some of these milestones, we’ve also seen governments such as Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sierra Leone making commitment to keep the internet on during elections in their respective countries. And beginning of the year, we also saw Bangladesh in January making similar commitments to keep the internet on. I mentioned Mauritius as one of the countries, new countries that have disrupted internet access. And if you may be aware, in November, the authorities issued an order to shut down social media until after elections. And this was like 10 days or so before elections. And this was really shocking. Mauritius had never disrupted internet access. And we all recognize that has been rated as a free country. And so seeing a country like that imposing shutdowns and even attempting to have the shutdown in place for over two weeks was really concerning. And so following backlash from civil society and also engagement with diverse stakeholders, we got the authorities to reverse the shutdown. So it was lifted after 24 hours. And the people went to the polls on November 10, which opened access to secure internet throughout the electoral processes. So these are some of the cases or trends we’ve seen so far in 2024. I will pause here and hopefully, we can have time for questions and discussion. Thank you.

Kanbar Hussein Bor: Thank you, Felicia. Some worrying trends there that you’ve highlighted. But I’m also conscious you concluded with some positive examples as well, where countries have committed to keep the Internet on and where the multi-stakeholder approach has helped in terms of advocacy and accountability. Shall we move on to Joss Wright? Joss, if I can bring you in here, could you talk a little bit more about how a much more data-driven approach to this particular challenge can help us to navigate this challenge and maybe come up with better policy approaches? Joss, over to you.

Joss Wright: Thank you. Yeah, I’m really sort of pleased to follow on from what Felicia has just said. And what I want to do in the spirit of talking about this in a multi-stakeholder sense is in the context of a lot of Internet governance, multi-stakeholderism traditionally is more about representing the voices of the different people who are being affected by different sort of effects and policies that are going on. But I think there’s an interesting shift in perspective on multi-stakeholderism when we are, as a group, trying to address a problem that is fairly universally recognised as a problem. And I think that what I’d like to represent from the perspective of academia here is a form of multi-stakeholderism that isn’t so much about hearing all of our voices, but drawing on the perspectives we have in our solutions and our approaches and our abilities to provide some input to resolving the problem. And I think I sort of working in this area as an academic with the limitations of academia, I really see that every group that is working in this area, we’ve got representation from civil society, we’ve got academia, we’ve got business, we’ve got policy makers, each one has their particular sort of strengths and their particular abilities to affect change in an interesting way. but each has its sort of flip side, its set of weaknesses, and, you know, I’m not going to go into too much detail on all of them because I’ll just end up insulting all the amazing work that people are doing in the room. But there is this element of, you know, civil society has got the positive advantage of being on the ground and very sort of solution-focused, working directly to reduce the impacts of things like internet shutdowns, but the flip side of that is a tendency to need sort of results quite quickly to be very solution-focused in itself and have a restriction in the amount of sort of long-term stepping back that can go on. Business, in contrast, has a lot of power, a lot of voice, a lot of resources, a lot of ability to affect the policies of governments through the interactions at the business level, but they also have to sort of take into account their own market considerations, their own sort of legal constraints, and doing things like that. The policy side, the government side, is obviously, you know, the strongest voice in being able to push policies forwards, but necessarily is relatively slow, not quite as reactive as it can be. And then from my perspective as an academic, I see our abilities in this area as being more on the kind of flexible methodological innovation, the ability to bring new approaches and maybe longer-term questions and understandings, but we tend to have sort of less voice, less sort of capacity to directly interact with policy, and frankly, as academics, maybe a little bit less urgency in directly achieving the solution to a problem, and we’re all focused on publishing academic papers, because that’s all we care about as academics, ultimately, when we should be actually trying to work effectively to help there. But I think that’s why the multi-stakeholderism approach is so so important is because the things that academia can bring to the table, if appropriately incentivized, are to take a different perspective and to bring some of the more cutting-edge techniques that wouldn’t necessarily