Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation (PNIF)

Summary

This session focused on the Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation (PNIF), an intersessional activity of the Internet Governance Forum that has been working for three years to address internet fragmentation issues. The moderators introduced the PNIF framework, which categorizes internet fragmentation into three baskets: user experience fragmentation (where users in different locations receive different access to services and content), internet governance and coordination fragmentation (where parallel discussions in multiple forums lack coordination), and technical layer fragmentation (which threatens the interoperability of the global internet infrastructure).

The discussion centered on implementing commitments from the Global Digital Compact, particularly paragraph 29C which calls for international cooperation to prevent and address internet fragmentation risks. Speakers highlighted various challenges including the political normalization of network control, with tools like censorship and shutdowns becoming standard governance instruments. The recent internet shutdown in Iran affecting 90 million people was cited as an example of sophisticated state-controlled fragmentation. Participants noted the tension between digital sovereignty concepts and maintaining a globally interoperable internet, with some arguing that sovereignty measures don’t necessarily lead to harmful fragmentation if properly implemented.

Technical community representatives emphasized the importance of maintaining global internet standards and warned against regulations that could impact internet architecture without proper technical consultation. The discussion also addressed economic aspects of fragmentation, including how geopolitical tensions are reshaping digital value chains and affecting access to technology, particularly for developing countries. Speakers identified significant funding cuts to internet freedom tools as a critical gap, with up to 80% of US funding being reduced. The session concluded with concrete recommendations for the PNIF’s upcoming work, including focusing on specific fragmentation risks, improving coordination between technical and policy communities, and developing implementation guidance for the Global Digital Compact commitments.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Framework for Understanding Internet Fragmentation**: The Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation (PNIF) has developed a three-basket framework to categorize fragmentation: user experience (different access to services/content based on location), internet governance and coordination (fragmented decision-making across multiple forums), and technical layer (threats to internet interoperability and infrastructure).

– **Global Digital Compact Implementation**: Discussion of how to implement the GDC’s commitment (paragraph 29C) to promote international cooperation among stakeholders to prevent, identify, and address internet fragmentation risks, with participants noting gaps in current implementation efforts.

– **Political and Economic Drivers of Fragmentation**: Examination of how geopolitical tensions, digital sovereignty concepts, and economic protectionism are creating new forms of fragmentation, including the “re-territorialization” of the internet through trade restrictions, investment screening, and national security measures.

– **Technical Community Coordination Challenges**: The disconnect between technical experts who maintain internet standards and policymakers creating regulations, with emphasis on the need for better collaboration to prevent unintended technical fragmentation while respecting legitimate regulatory needs.

– **Funding Crisis and Network Control Normalization**: Discussion of severe cuts to internet freedom funding (up to 80% reduction in US funding) coinciding with the political normalization of network shutdowns, censorship, and digital repression as tools of governance.

## Overall Purpose:

The session aimed to launch the Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation’s work for the coming year, assess progress on Global Digital Compact commitments related to internet fragmentation, identify gaps in current cooperation efforts, and develop concrete recommendations for addressing fragmentation risks through inclusive multi-stakeholder dialogue.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional, collaborative tone throughout, characterized by constructive problem-solving and knowledge-sharing among diverse stakeholders. While participants raised serious concerns about increasing fragmentation risks and funding cuts, the tone remained optimistic about the potential for multi-stakeholder cooperation. The conversation was notably inclusive, with speakers acknowledging different perspectives on digital sovereignty and fragmentation, avoiding polarization while still addressing urgent challenges like network shutdowns and technical coordination gaps.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Marilia Maciel** – Director of Digital Trade and Economic Security at Diplo Foundation

– **Joyce Chen** – Senior Advisor, Strategic Engagement at HCI (works at APRINIC)

– **Michel Lambert** – General Manager for Equality (Canadian non-for-profit organization developing open source technologies)

– **Sheetal Kumar** – Co-facilitator of the Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation (calling from London)

– **Internet Architecture Board representative** – Representative from the Internet Architecture Board, part of the Internet Engineering Task Force

– **Moderator** – Session moderator (appears to be Wim based on context)

– **Bruna Santos** – Co-facilitator of the Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation

– **Naim Gjokaj** – State Secretary in Montenegro

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members including:

– Vinicius Fortuna (Engineering lead for Google’s internet freedom effort)

– Juan Ortiz Freuler (PhD candidate at University of Southern California)

– Peter Koch (Works for DENIC, the German top level domain registry)

**Additional speakers:**

– **Theresa** – Co-facilitator mentioned as being online (referenced but did not speak in transcript)

– **Dhruv** – Representative from the Internet Architecture Board (mentioned by Bruna but appears to be the same as “Internet Architecture Board representative”)

# Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation: Launch Session Report

## Introduction and Context

This session served as the launch of the Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation (PNIF) work program for the coming year, taking place on the final day of the Internet Governance Forum. The PNIF is an intersessional activity of the IGF that has been operating for three years to address the complex challenges of internet fragmentation through multi-stakeholder dialogue and policy development.

The session was moderated by Wim and co-facilitated by Sheetal Kumar (calling from London) and Bruna Santos, both representing the Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation. The discussion aimed to launch the PNIF’s work for the coming year while examining how to implement paragraph 29C of the Global Digital Compact, which commits to promoting international cooperation among stakeholders to prevent, identify, and address internet fragmentation risks. The moderator established a clear timeline: work would begin after the IGF and conclude with a report by November 1st.

## The Three-Basket Framework for Internet Fragmentation

The Policy Network has developed a comprehensive three-basket framework to categorize different aspects of internet fragmentation, moving beyond definitional debates to facilitate productive discussions. As Sheetal Kumar explained, this framework serves to identify which aspect of fragmentation is being discussed rather than attempting to define fragmentation definitively.

**Basket 1: User Experience Fragmentation** – Users in different geographical locations receive different access to services and content, where identical requests yield different results based on location.

**Basket 2: Internet Governance and Coordination Fragmentation** – Parallel discussions occurring in multiple forums without adequate coordination, leading to conflicting policies and standards.

**Basket 3: Technical Layer Fragmentation** – Threats to the interoperability of global internet infrastructure, affecting fundamental technical standards and protocols that enable global connectivity.

## Global Digital Compact Implementation Challenges

A significant focus of the discussion centered on implementing commitments from the Global Digital Compact, particularly paragraph 29C’s call for international cooperation to prevent and address internet fragmentation risks. Sheetal Kumar highlighted that while the commitment exists on paper, there has been limited progress on mapping and implementing GDC commitments related to internet fragmentation.

Bruna Santos noted substantial gaps in current implementation efforts, emphasizing the need to develop concrete implementation recommendations for the GDC cooperation commitments. She also referenced the ongoing WSIS+20 process and mentioned the Freedom Online Coalition as relevant stakeholders in these efforts.

The discussion revealed a disconnect between high-level political commitments and practical action, with participants acknowledging that the international community lacks clear mechanisms for translating the GDC’s aspirational language into concrete policies and programs.

## Economic Fragmentation: A Fourth Dimension

Marilia Maciel, Director of Digital Trade and Economic Security at Diplo Foundation, provided crucial insights into economic forces driving internet fragmentation. She argued for expanding the framework to include a fourth dimension: economic fragmentation affecting global digital value chains.

Maciel explained that the tension between the cross-border nature of the internet and territorial political systems fundamentally drives fragmentation. Rising geopolitical tensions are leading to “re-territorialization” of the internet through trade restrictions, investment screening, and national security measures. She cited the example of Huawei phones losing access to Google services as evidence that market fragmentation is already occurring through corporate decisions and government policies.

She also discussed the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions at the WTO, highlighting how trade policy intersects with internet governance. Maciel argued that many requests for digital autonomy stem from legitimate concerns about rights erosion and increasing inequality in the digital economy, even if the framing as “digital sovereignty” may be problematic.

## Government Perspectives: Montenegro’s Approach

Naim Gjokaj, State Secretary in Montenegro, provided valuable insights from a smaller country’s perspective. Montenegro’s approach focuses on preventing fragmentation through EU alignment and regional coordination within the Western Balkans, demonstrating how smaller nations can maintain connectivity while addressing legitimate governance concerns.

Gjokaj emphasized the need for legal frameworks specifically addressing fragmentation at the national level, arguing that countries require clear regulatory guidance to avoid inadvertently contributing to fragmentation through well-intentioned policies. He highlighted how cyber attacks and security concerns can force governments toward fragmentation measures, even when they prefer to maintain openness.

He also noted that digital divide and connectivity gaps in rural areas contribute to fragmentation, suggesting that infrastructure development is as important as policy coordination. His intervention highlighted the importance of capacity building at local levels so that communities understand how fragmentation impacts their daily digital activities.

## Technical Community Concerns and Coordination

Dhruv, representing the Internet Architecture Board, articulated significant concerns from the technical community about regulations that could impact global internet architecture and interoperability. The technical community fears that well-intentioned policies implemented without their input could inadvertently damage the fundamental systems that enable global internet connectivity.

Dhruv emphasized that technical layer fragmentation poses the highest risk from their perspective, as it would have the biggest potential impact on global internet functionality. However, he acknowledged the need to better articulate these risks for non-technical stakeholders who may not fully understand the implications of technical fragmentation.

Joyce Chen, Senior Advisor for Strategic Engagement at HCI, provided additional technical community perspective, emphasizing the importance of coordination through standards development and governance documents. She extensively discussed the Technical Community Coalition on Multi-Stakeholderism (TCCM) as an example of successful policy coordination, demonstrating how technical experts can engage constructively with policy discussions.

Chen also mentioned the Internet Coordination Policy 2 (ICP2) review and RIR governance documents as examples of technical coordination mechanisms. She highlighted how funding cuts are particularly affecting the Pacific community, hampering internet development in regions that are already underserved, demonstrating how fragmentation risks are not evenly distributed globally.

