IGF 2021 – Day 0 – Event #17 Constitutionalising the Digital Frontier: Past, Present, and Future

The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF virtual intervention. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.



   >> We all live in a digital world.  We all need it to be open and safe.  We all want to trust.

   >> And to be trusted. 

   >> We all despise control. 

   >> And desire freedom. 

   >> We are all united. 

   >> SIDDHANT CHATTERJEE:  The Internet has started to shift from to an entity restricted by sovereign nationalistic and exclusionary concerns.  In this age of digital sovereignty where does policy fault lie?  Expression security and enablement and privacy imperatives of the Internet. 

   >> SANSKRITI SANGHI:  This Round Table seeks to answer this very question by bringing forth a virtuality of perspectives to the enterprise of Internet Governance.  We will do this first by diving in to the philosophical and historical contexts.  By journeying through the terrain we will then proceed in to a discussion about best practices and lessons of note.  Through our analysis we hope to carve out space for prolonged dialogue and in this session we begin to think about the direction this can take.   

   >> SIDDHANT CHATTERJEE:  Before we kick start the discussion we would like to introduce ourselves and our body of work.  We at the Institute for Internet & Just Society are a youth driven think tank composed of students, lawyers, policy practitioners and academics and digital rights activists across the globe.  We are a part of the research program on Digital Constitutionalism where we map the very approaches to governance of the digital ecosystem.  We do this through flagship projects, a digital policy tracker.  Our objective ‑‑ allow a continuum.  At the tracker we analyze policy escalations from around the world to better understand the dynamic nature of our ecosystem.  At Aristotle we concretize the present and the past and theorize the digital futures.

   >> SANSKRITI SANGHI:  Today we will be your Moderators.  Our panelists for today, Sonia, Nicola, Raghu, Hiba and Harshvi are members of our program.  We thank you for tuning in.  It is a collection of the insights garnered by us through our projects and the conversations the journey of implementing them has entailed.  In the first set of questions that we ask, our endeavor will be to think about how we can constitutalize the Internet.  A task which requires to think alongside law and ask difficult questions about how the code functions as law at this new site of governance. 

   >> SIDDHANT CHATTERJEE:  With that our very first question is for Sonia.  How fast the norms, values, concepts be reimagined if the Internet is to be conceptualized and regulated as a Democratic domain? 

   >> SONIA SANGIOVANNI:  Welcome so much.  I think it will encapsulate one of the core challenges.  We need to take a step back and look at the main characteristics that define the constitution of this course.  When we think about the constitution, we think about the text that defines the governance of a given country.  The state through the constitution obtains the power.  Yet the creation of a constitution also implies that a shift in organization of society itself.  A need for change in governance that's linked to the necessity of to rethink the social.  For this reason the constitution on this discourse often goes hand in hand with the Democratic one.  We come together to govern ourselves. 

    As we are here today at the Internet Governance Forum it is obvious that cyberspace is going through a similar constitutional moment.  We are all here united to discuss and present different points of view of how to better regulate the online world since our lives have moved more and more in the digital space. 

    To our work on the digital policy tracker, we are also witnessing this growing trend.  As you know across continents, Governments and Civil Societies and other nonstate actors are raising more questions on how we should better regulate the Internet and digital technologies in general.  It constitutes a ‑‑ it is the ability to scale at an unprecedented pace has led to important change in our society.  We are now able to communicate with people all over the world, simultaneously.  I think this is an example of how this is happening actually. 

    This shift forces us to question what the new values and norms at the base of our social contract are, which voices should be leading the conversation and which should be embodying the global community of Internet users. 

    The constitutional moment of cyberspace is key to setting the standard for Democratic and balanced governance of our digital future lives.  However, when we are trying to rethink the constitutional discourse within the context of the Internet, it is important to keep in mind that the traditional discourse on constitutionalism can be at odds with the one in digital space.  The key features that maybe the Internet is a cause for social change.  From the Internet to the scalability of digital technology, we are constantly questioning the traditional governance of the state.  Because of this vacuum of power, managed to take more and more in this sphere.  The competition and power quite obvious as you can see today hold an important role in the governance of the Internet as their decision can go beyond the regulatory measures. 