be practical or applicable for civil society to do, for government to do, or even for business to do. So to speak directly to the academic side of things and my own particular role in this, I think one of the particular strengths we have is the interdisciplinarity that comes out of modern academia, certainly. And it was mentioned at the beginning that this is a very tech-heavy field. And as somebody who studied as a computer scientist, it was quite a frustration to me to realize several decades into my career that I should have studied law, because that’s where I would have had much more effect on helping with stopping things like this. But it’s a bit late now, so I’ll stick with the computer science. But that’s the interaction between what we can bring on the data side, the method side, the data science side, is something we can bring to this. And traditionally, the limitation of the academic side of this work is that it has been very technologically focused. There’s been a lot of work on measuring the internet, measuring shutdowns, providing data, but then not being so interested in doing something with that data. So we’ve built a tool that will measure internet shutdowns in x, y, and z. Now it’s somebody else’s job to go off and do the policy advocacy, the interaction with users. Or on that technical side, we’re going to build a circumvention tool. And we’re going to show that we can get around the internet shutdown, or we can still access the internet in this particular place in a way that is largely meaningless to 95% of the population who don’t have advanced computer science degrees that can use these technologies. And so the reality of this is that while this is a technological substrate, a technological basis for what we’re talking about here, it’s a socio-technical system. It’s an attempt to use an important society-wide technology to have control over an aspect of society. And so the research that I do, that my group does here at the Oxford Internet Institute, is largely focused on trying to bridge that gap between the strong technical measurements and the social and political understanding that drives it. Because we do need to understand the technology. We need to know how it works so that we don’t make silly mistakes. But we also need to answer the question, why are internet shutdowns happening? Why do states or authorities implement internet shutdowns? Because if we understand that, we can say, look, this is what you’re trying to do, and it’s not doing what you think it’s doing. It’s not achieving the goals you’ve set out for yourself. And then hopefully that’s a route into policy to try and prevent that from happening in the future. Or if we’re being honest, we need to say this is having the effect that you think it’s having, but there are externalities, there are negative sides that are so significant that it’s not worth what you’re paying for it. And there are many forms of externality. I think GDP is widely mentioned. Frankly, I think it’s a poor measure of the impact of a shutdown. I’m much more interested in people being unable to communicate with friends, people being unable to coordinate their activities, people being unable to access healthcare information, quality news information, and similar. I realise I’ve already hit the five minute limit that I was given for this talk, so I won’t talk too much about the work that we’re doing here. But I’d like to say that some of the work we have been doing is about bridging these gaps. I’d particularly like to mention the Open Observatory of Network Interference to Uni project who have been working strongly with us to provide data, and we reciprocate by giving them the analytical tools, the sort of statistical data science machine learning tools that we can work with here to try and understand how the data around shutdowns relates to the social and political factors on the ground. How does shutdowns shift in the lead up to an election? How likely are they leading up to an election? What happens after an election? Not just in terms of the internet, but in how people respond. Does a shutdown increase or decrease the amount of political violence, the amount of sort of protest or things like that? And can we understand these dynamics and feed into the policy process to try and reduce the effects, the negative effects that happens? So just to conclude then, at the multi-stakeholder level, which I think is hugely important to tackling this problem, what we need to do is to continue this route of drawing from the strengths and the perspectives of each stakeholder, not in terms of what do they want out of it, but what does civil society bring? It brings an ability to work with people on the ground, to advocate for people on the ground, and to interact with policy. Policymakers have the ability to drive policy directly, limited by the need for agreement, nationally and internationally. Academia provides the analytical tools, the perspectives, and the methods, and business provides resources, infrastructure, and there’s a lot of crossover between these, but I’m so happy to see that this community in this field takes this multi-stakeholder approach very strongly, and so that coordination is something I hope will continue going forward.