## Network Control and Digital Repression

Michel Lambert, General Manager for Equality, provided sobering insights into the normalization of network control as a governance tool. He argued that tools of censorship, surveillance, and fragmentation are no longer exceptional but are becoming normalized instruments of governance at scale.

Lambert provided detailed analysis of Iran’s recent internet shutdown affecting 90 million people, describing it as sophisticated state-controlled fragmentation. He noted the irony that while the IGF extensively discusses artificial intelligence, immediate threats like widespread internet shutdowns receive relatively little attention.

He highlighted specific tools that worked during Iran’s shutdown, including Touche, senior browser, matrix server, and Delta chat, emphasizing that effective responses require tools and preparedness before shutdowns occur. Lambert stressed a critical funding crisis, with up to 80% cuts in US funding for internet freedom efforts creating critical gaps in tools and support for communities facing digital repression.

## Digital Sovereignty and Interdependence Debate

The discussion revealed significant tensions around digital sovereignty and its relationship to internet interdependence. Joyce Chen characterized digital sovereignty as often serving as a “code word” that creates disconnect with the idea of a borderless internet celebrating permissionless innovation.

However, Marilia Maciel provided a more nuanced perspective, arguing that the association between digital sovereignty and isolationism is not necessarily true. She contended that many requests for digital autonomy stem from legitimate concerns about rights erosion online and increasing inequality in the digital economy.

Audience member Vinicius Fortuna from Google raised provocative questions about who will champion internet interdependence given declining US leadership and European focus on digital sovereignty. He provided specific examples of China’s digital independence and argued that sanctions and isolationist policies accelerate fragmentation by forcing countries toward digital independence, creating a vicious cycle where punitive measures intended to maintain openness actually drive fragmentation.

Joyce Chen responded that the multi-stakeholder community collectively must champion interdependence rather than expecting the technical community to bear this responsibility alone.

## Funding Crisis Impact

A recurring theme throughout the discussion was the severe impact of funding cuts on efforts to combat internet fragmentation and support digital rights. Michel Lambert’s revelation of up to 80% cuts in US internet freedom funding prompted significant concern among participants about the sustainability of current efforts.

The funding crisis affects multiple dimensions of anti-fragmentation work: developing circumvention technologies, supporting civil society organizations, building technical capacity in underserved regions, and maintaining the infrastructure necessary for global internet coordination. Joyce Chen noted how these cuts particularly impact the Pacific community, demonstrating the global reach of funding decisions made in major donor countries.

The timing of these cuts is particularly problematic, coinciding with increasing threats from network shutdowns, censorship, and digital repression, creating a resource gap precisely when tools and support are most needed.

## Future Work Program and Concrete Recommendations

The session concluded with concrete discussions about the PNIF’s upcoming work program. The moderator established a clear timeline with work beginning after the IGF and concluding with a report by November 1st. Participants agreed that the PNIF should produce concrete recommendations and implementation guidance rather than purely analytical work.

Marilia Maciel suggested that the PNIF should focus on specific risks and prioritize which types of fragmentation to tackle in each work cycle, rather than attempting to address all aspects simultaneously. This approach would make the work more manageable while ensuring concrete progress on priority issues.

Dhruv emphasized the need to better articulate technical layer fragmentation risks and their potential impacts for non-technical stakeholders. This communication challenge represents a critical gap in current efforts to build broader understanding of fragmentation risks.

Sheetal Kumar highlighted the importance of developing collaboration mechanisms between technical communities and regulators, ensuring that policy decisions consider technical implications before implementation. This coordination is essential for preventing well-intentioned regulations from inadvertently harming global internet connectivity.

## Call for Community Engagement

The session concluded with a clear call for community participation in the PNIF’s work. The moderator invited interested participants to join the mailing list and contribute to the upcoming work program. The emphasis was on practical engagement and concrete contributions to addressing fragmentation risks through the established framework.

The launch session successfully established the foundation for the year’s work while highlighting both the progress made through the three-basket framework and the significant challenges that remain in implementing concrete solutions to prevent and address internet fragmentation risks.

## Conclusion

The Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation launch session provided a comprehensive examination of current fragmentation challenges while establishing a clear work program for the coming year. The three-basket framework has proven valuable for facilitating discussions, but the focus now shifts to implementing concrete solutions within the established November 1st timeline.

The discussion revealed internet fragmentation as a multifaceted challenge requiring coordinated responses across technical, policy, economic, and rights-based dimensions. While there is strong consensus on the importance of maintaining global internet connectivity, significant work remains to translate this consensus into effective action.

The severe funding cuts to internet freedom efforts, combined with the normalization of network control as a governance tool, create an urgent context for the PNIF’s upcoming work. Success will require sustained engagement from the multi-stakeholder community and concrete progress on the implementation recommendations to be developed over the coming months.

Moderator: Hi, good morning and welcome to this session. It’s the last day of the IGF. It’s early in the morning, but still great to see you. I would like to welcome first the co-facilitators of this best practice forum, Bruna, and normally we have Theresa and Sheetal online. So I don’t know, Bruna, if you want to say hi too?

Bruna Santos: Yeah, hi everyone and welcome for being here this early, hopefully last day, last rush until the end of this IGF. And also thanks Theresa and Sheetal for being online with us.

Moderator: Hi Sheetal, we didn’t see each other for some time. So thank you for joining here and online to this session of the Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation. It is one of the intersessional activities of the IGF. It was started two years, three years ago as an initiative taken by the community to raise awareness about fragmentation, to raise awareness about actions that may cause and discussions, issues that may cause internet fragmentation. and also with the purpose of facilitating the inclusive multi-stakeholder dialogue about fragmentation. Like I said, the Policy Network has been around for three years. The first two years we focused on exploring the field and that led us to developing a framework to discuss internet fragmentation. You can show the first slide, slide number one. There you can see on the screen normally the PNF framework we developed. A little explanation and background about this. When we started the discussion about internet fragmentation, automatically the first thing you do is to try to come up with a definition to say this is what we’re talking about, this is what we want to discuss. But very quickly we discovered that focusing too much on defining what internet fragmentation is and what it is not brings us to endless discussions, endless yes, no, this you should talk about, this you cannot talk about. And that led us actually to develop a framework tool that is intended to facilitate the discussion, not really to define internet fragmentation but to facilitate helping people that want to discuss fragmentation to indicate what they are talking about. And that tremendously helped us, I think within the PNF, but we also have seen it being picked up elsewhere to kind of guide the discussions. So what’s in the framework? We identified three different baskets of internet fragmentation. When people talk about fragmentation they either, we discovered, talked about or from a perspective of the user experience. Or they were talking about internet governance and coordination. Or they were talking about the technical layer, the internet technical layer. Let’s start with the last one. When they talk about fragmentation of the internet technical layer, they’re basically talking about the infrastructure that underpins the working of the internet, of the global internet. And internet fragmentation in that context would mean anything that can challenge the interoperability of the internet as we know it today. The second basket, internet fragmentation of internet governance and coordination, is actually linked in a way to discussions we have here at the Internet Governance Forum, but also discussions going on in other fora, decision fora, also at the other organizations. And pointing at the fact that if there are too many discussions going on about the internet, and different fora in parallel without those institutions, organizations, and platforms talk to each other, this might lead or this might be kind of fragmenting the internet. The last basket on top is internet fragmentation from the user perspective. It’s basically the idea, you know, the idea of the internet is that if you connect to the internet wherever you are on the network, wherever you are in the world, you can have or you have the same expectations. You expect that you can do the same, that you can connect to the same services, the same content. This is not the case today, that when two users, it can be somebody sitting here, somebody sitting on the other side of the world. It can as well be me going online, Bruna going online, trying to do the same and getting a different result. That is also a form of fragmentation from the user perspective. It is not to say that all these forms of fragmentation are problematic. Some are, some are not. So this is the basic framework. It helps us to, when there are discussions, that people can flag, well, we see ourselves in this or that basket. Very important is also to understand that there is a relation. There is a huge overlap between the baskets and they also interact, influence each other. And that, the third element of the framework, and that’s what’s the gray box outside the framework, is there are a lot of measures, technical, legal, policy decisions that may influence fragmentations in the three senses, in the three boxes. So we really wanted, although this is a framework I say we worked on and we showed already at the IGF last year, we discussed the year before, that we keep repeating, we keep showing it because we noticed that it really helps to facilitate the discussion. That’s, I think I would like to keep it there as an introduction and then move over to the session today. And Sheetal, our co-facilitator, will take you through the plans for today, the plans for this year. And please, Sheetal, the floor is yours.

Sheetal Kumar: Thank you so much, Wim. It’s great to see you all on stage. You look super fresh for. the last day of the IGF and the first session in the morning and I hope you’ve been enjoying it so far and all the long sunshine days that I that I hear you get in that part of the world at this time of year. I’m calling in from London and it’s great to to be here for this session because as you’ve explained Wim we have come a long way I think with the framework with the work of the Policy Network in supporting an understanding of internet fragmentation and a basis to to work from on this issue and so with this session we wanted to launch the work of the Policy Network for the for the coming year and be able to use the this as a platform for discussion for inclusive dialogue on what is happening with regards to internet fragmentation to strengthen the dialogue to be able to use this space to continue to monitor trends and discuss developments and raise awareness of what is happening and really educate the the community and ourselves so that we can act with awareness and all of this grounded in a commitment that is in the global digital compact very specifically you you will know it paragraph 29 C which commits to promoting international cooperation among all stakeholders to prevent identify and address risks of fragmentation of the internet in a timely manner I think there’s a slide slide 2 if I can ask the tech team to display it Wim you had asked me to remember that I forgot, so if slide two is available, you can have that on the screen, but that just shows the specific commitment of, within the compact, to promote international cooperation on this particular issue. It’s very clear, it’s there, it’s also accompanied by paragraph D, which commits to refraining from internet shutdowns and connects this commitment around fragmentation to Sustainable Development Goal 16, which is all about promoting inclusive societies and peaceful institutions, which of course an open and secure internet, interoperable internet is so essential for. So, we want to start, of course, at the beginning, which is going to lead me back to giving you the mic on the stage. It’s always good to start at the beginning, where we want to ask what has actually been happening with regards to the status of this commitment, what international cooperation efforts have begun, are there any gaps, what can we bring to the table, where have we begun with regards to this commitment, and what can we do as a networking community to continue to monitor it. So, back to you, and looking forward to the discussion, and to hearing from all of you, both there in Norway and, of course, online.