    To ensure that the Internet is to be conceptualized, there is need for creative solution that goes beyond the traditional forms of governance.  So the main question is how do we do that? 

    To begin with I believe that it is important to conceptualize a decentralized governance that allows us to democratize cyberspace.  One concept is called Collective Intelligence as theorized by Jeff Magan.  This stems from the idea that we can work for intelligently.  It applies that as an Internet we need to have a global discussion as how to move forward.  Digital Constitutionalism research program as well as the goal of the IGF today.  So the concept of collective intelligence is not completely new in this field, of course.  The open source community has been promoting this approach since the '90s.  And mostly developed through coding and applied mostly in the tech community, it shows how collectively you can contribute to solving problems and building better tools that make our lives better in the long run. 

    So this implies, of course, bringing stakeholders that will normally be in order from the traditional government space in this discussions. 

    So an example of this could be including sex workers and activists and youth led organizations to content moderation policies and shape policy making in this sphere.  It is also important to conclude that to make sure that this process of Democratization of the Internet remains balanced.  We continue to ask and have conversation on what is fair and what is not. 

    The discussion of what is the best Democratic governance has been going on since ancient Greece.  There is a need to continue to ask this question if you want to get closer to our idea of a fair and just society.  I hope this replies to your answer.  It is back to you. 

   >> SANSKRITI SANGHI:  Thank you for sharing your ideas with us.  And for ensuring that this Round Table is off to such a brilliant start.  The constitutional moment you speak of is incomplete without a reference to the dynamism.  As highlighted through the various pivotal questions that you raise, since the challenges of the digital age are different from those we faced in the past the constitutional settings must be adapted and modified to reflect the dawn of the new constitutional moment.  And perhaps that is where we need to more seriously consider the idea of collective intelligence that you speak of as a bridge between the old and new.   

   >> SIDDHANT CHATTERJEE:  What I find equally interesting is the note that you end on.  If the continuation of conversation seeks of us answers to the questions of what is fair, what is a must, what is the just, then so on.  We must be prepared to evolve and accord credence to a diversity of voices.  This is the idea of you would ask Nicola to offer his thoughts on.  Such statements are hollow unless we have a better understanding of who holds a stake in this ecosystem.  The statement Sonia concluded your response on animates this as well when it thinks of a just society.  Requires to account for who the term includes.  So a question, if the Internet is to be thought of as the people by the people and for the people is it necessary for us to question who the term people encompasses?  Who can we identify as stakeholders in a global digital ecosystem and what role must each of them perform? 

   >> NICOLA BRESSAN:  Of the people and for the people by the people meant something clear and precise, the citizens of the states at the time, which really meant only what ails of voting age, they have a say on the policies governing their daily life, whether on trade, health or education.  Applying such a principle to the Internet is a different and far more complex setting.  The usual institutional paradigms of Democratic participation do not apply to the World Wide Web.  The starting point, the incomplete applicability of our west failing principle through the dynamics of the Internet today.  The fact that state sovereignty is challenged by private actors by no means new and is widely accepted since the '70s, the Internet makes the phenomenon more glaring.  It ignores borders.  Who are, for instance, the people that ought to be setting or electing those that then get to set the rules of the Internet?  Is it a South African Instagram user views content that's viewed in Sweden, which jurisdictions rules should apply to the post? 

    As you can see while content moderation is (inaudible).  And the core of the conundrum is clear, the Democratic fora of participation, ecosystems of soft and hard relation have not kept up the base.  The recent OCD agreement, the bulk of principles dated back to the early 20th Century.  Back when there was no free movement of capital and no standardization of accounting.  That alone the World Wide Web, social media, productive algorithms and AI. 