Kanbar Hussein Bor: And I’ll stop there. Thank you so much, Josh. Really, really helpful. I’m going to move on now to our next speaker, which, in the room, Alex from Google. Alex, could you talk a little bit about the perspective of the private sector, really? How can the private sector help address this challenge, and how does a private sector, how is it affected by internet shutdowns? Thank you.

Alexandria Walden: Thanks for that question, and it’s nice to come after Felicia and Josh, because I think you hit on a lot of the things that are also important to us in the private sector, and that we think are important to be partnering with you on, to continue partnering with you on. These issues have long been a priority for Google. You know, we believe in a free and open internet. That has always been a core value of Google, and its products, and the way that we interact in the world, and so the increase in shutdowns that Felicia talked about is something that’s deeply troubling to us, and is part of why we believe in the multi-stakeholder model, and in engaging with governments, and civil society, and academia, and others in industry to make sure that there is data available to those of us who are studying it, as well as informing public policy statements, and advocacy to ensure that governments who are using shutdowns understand what the repercussions are, and hopefully can think of more tailored ways to address the problems that they’re seeking to work on by doing shutdowns, and disruptions, and throttling. In particular, you know, one thing we had sort of emailed about before was thinking about the value of human rights due diligence when we think about shutdowns, and for us, it is something that we think about when we think about how our products are operating in the world. We do have to think about sort of how we evaluate and plan when we know these things are going to happen, and how do we sort of design potentially around these kinds of, this kind of activity that will ultimately affect the people who are trying to use our tools, the devices that run on our operating systems, etc. The thing about shutdowns is they are rarely, from a human rights perspective, rarely necessary, and rarely proportionate. They’re a blunt tool that impacts all of our users and all of our services, and so from a company’s perspective, it’s bad for business because it’s bad for everyone who uses our products, and I think Joss was hitting on this a little bit, but certainly it’s everyone who’s messaging and trying to communicate with their friends and family members. It’s people who are trying to use digital payments and trying to send money back and forth. It impacts businesses small and large around the world, so it really does. It’s not just GDP. It’s every sort of interaction that we’re trying to digitize for people. When you have disruptions, that means that those, that activity can’t happen, and so I do think it is an, it’s interesting to think about ways we can maybe illustrate that and measure how that impacts people in all of these small ways that really add up. For us, we have, again, like I said, for a long time been working on these issues, and so one thing in particular that we have always had is a disruptions report on our transparency site, and so what that does is it tracks the sort of activity across all of Google products around the world, and you can see when the activity gets low on any given product. Ultimately, when there is a shutdown, you know, Google doesn’t directly control any of the infrastructure, so when there’s a shutdown, we normally learn about it when people are not able to access our products. It’s not something that we know about ahead of time, so that’s sort of the value of the transparency report. It makes sure that when we are learning that these things are happening, everyone else is learning that at the same time, and so transparency is one place where I think we’ve spent a lot of energy making sure that everyone has access to information about when these things are happening so that advocacy can happen. My colleagues in Jigsaw they are sort of our think-do-tank internally, have really invested also in transparency, but in partnering with other organizations to make sure that there’s more data sharing and creating more comprehensive visibility around the impacts of shutdowns and disruptions. So that’s included partnership and support of the Measurement Lab, as well as UNI and various others. And I’m sure Joss has also worked closely with them as well. So that is one place where we are continuing to invest in kind of the measurement and tracking and information sharing around transparency and disruptions. Just to maybe highlight a little bit more of the other ways we’re working with other stakeholders, we’ve long supported the Keep It On campaign and think that the advocacy role is something that needs to be supported by those of us in industry. And I think many of the companies that are part of Global Network Initiative have long done that. And that’s also part of why we engage with TFIS as part of the Freedom Online Coalition. We think that engaging with like-minded governments who understand all of the problems with disruptions and why that’s not the best way to solve whatever challenges are happening in any given country, that it’s important for private sector to be at the table, talking about what we’re seeing, what we’re tracking, and to come to the table with one voice on that. And then the last thing I just wanted to flag is that Joss, it was funny that you said, you know, law school would be useful, because I would say as someone who’s a lawyer, that actually it’s really important for us to be partnered with technologists, because ultimately, sort of when I go back to the human rights due diligence and how do we plan for addressing these issues, really that does require us to think about what tools are available to people. And so again, my colleagues in Jigsaw have focused on building things like Outline, which is a product that’s focused on VPNs, and how do we make sure that VPNs are more accessible to people? How do we ensure that people can maintain access when these things are happening? And those really are questions that require technologists to be at the table with policymakers. So maybe that does just reinforce the value of all the stakeholders at the table, both from a technical and an advocacy perspective.

Kanbar Hussein Bor: Thank you so much, Alex, really helpful. We’re just gonna go to our last speaker before we open it up to all of you for questions. So do cling on to those questions, we’ll be coming to you. Scott, if I may, your organization recently had a number of recommendations after you issued a report on internet shutdowns. What’s your assessment on the progress of trying to facilitate positive change in this field, building on those recommendations?