Bruna Santos: Thanks, Sheetal. We have a very interesting and diverse set of speakers for this session, sorry for my voice, like last day, but I’ll do take a moment in introducing you all. We have Joyce by my side, Senior Advisor, Strategic Engagement at HCI. We also have Naim, State Secretary in Montenegro. We have Michel Lambert, who I hope joins us very soon. He is the General Manager for Equality. We have Truve at the end of the table, let’s say, the non-table. From the Internet Architecture Board, representing them here. And also a dear colleague, Marilia Maciel, Director of Digital Trade and Economic Security at Diplo Foundation. As Sheetal was saying, I think we can start with an initial set of interventions about the GDC commitments. We had a very thorough discussion of the Global Digital Compact, what it would mean for society. Also, you know, a lot of commitments from social media platforms into information integrity and spreading out across the board from many things around Internet governance. And to be fair, it’s somehow unfortunate that we’re having a session just now with the co-facilitators for WSIS++20 where a lot of implementations and suggestions for the new framework are also being suggested. But maybe I’ll start with Marilia, if that’s okay, starting with our remote speakers. I think if you can start us off with just some ideas and comments on how does this commitment, you know, could be shaped and we know that there’s still a lot of efforts being implemented in terms of mapping of the GDC commitments. But at some point, until now at least, we haven’t heard much from the Internet fragmentation bits as we assume it’s part of an ongoing mapping as well. So, I’ll pass the floor to you, Marilia. Thanks.

Marilia Maciel: Thank you very much, Bruna. I trust you can hear me well? Yes, we can. Well, thanks to the organizers of the session for the invitation. It’s a pleasure to be here today. And since we don’t have much time, let me just pick one angle of this discussion and explore it and then make some suggestions based on the questions that were proposed to us that I think could be reflected in the upcoming report. But the drivers of fragmentation can be of different kinds. types as we have discussed, technical, political, commercial, but one of the main elements that has traditionally strengthened fragmentation trends is the tension between the cross-border nature of the internet and our territorially grounded political and legal systems. But in the present geopolitical context of rising tensions, there is mounting pressure towards reinforcing territorialization. Borders are becoming ever more important, as we can see in several examples today, such as the application of unilateral tariffs on digital key products such as semiconductors, the potential end of the moratorium on costumes duties on electronic transmissions at the WTO, which will mean that we will pay more for films and music that will not be exempt from tariffs imposed at the border anymore, the adoption of investment screening mechanisms for inbound and outbound investment that touch upon investment on key digital sectors, including developing countries. So there are these general ongoing trends and when the GDPR was first introduced, the headlines talked about the return of the state to digital policy. But what is happening today is different from attempts to strengthen the authority of the state in order for it to protect individual rights and promote competition online. Today, I think particularly in developed countries, which are the front runners of digital technology, re-territorialization and digital sovereignty have been increasingly invoked to strengthen the state itself, especially when these expressions are associated with national security concerns and protectionist worldviews. So there’s a growing entanglement between national security and economic security and digital technologies cutting across both. So in this context, countries are usually pushing for a double strategy. On the one hand, they are exploiting existing digital interdependencies to achieve their geopolitical goals, while on the other hand, they are seeking autonomy for themselves in key digital areas. even if this means redefining networks of global production of goods and services. Because of this, I think it’s very important that the network looks at how states are promoting fragmentation by acting upon, dismantling, reorganizing the digital economy along geopolitical goals and along ideological fault lines, and how this might affect global access to technology, technology diffusion, including when it comes to hardware, software, data, algorithms, and model weights. So what I am proposing in practice, and maybe we can think about reflecting that in the report, is that first, we should add another dimension of our working notion of fragmentation, which would consider fragmentation in the global economy. While governments are acting upon markets and introducing elements of fragmentation, they do that by reducing previously agreed openness of digital markets and the openness of value chains that produce and distribute ICT goods and services, many times foreclosing these value chains to non-allies or to countries that are considered non-reliable, for example, and many of them are located in the global south. Secondly, I think it is important to broaden the scope of fragmentation in order to consider not only individual end-user experience, but also the fragmentation that is affecting intermediary users, which can also be companies that employ ICT goods and services to produce their own products and services. Third, while we tweak the scope of our understanding of fragmentation, special attention should be given to developing countries and how this fragmentation would impact their access to technology and their access to investment as well in digital sectors. So what collaboration efforts have been put in place when it comes to this? to this particular understanding of fragmentation. Not many that I’m aware of, so there’s definitely a gap there, something that we can do. But some organizations have worked independently and have tried to map these effects. So the WTO, for example, was one of the first to ring alarm bells about fragmentation of global value chains. The Digital Policy Alert from the University of Stangalin has introduced studies on fragmentation from a regulatory perspective and also from a tariff perspective. The OECD has recently produced studies on the need to find balance between free data flows and the existence of legal frameworks and have economically quantified the sweet spot between both. But most important of all, I think we need to mobilize companies because they’re the ones who hold the main pieces of the puzzle to understand what’s going on. And the Geneva Internet Platform has developed an initiative that fosters collaboration among companies when it comes to discussing responsible behavior in cyberspace. And this dialogue could serve as a blueprint to bring together companies from different digital sectors to discuss fragmentation. I think to conclude that the policy network is really well-placed to open multi-stakeholder discussion and to kickstart some very interesting projects with the end goal of the 2027 deadline. But the IGF itself has, by and large, refrained from discussing issues related to the digital political economy. In fact, I think that the IGF has not really responded over the last 10 years to the significant migration of digital policy discussions, data flows, algorithms, privacy, AI, to digital trade negotiations and agreements, which are, by the way, not transparent, not accountable, not multi-stakeholder. So in itself, this migration is a fragmentation of internet governance. So perhaps there is an opportunity now for us to kill two birds with one stone and address the ongoing fragmentation of internet governance, digital governance, through discussions on fragmentation trends that we can see in the digital economy. today. I think I’ll stop here. Over to you, Bruna.

Bruna Santos: Thank you, Marilia, and thanks a lot for reminding us of the social political tensions, right, that we see not just in policymaking but also throughout the venues and the forums. I do think that some aspects of it we try to bring into the fragmentation of coordination, but it’s true, in fact, that we didn’t really address the economic aspect of the whole discussion. So, thanks a lot for reminding us of that. I’ll bring the conversation to you, Naim, especially for the policymaking part, right? I always enjoy the prep meetings for these sessions because I think we always kind of dive into the debate before, but I do think both conversations will bridge very well, right? And just maybe to hear from you, looking at these commitments and looking at what the GDC has meant for the discussion on internet fragmentation, how do you think you could embed those commitments and how do you think you could contribute from a government perspective into this debate? Thanks.

Naim Gjokaj: Thank you, and good morning all. It’s great to be here and talk about this topic, and thanks to IGF and PNI that is putting this topic on the top. Also, thanks for the host country, Norway, for the hospitality. Fragmentation from this point of view, of governmental point of view, I know that we won’t go too much on the technical details, but I have to focus on the political fragmentation and what a government can do to continue this commitment that you already mentioned, also commitments of GDC. So, I will start and say how Montenegro works on this. Officially, we don’t have any fragmentations on internet, but of course, we do some activities that they indirectly support. So, as a country who is running also to be part of EU, and as we are looking for a single market that is also included with the fragmentation, and, I mean, a common Internet and all economic activities, we, of course, work on strategic plans that indirectly stops fragmentations through having same directives with the EU members, and not only EU, but we, as a region of Western Balkans, we’re trying to have the same digital strategies and all activities starting also from the legal framework. So this is important, starting with the legal, and after that, of course, implementing that. For us, this is a very important topic. Unfortunately, not only in Montenegro, but even in other countries, we don’t have a legal something that will define fragmentation, stops this, and, of course, all stakeholders. I always love to put in one table always about these important topics, even when we have organizations, but also universities, private sector, NGOs that can also give a huge effect to this and other topics, especially in part of digitalization, because this is a live system and changes a lot, and, of course, representatives of groups that we cannot see too much, and those are youth and also representatives of regions from globally that they are not too much active on these topics. So we have to have all these elements at the same table and starting from the legal So we are working on a legal part to stop fragmentation. Also, I said that we did a lot on part of stopping fragmentation indirectly, but there are factors that can affect Montenegro in having some fragmentations. Not only Montenegro, it’s the same way that can also be active in other countries. Mostly, we know that three years ago in Montenegro we had a huge cyber attack, so this can also happen to we as a government stop and look at our position and to save our information, government information, but also citizen information. So maybe we have to start with some fragmentation, even if we are not on that side. So the second point that is a factor of opening the fragmentation, I already mentioned the legal framework, and the third, of course, is that gap. Even in our region, Western Broncos, we did a really great job of connectivity to Internet. So this also, that gap that is still there between parts in our country, especially rural parts, that they cannot catch too much of services and connectivity to Internet can help and brings indirectly and be a factor of fragmentation. But still, I think that starting from the positions that I am and all other persons working in the government should really start more and bring this topic to a higher level, so even from the legal and other activities. So, I think that for the beginning, it would be this from my side, but still, these activities, maybe I always say, even inside our country, when we wait for some results, maybe we don’t get that as we wanted that communication beside all actors and stakeholders. So, that would be my point, that the communication, starting from regions, then continent, then global, should really be direct and better communication. So, maybe that would be how to improve these commits of OGDC, that would be to make some roadmap, to see the activities, what stakeholders are doing in this topic, and to see, to have a common roadmap, but not just a roadmap that is written, but really to be that all stakeholders should respect that and really work on achieving some results of stopping of fragmentation. Thank you.

