1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations:
- What will be the consequences to a global, unified internet if the ideology of "network sovereignty" increases in popularity among nation-states? In other words, what happens if the global internet becomes fragmented by nation-states as they attempt to exert unilateral control of networks within their borders?
- How might "network sovereignty" policies impact long-term social and economic development worldwide?
- What will the impact be on freedom of expression and freedom of assembly?
- Is "network sovereignty" beneficial or detrimental in terms of private sector innovation?
- What are the implications for circulation of news and information?
- If "network sovereignty" is not compatible with a multistakeholder model of interest governance, what is the role of civil society, technical communities, and multilateral organizations to make sure that our current form of internet governance is maintained?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed:
There was broad support among panelists for increased efforts to ensure that the internet remains one, interoperable global network. All speakers opposed so-called "network sovereignty" advocated by some governments which give them total control over information and data flows within their geographic jurisdiction. This policy position was deemed to be in diametric opposition to the type of multi-stakeholder internet governance endorsed by IGF processes. Some speakers noted the impact internet fragmentation would have an human rights, such as freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, while others noted the detrimental economic impact of limiting information flows. Audience members espoused concern not only about government control of the internet, but also the growing dominance of US-based tech platforms. Panelists agreed that this is a parallel concern, and should also be addressed by an increased emphasis on truly multi-stakeholder governance.
3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:
There was broad agreements that "network sovereignty" doctrine needs to be challenged by research and reporting that shows how it is detrminental to human rights and social progress. Audience members suggested the creation of a Dynamic Coalition to address the challenge. Panelists noted that one of the core ways to address this is by strengthening multi-stakeholder governance and forums like the IGF. Discussions around IGF Plus are one venue where this can addressed. Likewise, there was agreement that developing countries needed more assistance in developing tech policy - right now they often replicate what others governments are doing without always understanding the consequences. This is, in fact, one way that "network sovereignty" policies are spreading in developing countries.
4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:
The Open Internet for Democracy Initiative (https://openinternet.global) has a fellowship program this year where six fellows from six developing countries are doing research and analysis of how network sovereignty are impacting human rights in their countries. These individuals are looking to partners with others who are working on similar lines of research.
5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:
There is broad hope that discussion around IGF Plus will include strengthening multi-stakeholder governance and will incorporate more capacity building opportunities for officials from developing countries. This challenge of internet fragmentation is one that will play out over the medium and long-term, so there is no immeadiate fix. This is why building broader, more inclusive governance structures are important.
6. Estimated Participation:
175 onsite participants. 25 online participants.
90 onsite women participants. Unknown number of online women participants.
7. Reflection to Gender Issues:
The discussion did not directly broach gender issues.