Scott Campbell: Thanks. Thanks very much, Kanbar. And thanks to the UK and the Freedom Online Coalition and all of the different actors involved in organizing this, Google, Oxford, and Access Now. We’re really pleased to take part in a multi-stakeholder discussion. And at the risk of repeating you a little bit, Kanbar, in your opening remarks, but this, our office has been a champion of multi-stakeholder approaches and will continue to be one going forward. The value of this kind of conversation is clear, and this will be a priority area for our office in ensuring that participatory decision-making processes and the one that Alex just mentioned are truly participatory and that civic space is clearly protected so that all can take part freely in such discussions on the challenges of internet governance and also on the topic of today on shutdowns. The progress on shutdowns, so I was asked to speak on that in the frame of our report. I think the first thing I would say is that we very much need a multi-stakeholder approach to make progress, to quote Joss, or misquote Joss, but we need a multi-stakeholder approach to provide input into solving the problem. And I think that’s a key takeaway, and I see in this conversation opportunities for the Freedom Online Coalition to be thinking about in 2025, for Google to be thinking about, for all of us to be thinking about alongside member states with how to move the dial. I don’t wanna repeat Felicia, in terms of the progress, if we can frame it as progress made, backsliding perhaps, but I did want to salute Access Now for the exceptional work that they’ve done through the Keep It On campaign and having really important data on what the trends actually are in the world. So I won’t repeat that. For today, I thought it would be more useful really to look at opportunities for problem solving through the multi-stakeholder lens and hooking to the Global Digital Compact. And what I think is really today our most significant frame, multi-stakeholder frame for problem solving. Multi-stakeholderism is clearly reaffirmed in the Global Digital Compact. And I think this, for our office, in terms of making progress on the recommendations, in a report, we need to seize this opportunity along with all. I just wanna touch on a couple of those hooks and maybe ask a few questions even, or put out a few ideas. I think as most of you that followed the Global Digital Compact are aware, it is firmly anchored in international human rights law. And I think it’s also fair to say the GDC doesn’t move us forward in terms of a normative framework, but it does move us forward in terms of having 193 member states reaffirm their commitment to human rights in the digital space and reaffirm their commitment to multi-stakeholderism. So I think we just need to seize on that re-commitment or commitment from some in those affirmations and seize that political momentum. And we’re very pleased that our office is one of the five UN entities that is called upon to implement, which is a huge challenge and leads me just to the two areas I’ll focus on in terms of hooks. Most of you, if you’re attending this workshop on shutdowns, you probably noticed the very clear language on internet shutdowns in the GDC. It’s quite simple, watered down in some ways from where it was, but I think very effective in calling for states to simply. refrain from internet shutdowns? Where are the opportunities to push on that very clear commitment? Companies, and Alex you touched on this, but there’s a clear call on companies to respect human rights and to apply human rights due diligence throughout the full lifecycle of technology. What are the opportunities to move forward also in a multi-stakeholder fashion on that? And I think there’s work, you know, you gave one example and I think Felicia touched on another interesting example, which is the Democratic Republic of Congo, where a couple of weeks ago at the annual forum on business and human rights, Vodafone was talking about the agreement that they came to with support from civil society and the government of the DRC in a pre-electoral context. Now what was the impact of that agreement? Where are the shortcomings, the gaps? How can it be used as an example to build on? Open question. And then the last area is objective one of the GDC on connectivity. And this, in our view, is likely to be a massive area of investment from international financial institutions, from the United Nations, and a huge opportunity to integrate human rights concerns into agreements around connectivity. And as different types of infrastructure and connectivity projects are being established, there’s a key moment for prevention, as we outlined in our report, but for language to be included that makes it very difficult for governments to shut down and easier for companies to push back with their legal tools against shutdowns. I’m going to stop there because I could go on, but I sense we’re at time and really look forward to the conversation. Thanks again for including us.

Kanbar Hussein Bor: Thank you, Scott. Some really helpful concluding remarks there. Now I’m going to open up for question answers. I’m going to first look to the room here, so if you do want to ask a question. Can you hear me? Quick sound check. Yep, okay. If you do want to ask a question, please make your way forward. There’s a mic there at the front and you’re very welcome. So who would like to open up? Great. Please come in. Oh, I think we may need to turn the mic on. Do you want to use my mic? I just want I wanted to ask about any kind of good examples where policy advocacy actually made a difference on influencing internet sort of shutdowns or preventing them. Any that’s goes for people in the on the panel or in the room. And if so, what was the anatomy of that influence. I’ll pass that on. I think there’s another hand up. We’ll have two questions in the room. And then I’ll ask the panel to come in on that. Thank you. Are there any proactive steps in order to mitigate the disasters that will be behind internet shutdown for countries. Thank you. Great. Well, I’ll take that last one. I think in proactive steps. I think meetings like this are an example of that. We’re trying to raise the awareness around internet shutdowns. We’re trying to take a holistic approach in terms of the impact of shutdowns, be it from the issues around civil political rights, be it from issues about economy, but also development. So this is an example of that, but also our work through advocacy of the taskforce internet shutdowns and work on freedom online coalition. So we’re trying to be proactive there, but certainly there’s much more we can do. Who in the panel would like to come in on the point was raised about some positive examples about advocacy working. I see Felicia, you’re nodding. Do you want to briefly address that. Thanks.

Felicia Antonio: Yes, definitely. I think I mentioned some good examples, having commitments from governments, and I think this is prior engagement. So it comes under the election watch initiative and keep it on where we are able to engage with governments prior to elections to raise awareness about shutdown, the harms they have on human rights and how people can actually leverage connectivity. to actively participate in the electoral processes. And so through these engagements, that is when we got governments like the DRC, Nigeria and Sierra Leone to make a commitment to keep it on to other electoral processes. We’ve also taken governments to courts and won against internet shutdowns and the ECOWAS court has so far passed two or three judgments in favor of civil society against internet shutdowns, one in Togo, in Nigeria during the Twitter blocking and also in Guinea, where civil society sued the authorities for disrupting internet access. So these are some positives and in addition to the examples that Kamba mentioned. And I think proactive measures are really important, but some of the triggers is very difficult to predict, like protests, like conflicts. We don’t know when they just spring up on us and we have to find solutions to that. But with elections over time, we’ve been able to prepare ahead and to engage with stakeholders to push back against election related shutdowns. Thank you, Felicia. I’m just