Bruna Santos: Thank you. I think that from your intervention, I would maybe highlight this need for newer commitments, not just newer commitments, but a more aligned conversation of what fragmentation could mean, what states should be doing for that. The EU, as you were saying, has already a lot of initiatives in that sense, but there are some gaps with the accessing states and also some regions of the continent as well that might be lacking or might not be as represented in this debate, but it’s also a conversation for the rest of the world, and where we, as you were very well highlighting, we should include more and more voices. I will maybe bring it to another of our remote speakers, Michelle. I don’t know if you can hear us, and can you hear us well, and are you ready to speak? I’m not sure if you can unmute yourself, but if technical can help us, yes. Thanks for joining us, Michel. You told us you would like to address the gaps, right, and the gaps specifically in fragmentation and also knowing you’re part of the SplinterCon community, we’re all very keen to hear you speaking about the gaps on this conversation. So the floor is yours.

Michel Lambert: Okay. I was trying to open my camera, but it doesn’t work. That’s okay. At least we have the sound. So, yes, thank you first for the invitation. I’ll take just a few seconds to mention that I’m working for a group called Equality, the Canadian non-for-profit organization, and what we do, we develop open source technologies to support digital and community resilience, particularly in environment affected by censorship. So that’s why we run the SplinterCon series, which brings together, you know, researchers, developers, technologists, entrepreneurs, Internet Freedom Advocate, to, you know, look at all the issues of fragmentation and find ways to go around. So that’s such we work directly with communities affected with network shutdown, filtering, or target digital repression, and from our own perspective, there are at least two urgent and under addressed gaps that demand immediate attention from our community. And we call the first one the political normalization of network control. It’s a big word. Tools of censorship, surveillance, and fragmentation are no longer exceptional. They are becoming normalized instruments of governance. We are witnessing a global shift where controlling Internet access is increasingly equated with sovereign state power. And this is not happening on the margin. It’s happening at scale. scale. And yet, even in this week of a high-level discussion on internet governance, censorship and shutdown felt a bit absent from the agenda. We discussed a lot about AI, but these emergencies seemed a bit overlooked. For instance, maybe I’ve missed, but I’ve seen no formal discussion on Iran’s recent full-scale shutdown affecting nearly 90 million people these last 10 days as we were speaking. Very little serious engagement also with the ongoing restriction on Palestinians restricted to 2G networks, digital ghettoization that has persisted for years. So this is just two examples, but they’re not isolated events. They are part of a global pattern that will continue unless we act much more. Efforts like the best practice forum on protecting core internet resources in context of conflict are welcome. I think it happened yesterday, and we intend to support them. But we must scale this effort, and this discussion should be more integrated, not only restricted to the policy network on internet fragmentation, but more included in the whole IGF process. If we want to leave no one behind, I mean, I heard that mantra a lot there all week. We must apply even when government decide to shut down the internet for political purposes. In this context, the GDC, frame as it is, as a roadmap for right-based internet governance, risk legitimizing fragmentation by enriching national sovereignty over domestic internet. It may inadvertently give cover to state-led shutdowns and repression. We must ensure that embedded human rights in. digital governance is more than rhetorical. We need mechanism to make it more difficult and even more costly for government to shut down the internet. If I may, I’d like to spend a few minutes just to look at Iran’s control fragmentation that we’ve seen this week. In the last 10 days, Iran has demonstrated a new level of sophistication in state-controlled network fragmentation. It’s been like four times since 2009, and each time the regime learned. And now, after 16 years of trial and error, they can manage it successfully. Their national information network made sure that domestic accesses throughout the local services, bank and internal messaging was working normally. But anything from outside to inside could not reach the servers. This is really full fragmentation in course. It’s happening right now. There has been a few tools which managed to work. And without going into details of such tools, you know, I can mention like Touche, a satellite-based forecasting system, which managed to send a lot more content during those days. The senior browser that we created, the peer-to-peer tool using BitTorrent, continued to distribute. Some matrix server work. Delta chat is another one. But all these tools, you know, are somehow a bit marginal in the context. And they need to be promoted before shutdown happens. So you need a lot of investment before, a lot of preparedness, and continuous innovation of these tools, because the reality is that shutdowns are becoming, I mean, the sensors are becoming more and more, you know, performant. So the tool needs to be also updated all the time. And that takes me to my second gap here. And it really is the collapse of funding for Internet freedom tools like this. It is no secret that the United States has been the primary funder of global Internet freedom efforts since a few years now, contributing nearly 250 million annually. Now, the recent estimates suggest that up to 80% of this funding is being cut for this year and the year beyond. That will leave a massive gap at the worst possible time. Without immediate action from other governments, you know, Canada, EU member states and other allies, we risk losing essential infrastructure, tools and networks that allow people to stay online and safe. In short term, that means stabilizing – we need to stabilize funding for critical tools before they disappear. We need to support local webdesk, training hub, adapted version of censorship and conventional tools. We need mapping the real impact of the funding cost to guide smart emergency level decision in the next six months. This is no moment for bureaucratic delays. And on the long term, really, we need to treat digital resilience as an essential infrastructure. We should open – we should support open interoperable and sovereign alternatives to big tech. We need to mainstream encryption and privacy as fundamental rights. Digital shutdowns are no longer rare or extreme. They are part of the digital political playbook. If we fail to take them seriously, we will continue to see vulnerable communities cut off, silenced and left behind. I’ll stop here. Thanks to you.

Bruna Santos: Thanks, Michel. And thanks also for highlighting – I think it was the main point that came across to us when we were starting the framework mapping rights that the tools – not the tools, but the abusive usage of internet shutdowns, first in the context of elections and then in different contexts as well, as the ones you highlighted. So, thanks a lot for bringing that into the conversation and also the points on the current crisis in the development sector, right? I do believe that some of those things, they might affect in the longer run the conversations we have. They do affect indeed the participation of civil society organizations and many other stakeholders here. But it’s also important to highlight, I mean I feel the obligation to highlight here as well, that we do have had, we did have in the past years, many allied governments to the digital freedoms agenda as well. And we had spaces like the Freedom Online Coalition and many other collectives or governmental coalitions that have been trying to counter-react to the usage of those tools or try to get across with a more concrete message. But thanks a lot for highlighting those points and as a fellow civil society member I appreciate the points made. Dhruv, I will bring the conversation to you to talk a bit more about technical fragmentation, right? I think it was the first point that was brought up to us when we started the PNIF. And we often heard there’s no technical fragmentation, why are you guys starting this work, right? What extra things or what new things are you going to discuss? So maybe if you had any thoughts or ideas on how we could work together on the GDC commitments and in making sure that the core aspect of the internet and the critical infrastructure of it is being well-kept and the commitments around it. So yeah, thanks.

Internet Architecture Board representative: Thank you. Thanks for giving me an opportunity to be on the panel and bring out where the technical community is coming from. I’m on the Internet Architecture Board which is part of our Internet Engineering Task Force. We do all the internet standards, everything that we use, IP, DNS, email, HTTP, DLS, all the protocols that we see on the internet today were standardized at ITF. are global standards. They are implemented everywhere. The fear from the technical community that always comes is at the technical layer, as you were also highlighting in your PNIF framework, that we lead to interoperable solutions where instead of an internet that is fully connected, where we can communicate from any part of the world to any other networks, we end up into regional or isolated networks that no longer work with each other. That can be also at the technical layer. The thing that we worry the most is in that cases, as standards organizations and ITF and others continue to develop new standards, and we add new extensions, we enable more privacy, we enable new things, there are sometimes regulations that comes in, which has an impact not just on the country where the regulation is coming from, but on the global internet. So there is a huge fear that we have, especially in the terms of digital sovereignty and governments focusing on having more regulation and control over internet, but at the same time realizing that it’s very hard to regulate something which is completely global. The internet is without borders, but the digital sovereignty is within borders. So we have to be always mindful. We realize that the governments have a reason to regulate, they are doing something, but at the same time, internet is unique in its own way. So when they try to regulate anything, always keeping the fear of what is the bigger impact on the internet architecture, on the infrastructure, on the core technical layer, has to be always kept in the back of the mind. So when you asked what could be the next step, I hope that when these regulations comes in, there is a trust in the technical community that yes, we can rely on their expertise that they have developed. they have been running, there are real engineering and operational realities out there, which needs to work with the regulations that is coming in. So if there could be more collaboration, more understanding from each other’s point of view, that’s the hope that the technical community would have and something that I personally also care for. Thank you.

Bruna Santos: Lovely, thanks, thanks so much. And we did hear this many times across these years, the relevance of coordination, the relevance of bringing the experts back into the room, because it’s really interesting that we come from all of these forums, IAB, ITF, ICANN, IGF in itself, and we preach about multi-stakeholderism all the time, but it’s also true that when there’s this fast policymaking decisions, they come to exist. We don’t really have the time sometimes to include all the experts in the table because we’re mainly focusing on giving efficient, quick answers to those problems, and answers that might protect users, might make sure that the crisis, they don’t go further. But indeed, it’s one of the main points that we do at least have a point, or more checkpoints on with the technical community, with academia and many other experts in that sense, just so we know that we’re doing the right thing and just so we know we can continue to do those types of measures and so on. And I’m gonna bring it to you, Joyce, as well, because in the last two to three years, we also saw an even growing movement for coordination of the technical community, especially in light of the said exclusion you guys had from the global digital compact process, or the lack of acknowledgement, let’s say it like that, in a more diplomatic way. But maybe if you can just enlighten us on the coordination efforts that have been done recently, and also reminding everyone that you work for APRINIC, so one of the core organizations in this space, together with the IAB and many other colleagues. Thanks.

