Session
Organizer 1: Mariëlle Wijermars, Maastricht University
Organizer 2: Dennis Redeker, Bremen International Graduate School of Social Sciences (BIGSSS)
Organizer 3: Giovanni De Gregorio, University of Oxford
Speaker 1: Harriet Moynihan, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Speaker 2: Dr. Olga Kyryliuk, Civil Society, Eastern European Group
Speaker 3: Juan Ortiz Freuler, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Speaker 4: Javier Pallero, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Speaker 5: Frane Maroevic, Civil Society, Intergovernmental Organization
Giovanni De Gregorio, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Dennis Redeker, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Mariëlle Wijermars, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Round Table - U-shape - 90 Min
Digital sovereignty: What is meant by digital sovereignty? What implications does it have for the global nature of the Internet, for Internet governance itself, and the effectiveness of the multistakeholder approach? From an opposite angle, what are the implications of the Internet and digitalisation for national sovereignty?
Additional Policy Questions Information: What implications does digital sovereignty have for human rights protection, and how can the Internet governance community effectively mitigate the human rights risks that stem from the possible fragmentation of the Internet?
The workshop directly addresses the policy questions related to digital sovereignty, while providing a further, innovative focus in two respects:
1) The current debate on digital sovereignty and how it may lead to the fragmentation of the Internet (resulting in a 'Splinternet' tends to focus only on sovereignisation initiated, promoted and implemented by states. However, we argue that we should instead speak of two parallel processes of fragmentation: transnational private actors operating in the digital environment, such as large technological corporations, also actively construct “walled gardens”, within which users can experience only a particular segment of the global Internet (e.g. Facebook Free Basics). The platformization of the web also increasingly poses challenges for interoperability and diversity. If we seek to understand digital sovereignty and its implication for the global nature of the Internet, both dimensions should be addressed.
2) While digital sovereignty is often approached from a geopolitical perspective, the fragmentation of the internet could be particularly harmful for the protection of human rights. Through this workshop, we therefore aim to initiate a policy-oriented discussion on how a the Internet governance community, when thinking about the future Internet, can mitigate the risks for human rights that stem from these parallel tendencies of fragmentation.
5.b
9.c
16.10
Targets: Our proposal connects directly to SDG 16.10 (Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements) as we explore the impact of sovereignisation on human rights. In addition, our focus relates to SDG 9.c (Significantly increase access to information and communications technology and strive to provide universal and affordable access to the Internet in least developed countries by 2020) as the two parallel processes of fragmentation directly affect Internet access and may hamper the realisation of this development goal. Finally, our workshop relates to SDG 5.b (Enhance the use of enabling technology, in particular information and communications technology, to promote the empowerment of women) in recognition of the fact that women's rights are a particular area of concern when it comes to ensuring universal access to information and digital technologies, as its empowering effects are also instrumental in the realisation of other SDGs.
Description:
The fragmentation of Internet governance has reached a new level of concern. The Internet is increasingly witnessing the complex interaction of two drivers of fragmentation, which together give rise to the “Splinternet”. Gaining momentum already before the current pandemic crisis, on the one hand, policies by states have contributed to the fragmentation of the Internet, including on the infrastructure, even protocol layer as much as on the content layer. Often, but not always, governments support such policies with the intention of making the Internet work ‘better’ for their citizens. The attempts of China or Russia to establish ‘digital sovereignty’ are clear examples of states aiming to emancipate their own Internet infrastructure from the universal Internet architecture. On the other hand, transnational private actors operating in the digital environment, like the tech giants, have themselves contributed to defining “walled gardens”. Within these environments, users can experience only a particular segment of the global Internet and the platformization of the web increasingly poses challenges for interoperability and diversity. The Free basic project of Facebook in Africa or the increasing export of digital technologies to peripheral areas show how, even without changing the architecture of the Internet, the social layer is increasingly subject to fragmentation (albeit in this case not necessarily along national borders). Particularly the interaction between these two tendencies (state-driven and market-driven) towards fragmentation poses a challenge to the realization of universal values, chiefly the protection of human rights. Various processes are aimed to retain universality: international organizations and multilateral organizations (e.g. G7) work toward common frameworks, civil society groups are engaged in advocacy against fragmentation, and even platform companies appear to shift toward a justification of their content rules using the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Still, there is the need for a more policy-oriented debate on how to reduce the potentially negative implications of fragmentation on human rights protection driven by public and private actors. This workshop aims to bring together these different perspectives on two levels of fragmentation to think about concrete, multilayered policy directions for how the Internet governance community, when thinking about the future Internet, can mitigate the risks for human rights stemming from multiple fragmentation tendencies.
The expected outcome of the workshop is the formulation of concrete, multilayered policy directions for how the Internet governance community, when thinking about the future Internet, can mitigate the risks for human rights stemming from multiple, at times contradictory, fragmentation tendencies. The organisers plan to summarise these directions in a policy brief and will actively promote the development of follow-up initatiatives.
The agenda is comprised of short thought-provoking presentations by the round table speakers and an extensive discussion between them and the audience in the room and remotely around the world. The workshop starts with an introduction of the theme of the discussion and the speakers by the moderator (5 minutes). Subsequently, the speakers provide their thought-provoking insights based on their specific perspective and knowledge (25 minutes).
Our agenda foresees multiple distinct phases that will enable exchanges between speakers and the audience (both on-location and online). First we, will allow each speaker to make a short 5-minute introductory speech (time limit strictly enforced by the moderator). Afterwards, we hand over the active role to the audience, with comments or questions made by participants online and on-location in equal measure (see further specification below). We aim to take comments and questions from people with diverse perspectives (as far as this can be determined), according to criteria such as gender, stakeholder group, youth, and nationality. The third phase allows our speakers to answer questions and react to comments from the audience. After these three distinct phases, the moderators will provide a synthesis of the discussion including the online discussion that may have occurred at the same time.
Online participation: The task of managing online participation lies with our online moderator, who is a member of the organizing committee. The online moderator and the workshop moderator are in constant contact about the state and content of the online discussion. As stated above, there will be a round of audience comments and questions (i.e. interventions) after the first round of short interventions by the speakers. These comments will be sourced from both the on-location audience and the online audience in equal parts. We proceed to take each two comments/questions each from on-location and online audiences at a time until the maximum time of thirty minutes is reached. In general, we aim to take comments and questions from people with diverse perspectives (as far as this can be determined), according to criteria such as gender, stakeholder group, youth, and nationality.
Usage of IGF Official Tool.