Kanbar Hussein Bor: going to make a note. I can’t see comments coming online. I joined a little bit late, so I might ask Josh and Felicia if you could make a scrub of any comments in the chat and bring them to our attention. But while that happens, I do see a hand up in the room. So if you would like to come and

Nikki Muscati: ask a question and introduce yourself, that’d be great. Hi everyone. My name is Nikki Muscati. First, I just want to say thank you so much to the UK government for continuing to chair the task force on internet shutdowns and the FOC. And thank you to all the panelists. I look forward to this session every year. But I have two questions, if I may. One is actually to Google. Alex, you were talking quite a bit about how the ability for people to be able to actually access all the different Google products is key for the ability for Google to actually do business in a country. And so I guess one of the things that I’m wondering is when you are considering introducing products in different new countries and different new settings, is our internet shutdown something that you look at? Are internet disruptions something that you look at when you’re considering the expansion of Google products and new markets? I think it’s just helpful for people to know because I think there’s such broad conversation about FDI, but it’s not really looked at from a government perspective, excuse me, from a private sector perspective in that way. So it’d just be helpful if you could share. And then the second question I have is, we talk a lot, I think it was Joss that was sort of noting that governments will shut down the internet and they’ll provide a justification. And sometimes it’s not resolving the issue that they want. Sometimes it’s having the exact effect that they want. But the issue that they’re trying to resolve is one that has nothing actually to do with the internet itself. And so I guess that I’m wondering for the panel. panelists, or for the room, is we’ve been having this conversation for a long time. The fact that government shutdowns are often imposed because someone is trying to address something that really doesn’t have to actually do with the internet. Has there been conversation in these sort of multi-stakeholder settings on how do you address the actual root issue at hand? I think one of the things we hear is, we got to shut down the internet because there’s a protest that’s going to happen. Those are all just very different things that are one technical, like technically a solution that’s not a real solution being applied.

Kanbar Hussein Bor: Thanks. Thank you so much, Nikki. One question for Alex, and then we have a question, which I think very much chimes with Nikki’s second question around chatting to governments and trying to explain the issue. Maybe I might ask one of Joss or Scott if they want to address that, but Alex, over to you. I’m directed at you. Thanks.

Alexandria Walden: Hi. Yeah, that’s a good question. I think there are myriad factors that get evaluated when we think about where we’re going to expand business for any given product, but one of the buckets of things that we focus on is the operating environment. What is rule of law like? What are the regulations that we may have to comply with? And then finally, whether or not there is access available, what the infrastructure is, is the government shutting it down on a regular basis are things that we would highlight when we’re thinking about the riskiness of a country, and is it worthwhile to expand our business there? So it is something that comes up absolutely when we’re doing those evaluations.

Kanbar Hussein Bor: Thanks, Alex. And then we’ve got a question which was talked about having a dialogue with states, trying to really explain the challenges around this. I might ask Josh to come in on that, and then Scott, there’s a question in the chat directly for you. So Josh, do you want to address that one, and then Scott, if you could come in afterwards. Thanks.

Joss Wright: I mean, Alex, Scott, you come in. after that, but just first to you. Um, yeah, I think this this sort of trying to understand the relationship between the intended action of some authority, whether it’s local government or national government, and what they actually do, I’m beginning to suspect that maybe policymakers are not entirely rational actors, at all times in the way that they make their policies. And in many senses, there is this knee jerk reaction. And in some cases, it’s, you know, in some cases, it’s, I say it carefully, but justifiable, you know, there are there have, you know, I’ve certainly seen cases where the stated intention is, you know, there is sectarian violence going on in this region that is being spread by social media, we don’t see an alternative, this is the only thing we can think of to do. And as somebody that is utterly against internet shutdowns, I can still have sympathy with that perspective. Because if I don’t try to understand why an authority wants to shut down the internet, I can’t work proactively to try and prevent them from having that conclusion. And I think that’s something we really need to accept as a community that it’s it’s not an us and them problem. It’s it’s a it’s a problem to work out together, how can we prevent this from from happening. And I think that there’s a much wider point there, which is, you know, most people in this room would probably share this opinion with me, if you told me 10 years ago, that internet shutdowns would be increasing. Now, I was studying censorship 10 years ago, 15 years ago. And, you know, the perspective would always have been the internet’s becoming more and more important, it’s becoming more and more embedded in society, everyone is using it, it’s necessary, how could it possibly be shut down, it’s going, it’s just going to die off as something that you wouldn’t do. And yet it is. And why is that happening? Partially because the authorities who are trying to achieve their societal or political or economic goals, don’t feel that they have an alternative. lever of power to achieve that. And so it’s become an all or nothing problem, especially with the rise of encryption on the internet, which is obviously, from my perspective, an unmitigated good. But it’s meant that some of the more subtle or insidious forms of censorship where you could block pages or keywords or other things have gone away. And states are now being presented with the option, we either shut down everything or functionally everything in terms of the large major services, or we have no control over this. And that’s a difficult position for a state or authority to be in. And so that’s why I, I focus a lot of my work on trying to understand the motivations and the impacts, because it feels to me that that is the most proactive way and holistic way to try and combat this problem, rather than the 1015 year ago approach, which was more naive, which was saying, we will just stop, you know, we’ll just find ways to get around your censorship, and you’ll eventually give up. And that’s obviously not happened. So I think that really drives to the heart of certainly my research agenda, but where I think we need to be thinking in these terms.