Moderator: Thank you so much, Bruna, and also thank you to Wim, thank you to Sheetal. So, I would like to start by saying thank you to all of you for being here today. I would like to thank you all for the very kind invitation to speak in this very important session. I will first begin by talking about the WSIS elements paper. I think that has been on everybody’s mind in the past week. And the elements paper highlighted the risks of Internet fragmentation. As a core issue to be addressed, this shows that the risk of Internet fragmentation is very high. So, I would like to thank the PNIF for your wonderful work in this regard. You have helped us over the years to articulate what Internet fragmentation is or could be. I think the real risk to Internet fragmentation, and here I’m quoting, I believe it’s one of the ICANN papers that they have published over the past few months, where they said the real risk to Internet fragmentation is the risk of Internet fragmentation. So, I would like to thank the PNIF for their work in this regard. And in this regard, APNIC as part of the Internet technical community and the larger multi-stakeholder Internet governance community has always supported strong and inclusive coordination and cooperation amongst all stakeholders. One way to mitigate fragmentation is to make sure that there are no breakages in the functioning of the Internet. If we look at the IGF, the IGF itself is a capacity-building, confidence-building forum, where the Internet community can gather and talk exactly about these issues. The Internet and the use of the Internet are constantly evolving, and the IGF is the space for us to frame and set the agenda for discussions on fragmentation issues. So, I would like to thank the PNIF for their work in this regard. takes place. I want to highlight that coordination is not often visible, but if fragmentation were to happen, it would take the invisible and make it visible. It would mean that the internet has points of failure. And so, here, I want to talk a bit about the current ICP2 or what we call the Internet Coordination Policy 2 review that is taking place. The ICANN address supporting organisation or ASO is reviewing this very important document is a fundamental document which we now call the RIR governance document. This document talks about the establishment and the de-recognition of RIRs. The original document was adopted in 2001, so it even predates the IGF, but it was instrumental in setting up the core internet organisations such as LACNIC and AFRINIC. Why did I bring this up? This is an example where the technical coordination is clearly laid out in the document, and,

Joyce Chen: if we don’t do this well, there is potential for systemic failure. We have had extensive community consultations on the draft RIR governance document so far, and, if you’re interested or curious to know what is going on, I encourage you to take a look at this document as well because it concerns the fundamental governance of the RIRs. Another example that I want to give of coordination within the technical community is the Technical Community Coalition on Multi-Stakeholderism, or TCCM. I think I’ve spoken about the TCCM across several other panels, but I think, again, it’s good to just talk about it because I think their work is very relevant to us as we’re talking about internet fragmentation. The TCCM is where technical operators of the internet gather to discuss core policy issues, and we started our work. during the GDC and are now continuing on into the WSIS plus 20 review process. It’s a different kind of capacity building. It’s not so much about technical coordination as such, but it is a form of policy coordination amongst the technical operators. And I think it is a much needed one. We’re fighting internet fragmentation by building bridges between the technical and the non-technical realms. Now, I wanted to address a remark made by Michelle, and I’m so thankful that you brought this up, regarding the severe cuts in funding and how that has affected a lot of the civil society, non-governmental organizations that are doing very, very good work in trying to mitigate internet fragmentation. And I want to bring up another example where such severe funding cuts have affected, especially the Pacific community. It’s to me, not just a vacuum of influence in a time of strained geopolitical tensions, but more importantly, such severe funding cuts have really hampered the Pacific community, which is far away enough from everyone in their internet development efforts and having them be able to access the internet. And so this to me is a really important topic. I hope that we could perhaps have a little discussion around that. And so just in summary, I think the PNIF is in a great position to continue this work on internet fragmentation and to develop recommendations for GDC implementation because we have not really seen much work in this area as to do with the implementation itself. I think it’s also crucial that the PNIF includes your voice in the WSIS plus 20 review process. Thank you.

Bruna Santos: Thanks. Thanks Joyce. And reminding that in. of the high level event in less than 10 days now, right? And hoping to see a lot of us in Geneva as well, discussing some of the same topics and some of the same need for coordination and so on. I think now we open for questions from the audience, right? So I’m not sure how do we do with the microphones, but we should have one here. And if folks would like to make a question, feel free to just jump into the queue. Do we have a microphone?

Audience: Hi, my name is Vinicius Fortuna. I work at Google. I’m the engineering lead for our internet freedom effort. And I just wanted to highlight that on the topic of digital sovereignty, it’s almost like incompatible with internet as a whole, because they don’t depend on other people anymore, right? So like, why would just keep communicating? I think really the key here is the interdependency. So we need to make sure that we highlight the need for this interdependency, like what are the benefits and demonstrate that it’s like more effective. You can be more efficient by depending on others. You see examples like China, for example, like they became independent pretty much and they don’t depend on external service. So they are able to block like Google and Wikipedia and many other services because they have reproduced it internally. So it makes it really easy. And you’ve seen that with Iran too. And things like sanctions make it worse because it kind of like forces the country to become sovereign in a way. And so we need to also like to remove. the sanctions that are hurting, really, this and accelerating the separation of Iran. So, I think this is also a reflection of a bigger trend, like we see this polarization and distrust. I think distrust is really what’s pushing countries to also distrust each other and separate. So, I think there’s this fundamental kind of question that needs to be addressed, too. Hi, Juan Ortiz Freuler, PhD candidate in the University of Southern California. Perhaps echoing what the previous speaker mentioned, it was interesting to see how the GDC speaks in terms of protecting against Internet fragmentation without really addressing the root causes of it. I was wondering who you think is going to be the champion of this interdependence now that the US doesn’t seem to be interested in doing that. Europe, with this sovereignty agenda, perhaps isn’t as interested. I think some of the companies used to be, but now that we have these big tech companies, they don’t necessarily need to interoperate anymore. Many of them are less interested in making their services interoperable. So, who is left for this agenda? Or is this not something that we’re going to be discussing in two, three years because the term fragmentation is over?

Bruna Santos: Thanks, Juan. I think we have a question from remote, but I’ll give you guys a chance to answer or address it. I don’t know if the remote speakers, and I know Joyce is going to address it. Go ahead. You can lie if you want. Check the remote.

Joyce Chen: Thanks very much. I can’t see anymore where they’ve gone. Thank you very much. critical issues, both the gentlemen who spoke. One was on increasing isolationism and protectionism in an environment where there is a lot of distrust. And I think Drew spoke so eloquently about how we are trying to build trust of the technical community to be able to continue functioning and doing our work. And I completely agree that there is a complete disconnect between this idea of digital sovereignty, which has become sort of the buzzword for a lot of nations to talk about, or rather to frame, the way that they think about the internet and how they feel their citizens should use the internet. And that does rather disturb me, because a lot of the times where digital sovereignty is raised is often code word for something else. And I’ll leave it to your imaginations what they mean when they say that. And I think that it goes against the idea of a borderless internet where we celebrate permissionless innovation. And how do we sort of transmit these values from the technical community and bridge the gap of understanding from governments and nation states to understand why do we do work in this way and why is this important to us in making sure that the internet is global, it is single, it continues to be interoperable? So this is a lot of the work that we are continuing to do. And I’ll use this to segue into the other gentleman who talks about who is the champion of interdependency. It is not the technical community. I’m going to just put it right out there. We have spent many years talking about the values of the internet and why we have to maintain it as it is. And I think our voice has sort of dropped. into a bucket of pool of water and it, you know, where does it go? Right? So, my answer to you is, it’s very cliche, but I think the champions are us, all of us, collectively in the multi-stakeholder community, because we amplify each other’s voices. The technical community can’t always be, you know, kind of raising the banner and, you know, we keep talking and talking about the same things with the diplomats, with the governments, but if these messages are not carried across with other stakeholder groups, it becomes difficult. We are like the sole voice, just keep talking about this. So, it is the responsibility of the multi-stakeholder community. I do strongly feel that we should demonstrate why we are this multi-stakeholder community and be able to, you know, bolster each other this way.

Sheetal Kumar: Okay, thank you so much. Let me just navigate to the question. Okay, so the question is, most of global trade and transactions happens directly or indirectly through the Internet. If there are barriers between geographies in a scenario of well-established Internet barriers, do we go back to communication by post and telephones or establish inter-regional treaties and bilateral treaties just to be able to send an email across geographies? So, I suppose this is about what kind of legal regulatory solutions could we see or is the solution. in treaties or in something else perhaps. Hopefully I’ve understood that and related it to you clearly.

Bruna Santos: Thanks, I’ll take Peter’s question as well and then we can see who from our panellists would like to address them. So Peter, you have the floor.

Audience: Okay, thanks Bruna. This is Peter Koch, I work for DINIC, the German top level domain registry, ccTLD. Following up on one of the previous speakers here at the microphone and maybe also on Jen’s response, somebody said that the notion of fragmentation is kind of losing a meaning. I’m wondering whether it is not the notion of internet that is confused here a bit and maybe the panel can reflect on that a bit. I mean this goes into the direction of the governance on and governance off and when we were talking about the sovereignty which is often control over content that reaches my population, where that line is and whether there might be confusion actually what we mean, what they mean when they say internet versus what the technical community means when we say what the internet is. Thank you.

Bruna Santos: Any takers, commenters on the questions? Not sure Marilia if you’d like to say something also about this, putting you on the spot, using the Brazilian privilege here.