Kanbar Hussein Bor: Thanks, Josh. Can I bring in Scott? Now we have a question in the chat, I think you’ve seen about institutional structures. And does the UN have a recommended model? You see the question? No, I haven’t seen that. But how can we ensure or enable national states to use multistakeholder model by creating institutional structures to engage all interested bodies? Does the UN have a recommended model? We can hear you.

Scott Campbell: Can you hear me? Okay, so sorry, lost power. Missed the question. I just really want to emphasize what Josh was just saying, that we see more and more governments looking for tech solutions to what are deep societal problems. And in a nutshell, and the root causes of protests are related to a lot of our bread and butter work, but promoting freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, non-discrimination. and exclusion. So I think we need to look at those societal causes and take on the reality of the human rights space that is or is not available to get to the problem. Similarly with online racism, you know, the racism won’t go away if we start censoring racism online. I think that there are, I think we see a lot of, you know, knee-jerk reactions in that space. So now that my ears are back on, I still can’t read anything without my glasses, but there’s a question about institutional… Institutional structures to engage interested bodies. Do any of your recommendations address how we can institutionalize the multi-stakeholder approach? Ah, absolutely, yes. Well, it’s a good plug too. Hope to see everybody at the next IGF and the next IGF and the next IGF, IGF. Perfect. We’ve reached the, I’ve got to

Kanbar Hussein Bor: sign and say we’ve got about three minutes left, but there’s one question in the room and I might try and wrap up things. I’ll give you my mic. Do you want to introduce yourself and ask the question? Thanks. Thank you. So that, it was my question that, so the question was can, how can we promote national governments to use this multi-stakeholder body to develop the policies, including all your parties, et cetera? Sorry, we can hear you now. Connectivity.

Scott Campbell: The short answer is also leverage the global digital compact. Whatever governments, 193 governments have just committed to a multi-stakeholder model. There’s very clear language. I’m forgetting which objective or whether it’s in the introductory parents, but there is clear language committing to multi-stakeholderism and an inclusive IGF that’s in there. I think this is, again, it’s not anything new that we couldn’t find in existing international human rights law and principles, but the fact that governments have collectively come together and reaffirmed that gives us space for advocacy and for peer pressure.

Felicia Antonio: Thank you so much. I’m going to wrap this up now, really. I’m going to say a few words and maybe ask each panelist to very briefly come up with any sort of concluding thoughts. I think from my perspective, I just want to thank everyone again. I think today is a real demonstration. This panel is a real demonstration of the power of the multi-stakeholder. older approach. I think one particular point which I want to draw out which hasn’t been highlighted is good state practice. Often it’s very easy to highlight examples where states have actually shut the internet down. Representing the British government, I would say this wouldn’t I, but in the summer in the UK just gone we experienced some really shocking riots across the country. They had a real impact on our social fabric, they were reported widely and they entailed quite a lot of violence. However, during that time the internet was not shut down. Policymakers took the decision not to do that. So I just highlight that because good state practice can encourage other states to look at this and realize that this is a blunt tool and there are wider societal issues at play and there are different levers available to address that. So with that in mind I might ask each panelist very briefly to have a concluding thought for us. So Felicia, do you want to come in? Yes, just to rehash that the fight against internet shutdowns needs multistakeholderism and so it’s important for us to continue to work together to push back against these riots coming practices. Thank you. Thank you.

Kanbar Hussein Bor: Joss, any concluding thoughts?

Joss Wright: really in terms of understanding the motivations and the activities of the authorities that are engaging in internet shutdowns, we all agree that this is a blunt tool and there are alternative ways to achieve those goals. Let’s not fall into the same problem of thinking that we can have similarly blunt solutions. We need to be just as sort of subtle and holistic in how we address this problem if we’re going to bring it together and multistakeholderism is the way to do that. Thank you. Alex? I’m not sure I have anything additional

Alexandria Walden: to add because we continue to be committed to multistakeholder model. Maybe the one thing I’ll just highlight is that I do think companies, Google in particular but not just Google, are really interested in continuing to work directly with civil society to understand how you’re experiencing the impact of shutdown so that we can continue to think about building tools that are effective as part of the work that we’re doing. And last but not least,

Scott Campbell: Scott? No, thanks. I learned quite a bit in the dialogue, so thanks for including us and I guess I’m inspired to have to go deeper into some of the examples that Felicia was putting out there as possible models, good and bad, but how we can learn together and to improve member-state practice in the shutdown space. Great. Well, thank you to our panelists but also thank you to

Kanbar Hussein Bor: everyone else who’s… joined us both in the room and online. Thank you. Alright, welcome, everybody.