Marilia Maciel: Thank you Bruna. I can take a couple of questions. Let me just say a few words about digital sovereignty before I move to Siva’s question. I think that the association between digital sovereignty and isolationism and fragmentation is not necessarily true. One thing does not necessarily lead to the other and if we see why discussions on digital sovereignty appeared in internet governance, they seem from the fact that we had more than a decade of liberal digital economy, which has made sure that the internet became global, which has lowered the prices of ICTs and services, and brought us many benefits. But that has also brought us many flip sides, which were negative, such as the erosion of our rights online, and more inequality in the context of digital economy. The promises that the digital economy would bring wealth to everybody were just not fulfilled. We had more concentration in the context of the digital economy. So in order to redress these imbalances, several countries have started to formulate requests for more autonomy, autonomy to deal with trade-offs, policy trade-offs, that were being created in the context of the internet. And I think that many of these requests for more autonomy and self-determination, they are legitimate. Whether they should be framed as digital sovereignty, as a word or not, is another story. But we ignore them for far too long. And I think that one thing does not necessarily lead to the other. We need to pay attention to countries and other actors who are formulating the need for more right and economic balance, whether this is through a digital sovereignty or not. But let me go to the question of SIVA, because I think it’s a very interesting and provocative one. Because it is important to define fragmentation, but it’s also important to try to define its flip side. So if we don’t want fragmentation, what do we want to see? What is the internet that we want? Sometimes it’s easier to fight for something that we want, than to try to defend ourselves from what we do not want to see. And I think a very good word to define this flip side is internet openness, which in the IGF has been understood as interoperability, as open standards, as flows of data packets, of content, and open governance. But openness is never a binary concept. We cannot have full closeness. We cannot have full openness if we don’t have. If we had no openness at all, the Internet would collapse. And I think it’s clear from different sectors that we do not want to go back to the telephone or to the telegraph, as Siva suggested. We need to have the Internet because we depend on its value, economically, socially. So what are the solutions that we need to put in place in order to see an Internet that does not fragment to the point in which it becomes useless to societies and to the economy? I think that a sad scenario that you mentioned, which seems more plausible than going back to the telephone, is to have regional Internets. Not because there’s a technical fragmentation, but because there is a market fragmentation. And this is happening already. If you live in Switzerland and you have a Huawei phone, you cannot update your phone fully anymore. I have friends who have been Huawei users for life because they just liked the phone, but they are thinking about switching. They don’t have the freedom to use this hardware anymore, because although it’s built on an open-source Android software, they cannot have updates being offered from Google anymore, and apps are not being offered to run on Huawei phones. So we are already fragmented in a way. Fragmentation from the standpoint of hardware, it has effects upstream. So we need to consider that as well when we are discussing fragmentation. And it’s important to bring this aspect of how much we are fragmenting value chains to the picture.

Bruna Santos: Thank you, Marília. I think we’re seeing a lot of very concrete, different perspectives on the discussion, and it’s very interesting that this session is diving into this, because from one side you see fragmentation, from the other side you see sovereignty as possibly a positive thing that states might be able and might need to introduce at some point, but at the same time these sovereignty measures might result in different points, and so on. But I’ll hand it to Wim, because I think we want to maybe dive into these more concrete aspects. or concrete suggestions kind of areas and just noting that maybe this, perhaps this differentiation between fragmentation and sovereignty can be one first thing that we start or one first thing that the report this year can address. I will stop talking and give the floor back to you.

Moderator: Thank you. As you can easily see, this is a very interesting discussion with a lot of facets. I’m pretty sure we could fill a full IGF week just talking about internet fragmentation, hearing all views and opinions, but I would like to ask a very concrete question to each of the panelists, also the online panelists and the audience. We, like I said, we work as an intersectional activity between, usually we work in a month before the IGF, then the IGF is our end point. This year, it’s thanks to the different scheduling, we have the opportunity to kick off most of our work at the IGF with an interesting discussion and then work in the months after the IGF. The aim is that we have our report ready by the 1st of November. So, a concrete question to each of the panelists, also the audience, for me is what can we do? If you have one short discussion, this is something you can do in the next months and report on by the 1st of November and this would be helpful for the discussion. So, maybe let’s start with Joyce.

Joyce Chen: They can also be hot takes, if you want. I think moving forward, it might be useful for the PNIF to really look at some of the initiatives that have already begun or might be beginning that would address issues that are related to internet fragmentation. I think it would be quite hard to find specific initiatives that are tackling exactly the topic of internet fragmentation but there is a lot of work that is going on around it and I have already pointed out several of this sort. of coordination that’s happening. So, if the report could perhaps put in some of the efforts that are already being done, I think that would really enrich your report. Okay, thank you.

Naim Gjokaj: Before I see what next, I would just short mention that, especially coming from the government, what fragmentation means. One element that I didn’t mention, that it affects totally transparency and justice system. So, if we want strong institutions, we have to stop and really talk more about this. And especially supporting, because in my country region, we support a lot of startups. So, if we want to start continuous supporting startups on digital network, we should talk about this. So, what next? I think that we really start from the political level and more operational should start working on gaps. I think that there are not too much gaps, but gaps exist. And of course, support more capacity building, but in local level. So, people local level understand how fragmentation can affect their everyday work, especially in digital plan. And of course, at the end, PNAF just continues its work. Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you. So, what should we start to work on Monday?

Internet Architecture Board representative: Yes, from my point of view, I think what would be nice to also include, explain a little bit more what is the risk of internet fragmentation from the technical layer aspects. Because especially when we see, as you said, it’s such a bottom, that’s why we came up with the framework. But the risk at the technical layer is in my mind is the highest, at least from where I sit. And that would have, I feel, the biggest impact. But that’s not very clear to the other folks. Maybe the technical So I hope that via this PNIR report, we can make that more clear, that why does the technical community at the technical layer focuses on fragmentation at that level so much, that why, when the loss comes in, and why sometimes they ask for conflicting things for the Internet architecture itself, because it’s not like the various governments have the same philosophy. It’s not like the various governments have the same philosophies, they don’t have the same requirement, but we have one Internet, and we have to make sure that it remains one Internet. And for that point, we need to articulate a little bit more better. And I hope we can partner on that and do something on this aspect. Thank you.

Moderator: Let’s move to the online panelist. Maria.

Marilia Maciel: Thank you, Ben. I think that listening to discussions today, it becomes clear how the palette of topics that are encompassed under fragmentation are very diverse. And I think that this may be a little bit paralyzing. If I were to suggest something to the policy network, it would be to prioritize which type of fragmentation the network wants to tackle in terms of topic in each work cycle. And the GDC talks about risks. I think this is a very important word. Perhaps it would be time to consult the IGF community with, I don’t know, a questionnaire or something that they can reply to. Today, looking at the state of the world, which are the main risks being brought by fragmentation? Is it technical? Is it commercial? Is it censorship? And to focus on the work cycle on these particular risks. I think it would be easier like this to bring actors together to identify them and to have a discussion that becomes more focused and constructive in which we can have concrete outcomes. Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you. And Michel, last, give us some concrete work to do.

Michel Lambert: Well, last word, I would say that we often oppose sovereignty and fragmentation. Maybe my own definition here. In Canada, where I’m from, people are a lot of talking about being sovereign. And being sovereign over the Internet, it is completely technical. They would like that our country depends less on other countries for its own infrastructure, for its own data, for them to be more controlled by us. So this is OK, and this is sovereignty. Now, fragmentation is totally political. Of course, we use a technical layer to make it happen, but it’s totally political. Somebody somewhere decides that some user does not have access to some content. We need to understand that, and that discussion needs to be at a political level to make it not happening anymore.

Moderator: OK, thank you. Looking also at the audience, I would like to say, if you have ideas, very practical ideas of what we as policy network should do, I would recommend two things. First of all, subscribe to the mailing list of the policy network. You’ll find details on the website. The second thing, if you have ideas, please contact me. Please contact Bruna, Sheetal, or Teresa. We didn’t hear her, but she was following our MAG co-facilitator. Just with ideas, we will be more than happy to hear. I see we have four minutes left, and I would like to go back to Sheetal, who has been following, taking notes, and will make a wrap-up of today’s session. Back to you, Sheetal.

Sheetal Kumar: Wonderful. Thank you so much, Rem. I want to attempt to summarize the different areas of discussion by looking at three areas where I found there was confluence, and it was interesting to hear all of the different perspectives to some extent. that we see when it comes to addressing Internet fragmentation, examples of some good practice, and then recommendations, which you just ended on there by asking everyone for their recommendations for the PNIF. So those three areas, if we start with the problems that you discussed, we also obviously heard from remote and in-person participants on this, some of the problems that were brought up were included, still a lack of common understanding or the use of different terminologies when we’re talking about this issue, but also increasing attempts at territorialization and the use of sovereignty concepts that have been really about strengthening the state itself, the entanglement of economic and national security, and the political normalization of network control. There was a discussion of the need to address that perhaps by bringing in discussions of or knowledge of the broader digital political economy. And so another problem perhaps connected to that is the disconnect between regulators and the technical community, a lack of understanding perhaps between the different communities, misalignment and breakdown of coordination and cooperation between different stakeholder communities was also referenced, linking to that. There was also a lack of funding for actors who were working to address internet fragmentation and digital repression and distrust between different countries and communities. So considering all of that, there were also examples of good practice to address such problems. We heard about in Montenegro working to promote economic and political arrangements that align with the broader EU frameworks. We heard about with the IAB, the development, of course, of global standards that promote interoperable data flows. We heard about the work of civil society and others to address. digital repression by developing technical open source solutions. We heard about the RIR governance document which is a really concrete example of setting out how cooperation can happen, what expectations are, and we heard about the technical community coalition for multi-stakeholderism which is an example of coordination and information sharing. So to end on recommendations and where we’re going to launch the PNIF work really and invite you to continue to be part of this discussion. I think it was Joyce you mentioned that the IGF is a confidence and capacity building space and so we want to continue to use that. There was recommendations that we develop more collaboration between the technical community and regulators and other stakeholders so that there is increased understanding of the impacts of regulation on the globality of the internet. It was suggested we consider discussion and connections to the political economy so these discussions are happening in a vacuum but the broader trends there are mobilized companies perhaps as part of that. Perhaps we should focus in on a few risks to the global internet, identify other examples of successful coordination so we had the TCCM but other ones perhaps that we seek ways to support actors and increase resourcing for addressing or figure out recommendations for increasing resourcing for addressing network control that we engage with the WSIS plus 20 process and perhaps develop implementation recommendations for that cooperation commitment in the global digital compact. So I’m just going to hand back to you now and ending with that call for everyone to remain engaged in this discussion. We had so many recommendations there coming at the end about what we can practically do and I look forward to working with you all together on taking those forward back to you.

Bruna Santos: to wrap up. We just saw a time-out come on the screen, so I would like to thank everyone for attending this session, thank our panelists for this incredible discussion, and this is just the 20th IGF. We hope there’s 40 more, a thousand more, and we do look forward to continue engaging with you all with the PNAF perspective, but also as part of the IGF community. Thanks a lot. Thank you. Thank you.

Moderator:

Agreement points

Need for better coordination and collaboration between technical community and regulators

Need for collaboration between technical community and regulators to understand impacts

Multi-stakeholder community collectively must champion interdependence rather than technical community alone

Need to mobilize companies because they’re the ones who hold the main pieces of the puzzle to understand what’s going on

All speakers agree that there’s a critical disconnect between technical experts and policymakers, and that better coordination mechanisms are needed to ensure regulations don’t inadvertently harm internet architecture while addressing legitimate policy concerns.

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Framework approach is valuable for facilitating fragmentation discussions

Framework development to facilitate discussion rather than define fragmentation – three baskets: user experience, governance coordination, and technical layer

Framework helps identify what aspect of fragmentation is being discussed without endless definitional debates

Need for common understanding and aligned terminology when discussing fragmentation

The co-facilitators agree that the three-basket framework has been successful in moving beyond definitional debates to productive discussions about different aspects of internet fragmentation.

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Funding cuts pose serious threats to internet freedom and anti-fragmentation efforts

Severe funding cuts (80%) to internet freedom efforts creating critical gaps

Pacific community particularly affected by funding cuts hampering internet development

Both speakers highlight how significant funding reductions are undermining efforts to combat internet fragmentation and support digital rights, particularly affecting vulnerable communities.

Development | Human rights | Cybersecurity

Similar viewpoints

Both recognize that current geopolitical tensions and sovereignty-focused policies are driving countries toward digital independence, which fundamentally conflicts with the internet’s interdependent nature and accelerates fragmentation.

Rising geopolitical tensions leading to re-territorialization and digital sovereignty measures

Digital sovereignty concepts often incompatible with global internet interdependence

Sanctions and isolationist policies accelerate fragmentation by forcing countries toward independence

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Infrastructure

Both acknowledge the importance of legal frameworks in addressing fragmentation, though from different perspectives – one emphasizing the need for such frameworks and the other cautioning about their potential negative impacts on global internet architecture.

Need for legal frameworks specifically addressing fragmentation at national level

Fear of regulations impacting global internet architecture and interoperability

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Both recognize that governments are increasingly using network control as a normalized governance tool, whether for political reasons or in response to security threats, contributing to fragmentation.

Political normalization of network control

Cyber attacks and security concerns can force governments toward fragmentation measures

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Unexpected consensus

Digital sovereignty as potentially legitimate but problematic in practice

The association between digital sovereignty and isolationism and fragmentation is not necessarily true. One thing does not necessarily lead to the other

Digital sovereignty often used as code word for state control rather than legitimate autonomy

Despite coming from different perspectives, both speakers acknowledge that while digital sovereignty concepts may have legitimate foundations (addressing rights erosion and economic inequality), they are often misused as cover for state control, creating an unexpected nuanced consensus on this contentious topic.

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Economic

Market-driven fragmentation already occurring

Market fragmentation already occurring – example of Huawei phones losing Google services access

Digital sovereignty concepts often incompatible with global internet interdependence

There’s unexpected agreement that fragmentation is not just a theoretical future risk but is already happening through market mechanisms and corporate decisions, independent of government policies, which adds urgency to the discussion.

Economic | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on several key issues: the value of the PNIF framework for facilitating discussions, the critical need for better coordination between technical and policy communities, the serious threat posed by funding cuts to anti-fragmentation efforts, and the recognition that fragmentation is already occurring through various mechanisms. There’s also nuanced agreement on the complex relationship between digital sovereignty and fragmentation.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on diagnostic issues and framework approaches, with constructive disagreement on solutions. This suggests a mature discussion where stakeholders understand the problems similarly but may have different priorities for addressing them. The consensus provides a strong foundation for collaborative action, particularly around the Global Digital Compact implementation and WSIS+20 processes.

Different viewpoints

Nature and legitimacy of digital sovereignty

The association between digital sovereignty and isolationism and fragmentation is not necessarily true. One thing does not necessarily lead to the other and if we see why discussions on digital sovereignty appeared in internet governance, they seem from the fact that we had more than a decade of liberal digital economy, which has made sure that the internet became global, which has lowered the prices of ICTs and services, and brought us many benefits. But that has also brought us many flip sides, which were negative, such as the erosion of our rights online, and more inequality in the context of digital economy.

Digital sovereignty has become a buzzword that often serves as code for something else, creating a disconnect with the idea of a borderless internet that celebrates permissionless innovation. This concept often goes against the values of maintaining a global, single, interoperable internet.

Digital sovereignty concepts often incompatible with global internet interdependence

Marilia Maciel argues that digital sovereignty can be legitimate and doesn’t necessarily lead to fragmentation, representing valid requests for autonomy to address imbalances in the digital economy. Joyce Chen and audience members view digital sovereignty as often being a ‘code word’ that fundamentally conflicts with internet interdependence and borderless connectivity.

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Economic

Primary focus for addressing fragmentation

The risk at the technical layer is in my mind is the highest, at least from where I sit. And that would have, I feel, the biggest impact.

Fragmentation is totally political. Of course, we use a technical layer to make it happen, but it’s totally political. Somebody somewhere decides that some user does not have access to some content. We need to understand that, and that discussion needs to be at a political level to make it not happening anymore.

Need to add economic fragmentation dimension to framework – fragmentation affecting global digital economy and value chains

The IAB representative emphasizes technical layer fragmentation as the highest risk, Michel Lambert argues fragmentation is fundamentally political in nature requiring political solutions, while Marilia Maciel focuses on economic fragmentation through market mechanisms and value chains as a key dimension.

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Approach to framework development and scope

Framework helps identify what aspect of fragmentation is being discussed without endless definitional debates

Focus on specific risks and prioritize which types of fragmentation to tackle in each work cycle

The Moderator advocates for maintaining the broad three-basket framework to facilitate discussion across all dimensions, while Marilia Maciel suggests narrowing focus to specific priority risks in each work cycle to avoid paralysis from the broad scope.

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Role of sanctions in driving fragmentation

Sanctions and isolationist policies accelerate fragmentation by forcing countries toward independence

Severe funding cuts (80%) to internet freedom efforts creating critical gaps

While both speakers address external pressures that worsen fragmentation, there’s an unexpected tension between viewing sanctions as problematic (audience perspective) versus focusing on funding cuts to freedom tools as the main external challenge (Michel’s perspective). This reveals different views on whether the problem is punitive measures or lack of support for circumvention.

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Human rights

Scope of fragmentation framework

Framework development to facilitate discussion rather than define fragmentation – three baskets: user experience, governance coordination, and technical layer

Need to add economic fragmentation dimension to framework – fragmentation affecting global digital economy and value chains

Unexpected disagreement on whether the established three-basket framework is sufficient or needs expansion. The Moderator presents the framework as complete and proven effective, while Marilia argues for adding a fourth economic dimension, suggesting the framework may be incomplete for current challenges.

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed significant disagreements on fundamental conceptual issues including the legitimacy of digital sovereignty, the primary drivers of fragmentation (technical vs political vs economic), and the appropriate scope and focus for addressing fragmentation. While speakers generally agreed on the importance of coordination and multi-stakeholder approaches, they differed substantially on priorities and mechanisms.

Disagreement level

Moderate to high disagreement level with significant implications for policy development. The disagreements suggest that the internet governance community lacks consensus on root causes and solutions for fragmentation, which could hamper effective collective action. The tension between sovereignty and interdependence represents a fundamental philosophical divide that affects all other aspects of the discussion.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both recognize that current geopolitical tensions and sovereignty-focused policies are driving countries toward digital independence, which fundamentally conflicts with the internet’s interdependent nature and accelerates fragmentation.

Rising geopolitical tensions leading to re-territorialization and digital sovereignty measures

Digital sovereignty concepts often incompatible with global internet interdependence

Sanctions and isolationist policies accelerate fragmentation by forcing countries toward independence

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Infrastructure

Both acknowledge the importance of legal frameworks in addressing fragmentation, though from different perspectives – one emphasizing the need for such frameworks and the other cautioning about their potential negative impacts on global internet architecture.

Need for legal frameworks specifically addressing fragmentation at national level

Fear of regulations impacting global internet architecture and interoperability

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Both recognize that governments are increasingly using network control as a normalized governance tool, whether for political reasons or in response to security threats, contributing to fragmentation.