Agreement Points

Increasing prevalence and negative impacts of internet shutdowns

Felicia Anthonio

Kanbar Hussein Bor

Alexandria Walden

Increasing prevalence of shutdowns globally

Shutdowns have significant economic and societal impacts

Shutdowns affect basic services and democratic processes

All speakers agreed that internet shutdowns are becoming more frequent and have substantial negative impacts on economies, societies, and basic services.

Importance of multi-stakeholder approach

Kanbar Hussein Bor

Joss Wright

Scott Campbell

UK government championing multi-stakeholder efforts

Importance of collaboration between civil society, academia, business and government

UN reaffirmation of multi-stakeholder model in Global Digital Compact

Speakers emphasized the crucial role of collaboration between different stakeholders in addressing internet shutdowns effectively.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlighted the importance of data-driven approaches and transparency in understanding and addressing internet shutdowns.

Joss Wright

Alexandria Walden

Need for data-driven approaches to understand shutdown impacts

Measuring and tracking shutdowns for transparency

Both speakers emphasized the importance of leveraging international frameworks and initiatives for advocacy against internet shutdowns.

Kanbar Hussein Bor

Scott Campbell

UK government championing multi-stakeholder efforts

Leveraging Global Digital Compact for advocacy

Unexpected Consensus

Understanding government motivations for shutdowns

Joss Wright

Scott Campbell

Need to understand government motivations for shutdowns

Leveraging Global Digital Compact for advocacy

Both academic and UN perspectives aligned on the importance of understanding government motivations and using international frameworks to address the root causes of shutdowns, rather than just opposing them outright.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers showed strong agreement on the increasing prevalence and negative impacts of internet shutdowns, the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches, and the need for data-driven understanding and transparency.

Consensus level

High level of consensus among speakers, suggesting a unified approach to addressing internet shutdowns across different sectors. This consensus implies potential for effective collaborative efforts in policy advocacy, research, and development of technical solutions to mitigate the impacts of shutdowns.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to addressing internet shutdowns

Joss Wright

Alexandria Walden

Need for data-driven approaches to understand shutdown impacts

Private sector role in transparency and advocacy

While both speakers emphasize the importance of addressing internet shutdowns, they differ in their proposed approaches. Joss Wright advocates for a data-driven approach to understand the impacts, while Alexandria Walden focuses on the private sector’s role in providing transparency and advocacy.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the specific approaches and strategies to address internet shutdowns, rather than fundamental disagreements about the issue itself.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. All speakers agree on the importance of addressing internet shutdowns and the value of a multi-stakeholder approach. The differences mainly lie in the specific strategies and focus areas each speaker emphasizes based on their expertise and perspective. This low level of disagreement suggests a generally unified approach to the topic, which could be beneficial for developing comprehensive solutions to internet shutdowns.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of addressing government motivations for shutdowns, but they propose different strategies. Joss Wright emphasizes understanding motivations to develop targeted solutions, while Scott Campbell suggests leveraging the Global Digital Compact for advocacy and policy changes.

Joss Wright

Scott Campbell

Need to understand government motivations for shutdowns

Leveraging Global Digital Compact for advocacy

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlighted the importance of data-driven approaches and transparency in understanding and addressing internet shutdowns.

Joss Wright

Alexandria Walden

Need for data-driven approaches to understand shutdown impacts

Measuring and tracking shutdowns for transparency

Both speakers emphasized the importance of leveraging international frameworks and initiatives for advocacy against internet shutdowns.