Political normalization of network control

Cyber attacks and security concerns can force governments toward fragmentation measures

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Key takeaways

The Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation (PNIF) framework with three baskets (user experience, governance coordination, technical layer) has proven effective for facilitating discussions without getting stuck on definitions

Internet fragmentation is being driven by multiple factors including geopolitical tensions, digital sovereignty measures, re-territorialization, and the normalization of network control as a governance tool

There is a significant gap between the Global Digital Compact’s commitment to prevent internet fragmentation (paragraph 29C) and actual implementation efforts or mapping of activities

Economic fragmentation of digital value chains is already occurring (e.g., Huawei phones losing Google services) and represents an underexplored dimension that should be added to the framework

Severe funding cuts (up to 80%) to internet freedom efforts are creating critical gaps in tools and support for communities facing digital repression

The technical community fears that regulations implemented without their input could inadvertently damage internet interoperability and global connectivity

Multi-stakeholder coordination and trust-building are essential, as no single stakeholder group can effectively champion internet interdependence alone

Resolutions and action items

PNIF will produce a report by November 1st focusing on concrete recommendations and implementation guidance

Participants encouraged to subscribe to PNIF mailing list and contact co-facilitators with practical ideas

PNIF should prioritize specific types of fragmentation risks in each work cycle rather than trying to address all aspects simultaneously

Develop better articulation of technical layer fragmentation risks and their potential impacts for non-technical stakeholders

Create implementation recommendations for the GDC cooperation commitment on internet fragmentation

Engage with the WSIS+20 review process to ensure fragmentation concerns are addressed

Map existing initiatives that address fragmentation-related issues, even if not explicitly focused on fragmentation

Support capacity building at local levels so communities understand fragmentation impacts on their daily digital activities

Unresolved issues

Who will champion internet interdependence given declining US leadership and European focus on digital sovereignty

How to balance legitimate needs for digital autonomy and self-determination with maintaining global internet connectivity

How to address the fundamental tension between territorial governance systems and the borderless nature of the internet

How to replace the massive funding gap created by cuts to internet freedom programs

How to better coordinate between technical community and regulators to prevent inadvertent fragmentation through well-intentioned policies

Whether the concept of ‘internet fragmentation’ itself is losing meaning or relevance in current discussions

How to address the political normalization of network shutdowns and censorship as acceptable governance tools

How to include more diverse voices, particularly from the Global South, youth, and underrepresented regions in fragmentation discussions

Suggested compromises

Focus PNIF work on specific, prioritized fragmentation risks rather than trying to address all aspects simultaneously

Distinguish between legitimate digital sovereignty needs (addressing rights erosion and economic inequality) and problematic isolationist measures

Develop regional coordination approaches (like Montenegro’s EU alignment strategy) that balance local needs with global connectivity

Create consultation mechanisms to identify which fragmentation risks the IGF community considers most urgent

Build bridges between technical and policy communities through initiatives like the Technical Community Coalition on Multi-Stakeholderism

Treat digital resilience as essential infrastructure requiring sustained investment rather than project-based funding

Mainstream encryption and privacy as fundamental rights while maintaining global interoperability

We should add another dimension of our working notion of fragmentation, which would consider fragmentation in the global economy. While governments are acting upon markets and introducing elements of fragmentation, they do that by reducing previously agreed openness of digital markets and the openness of value chains that produce and distribute ICT goods and services, many times foreclosing these value chains to non-allies or to countries that are considered non-reliable.

Speaker

Marilia Maciel

Reason

This comment fundamentally expanded the framework beyond the traditional three baskets (technical, governance, user experience) to include economic fragmentation. It connected internet fragmentation to broader geopolitical and trade dynamics, showing how digital sovereignty measures can create economic barriers that fragment global value chains.

Impact

This intervention shifted the discussion from purely technical and governance perspectives to include economic and geopolitical dimensions. It prompted other speakers to consider how trade policies, sanctions, and economic security measures contribute to fragmentation, broadening the scope of what the Policy Network should address.

Tools of censorship, surveillance, and fragmentation are no longer exceptional. They are becoming normalized instruments of governance… this is not happening on the margin. It’s happening at scale. And yet, even in this week of a high-level discussion on internet governance, censorship and shutdown felt a bit absent from the agenda.

Speaker

Michel Lambert

Reason

This comment highlighted a critical gap between the theoretical discussions about fragmentation and the urgent reality of widespread internet shutdowns and censorship. It challenged the IGF community’s priorities by pointing out that while they discuss AI extensively, immediate threats like Iran’s shutdown affecting 90 million people receive little attention.

Impact

This intervention brought urgency and concrete examples to the discussion, shifting focus from abstract policy frameworks to immediate human rights concerns. It prompted discussions about funding cuts for internet freedom tools and the need for emergency responses, making the conversation more action-oriented.

Digital sovereignty is almost like incompatible with internet as a whole, because they don’t depend on other people anymore… So we need to make sure that we highlight the need for this interdependency… things like sanctions make it worse because it kind of like forces the country to become sovereign in a way.

Speaker

Vinicius Fortuna (Google)

Reason

This comment identified a fundamental tension at the heart of internet governance: the conflict between national desires for digital sovereignty and the internet’s inherently interdependent nature. It also provocatively suggested that sanctions accelerate fragmentation by forcing countries toward digital independence.

Impact

This intervention sparked a deeper philosophical discussion about whether digital sovereignty and internet openness are fundamentally incompatible. It led to Marilia’s nuanced response distinguishing between legitimate autonomy requests and isolationist fragmentation, elevating the discussion’s analytical depth.

The association between digital sovereignty and isolationism and fragmentation is not necessarily true. One thing does not necessarily lead to the other… many of these requests for more autonomy and self-determination, they are legitimate. Whether they should be framed as digital sovereignty, as a word or not, is another story.

Speaker

Marilia Maciel

Reason

This comment provided crucial nuance to the digital sovereignty debate, arguing that desires for autonomy often stem from legitimate concerns about rights erosion and economic inequality rather than isolationist tendencies. It challenged the binary thinking that equates all sovereignty measures with harmful fragmentation.

Impact

This intervention reframed the entire sovereignty discussion, moving it from a simple pro/anti-fragmentation debate to a more complex analysis of legitimate policy trade-offs. It influenced subsequent speakers to consider the motivations behind sovereignty measures rather than dismissing them outright.

Who is left for this agenda? Or is this not something that we’re going to be discussing in two, three years because the term fragmentation is over?

Speaker

Juan Ortiz Freuler

Reason

This provocative question challenged the fundamental premise of the Policy Network’s work by questioning whether anyone still champions internet interdependence. It forced participants to confront the possibility that the fragmentation discussion might become irrelevant if no major actors support openness.

Impact

This question prompted Joyce’s passionate response about collective responsibility in the multi-stakeholder community, leading to a discussion about who should champion internet openness. It shifted the conversation from technical solutions to questions of political will and advocacy strategy.

The real risk to Internet fragmentation is the risk of Internet fragmentation… if fragmentation were to happen, it would take the invisible and make it visible. It would mean that the internet has points of failure.

Speaker

Joyce Chen

Reason

This seemingly circular statement actually contained a profound insight: that the internet’s coordination mechanisms are invisible when working properly, but fragmentation would expose critical failure points. It highlighted how fragmentation makes visible the usually hidden infrastructure dependencies.

Impact

This comment helped bridge the gap between technical and policy discussions by explaining why technical coordination matters for broader internet governance. It influenced the discussion toward more concrete examples of coordination mechanisms like the RIR governance document.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally expanded and deepened the discussion beyond the original framework. Marilia’s economic dimension and Michel’s urgency about shutdowns shifted the conversation from theoretical to practical concerns. The sovereignty debate, sparked by Vinicius and nuanced by Marilia, moved the discussion from binary thinking to complex policy trade-offs. Juan’s provocative question about champions forced participants to confront the political reality of their work, while Joyce’s insights about invisible coordination helped bridge technical and policy perspectives. Together, these interventions transformed what could have been a routine framework discussion into a rich exploration of the tensions between sovereignty and openness, the urgency of current threats, and the challenges of maintaining internet interdependence in a fragmenting world. The comments collectively pushed the Policy Network toward more concrete, action-oriented work while acknowledging the complex political and economic forces driving fragmentation.

How can we better define and differentiate between internet fragmentation and digital sovereignty concepts?

Speaker

Bruna Santos

Explanation

This differentiation was identified as a potential first area for the PNIF report to address, as there’s confusion between legitimate sovereignty requests and harmful fragmentation

What are the main risks of internet fragmentation that the IGF community prioritizes today – technical, commercial, or censorship-related?

Speaker

Marilia Maciel

Explanation

She suggested consulting the IGF community with a questionnaire to identify which fragmentation risks to prioritize in each work cycle

How can we better articulate why technical layer fragmentation poses the highest risk to the internet?

Speaker

Internet Architecture Board representative (Dhruv)

Explanation

The technical community needs to better explain to other stakeholders why technical fragmentation has the biggest potential impact

Who will champion internet interdependence now that traditional champions seem less interested?

Speaker

Juan Ortiz Freuler (audience member)

Explanation

With the US reducing funding, Europe focusing on sovereignty, and big tech companies less interested in interoperability, it’s unclear who will lead this agenda

What legal and regulatory solutions exist for cross-border internet communication in scenarios of established internet barriers?

Speaker

Remote participant (Siva)

Explanation

This addresses whether bilateral treaties or other mechanisms would be needed to maintain basic internet communication across fragmented regions

How can we map the real impact of internet freedom funding cuts to guide emergency decisions?

Speaker

Michel Lambert

Explanation

With 80% cuts in US internet freedom funding, there’s urgent need to assess impacts and guide smart emergency-level decisions in the next six months

What other examples of successful coordination exist beyond the Technical Community Coalition for Multi-Stakeholderism?

Speaker

Sheetal Kumar

Explanation

To identify and document additional models of successful multi-stakeholder coordination that could be replicated

How can we better integrate discussions of digital political economy into internet governance forums like the IGF?

Speaker

Marilia Maciel

Explanation

The IGF has largely avoided discussing issues related to digital political economy, which represents a fragmentation of internet governance itself

What initiatives are already addressing internet fragmentation that could be documented and supported?

Speaker

Joyce Chen

Explanation

Rather than starting from scratch, the PNIF should identify and highlight existing efforts that tackle fragmentation-related issues

How can we develop more effective collaboration mechanisms between technical communities and regulators?

Speaker

Multiple speakers

Explanation

There’s a recognized disconnect between regulators making fast policy decisions and technical experts who understand the global internet implications