Kanbar Hussein Bor

Scott Campbell

UK government championing multi-stakeholder efforts

Leveraging Global Digital Compact for advocacy

Key Takeaways

Internet shutdowns are increasing globally and have significant negative economic and societal impacts

A multi-stakeholder approach involving civil society, academia, business and government is crucial to address the issue of internet shutdowns

Data-driven research and transparency efforts are important to understand and track the impacts of shutdowns

There is a need to understand government motivations for shutdowns and engage in dialogue to find alternatives

The Global Digital Compact provides a framework for advocacy against internet shutdowns

Resolutions and Action Items

Continue multi-stakeholder collaboration and dialogue on addressing internet shutdowns

Leverage the Global Digital Compact for advocacy against shutdowns

Private sector to continue transparency efforts and development of circumvention tools

Conduct more research to understand motivations and impacts of shutdowns

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively prevent shutdowns in cases of protests or conflicts that are difficult to predict

How to address the root societal causes that lead governments to implement shutdowns

Specific ways to institutionalize multi-stakeholder approaches at national levels

Suggested Compromises

Engage with governments to find alternatives to shutdowns that address their concerns while maintaining internet access

Develop more nuanced technical solutions that allow for some government control without full shutdowns

Unfortunately, internet shutdowns are increasing in their prevalence. We are seeing more and more countries who are resorting to internet shutdowns. Access Now have reported a 41% rise of internet shutdowns from 2022.

speaker

Kanbar Hussein Bor

reason

This comment sets the stage for the urgency of the issue and provides a concrete statistic to illustrate the growing problem.

impact

It framed the discussion around the increasing prevalence of internet shutdowns and set a tone of urgency for addressing the issue.

In 2024 we’ve also already documented seven shutdowns in new countries that are countries that have never imposed internet shutdowns. In 2024 we’ve seen countries including Comoros, El Salvador, Guinea-Bissau, France disrupting internet TikTok in New Caledonia, Malaysia and Mauritius as well as Thailand disrupting or imposing internet shutdown.

speaker

Felicia Anthonio

reason

This comment provides specific, up-to-date examples of the spread of internet shutdowns to new countries, including democracies.

impact

It deepened the conversation by highlighting the global nature of the problem and raised concerns about the spread of shutdowns to previously unaffected countries.

I think that what I’d like to represent from the perspective of academia here is a form of multi-stakeholderism that isn’t so much about hearing all of our voices, but drawing on the perspectives we have in our solutions and our approaches and our abilities to provide some input to resolving the problem.

speaker

Joss Wright

reason

This comment reframes the concept of multi-stakeholderism from representation to collaborative problem-solving.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards a more action-oriented approach to multi-stakeholder collaboration in addressing internet shutdowns.

The thing about shutdowns is they are rarely, from a human rights perspective, rarely necessary, and rarely proportionate. They’re a blunt tool that impacts all of our users and all of our services, and so from a company’s perspective, it’s bad for business because it’s bad for everyone who uses our products

speaker

Alexandria Walden

reason

This comment provides insight into how private sector companies view internet shutdowns, highlighting both human rights and business perspectives.

impact

It introduced the business perspective into the conversation and emphasized the wide-ranging negative impacts of shutdowns.

And as somebody that is utterly against internet shutdowns, I can still have sympathy with that perspective. Because if I don’t try to understand why an authority wants to shut down the internet, I can’t work proactively to try and prevent them from having that conclusion.

speaker

Joss Wright

reason

This comment introduces a nuanced perspective on understanding the motivations behind internet shutdowns, even while opposing them.

impact

It challenged participants to consider the complexities of the issue and the importance of understanding all perspectives to find effective solutions.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by establishing the urgency and global nature of the internet shutdown problem, reframing the concept of multi-stakeholderism towards collaborative problem-solving, introducing diverse perspectives from academia, civil society, and the private sector, and encouraging a nuanced understanding of the motivations behind shutdowns. The discussion evolved from simply describing the problem to exploring complex, multi-faceted approaches to addressing it, emphasizing the need for collaboration across sectors and a deeper understanding of the underlying issues.

What are alternative sources of connectivity that can be provided during conflicts to ensure the internet remains open and secure?

speaker

Felicia Anthonio

explanation

This is important to address the growing problem of conflict-related internet shutdowns and their impact on humanitarian aid delivery.

How can we illustrate and measure the impact of internet shutdowns on people’s daily lives beyond just GDP figures?

speaker

Alexandria Walden

explanation

This would provide a more comprehensive understanding of how shutdowns affect individuals and communities in various ways.

What was the impact and what were the shortcomings of the agreement between Vodafone, civil society, and the government of the DRC in the pre-electoral context?

speaker

Scott Campbell

explanation

Analyzing this case could provide insights into effective multi-stakeholder approaches to preventing shutdowns.

How can human rights concerns be integrated into agreements around connectivity as international financial institutions and the UN invest in infrastructure projects?

speaker

Scott Campbell

explanation

This is crucial for preventing future shutdowns and ensuring respect for human rights in connectivity initiatives.

Are internet shutdowns and disruptions considered when Google is expanding its products to new markets?

speaker

Nikki Muscati

explanation

Understanding how private sector companies factor in shutdown risks could inform advocacy and policy approaches.

How can we address the root causes of issues that governments claim to be addressing through internet shutdowns?

speaker

Nikki Muscati

explanation

This could help develop more effective alternatives to shutdowns and address underlying societal problems.