    And as a growing and significant part of the economy moved to models of intangible global value chains, were still conceived in an idea of labor intensive production.  Our legal systems were playing catch up and the same for data governance.  Now data obviously framework based on assumptions that do not hold anymore.  The need for a global agreement makes filling that gap, that policy gap far harder and more complex than any other political gap.  The reason the OCD deal struck, it is possible to envisage and implement international post sovereigness frameworks, stop the social dumping of races at the bottom.  But such a measure has only been possible by an immense pressure, exerted by policymakers by the Global North countries. 

It appears that when political capital votes and more importantly really tax revenue are on the line the shaping power of the world are willing to bang their fists on the table.  Such achievements of international negotiation and consensus building can be replicated for matters.  And that's a whole other story. 

    Out of opinions and position and standards and what should and should not be allowed in the media, differ wildly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  The degree of comprise that policymakers around the world are willing to accept bears massively.  Because of the narrative is nowhere near as clear as with taxation, the scenario isn't as straightforward and easy to understand as multi‑nationals wanted to avoid taxation.  And some small country is willing to let them and bigger countries fighting tooth and nail to avoid this from happening.  The location of cloud servers are all topics touched on more sensitive matters.  Sovereignty, digital autonomy and the resistance that Governments have to delegate is deeply rooted. 

    As it might be what we must agree on is the current status quo is unacceptable.  Absence of international guidelines and established fora and frankly a harmonization can only default to big ‑‑ Government try to catch up with an enforceable late wildly diverse of regulations. 

Let me just provide a clear example.  No matter where European stands on this matter it should not be up to a handful of executives in a board room, in a skyscraper in Manhattan to decide what political candidates and officials get to say.  It should be up to the courts following the rules set by legislators and elected legislators.  Best be a complimentary tool, a useful one but not the bedrock of our judicial system of content moderation. 

    Social media platforms are now more than evermore than a simple service consumer subscribed to by agreeing to the terms, who even reads them.  They have become a vector of information.  Via their Facebook and Twitter feeds that people form their political opinions, swayed on their habits.  And as such they need rules to go govern them, to give them a clear field of applicability. 

Just like dualism and special status, more and more important between the 19th and 20th Century, it is responsibility as a prerequisite for circulation of information was recognized by constitutions special laws.  It comes with powers and with duties.  And the power of big tech, more specifically, it can be argued goes far beyond that of newspapers back then.  And legal frameworks must reflect that. 

    Finally, and please let me finish, I have spoken for far too long, the setting of those rules must not be obtuse and at the mercy of political whim.  Show willingness to drive forward the conversation without falling in to the oh, so tempting temptation for political gain.  The organizations that make up the environment that this is the Internet we must accept responsibility.  I would tweet that the Internet should only answer to its CEO's conscious.  Should move on from being the only game in town to a complimentary tool. 

    Finally from Civil Society and consumers we must ask to engage constructively in the process to spark debate.  Easier said than done.  But crucial shouldn't say. 

   >> SIDDHANT CHATTERJEE:  What an incredibly rich set of provocations and thank you for sharing.  I'm sure the audience is inclined to revisit the imbalanced and often exclusionary archive of democracy building and to think about manifestation in our present.  Not only are the analogies that you observe important lessons to learn from they are a reminder of the propensity of the past to repeat in the future unless you begin to think about solutions that sharply depart from the status quo and endeavor towards change.     

   >> SANSKRITI SANGHI:  No statement I think captures this need for discourse and these solutions more succinctly than the one that you conclude your response on, Nicola.  It is easier said than done but crucial, that of interrogating the status quo.  Closely aligned with this interrogation of who the term people encompasses is our next question. 

    Raghu, our question is to you and the question is Internet Governance characterized by a divide between the Global North and the Global South?  And if so how did the disparities manifest in regulatory frameworks?  As we begin to think about the future, should stakeholders be urged towards a topdown approach, a bottoms up or a curious mix of both and why so? 

   >> RAGHU RAJ:  Thank you.  I believe it critically highlights the north and south framework and has been said with a host of issues.  The Global Internet Governance, look at things.  Never before have our lives been more interconnected.  Which are constantly creating, storing and sharing personal data and information.  This has only become more pronounced with the onset of the pandemic.  Global additional Governments, rules, policies and standards that coordinate and shave the global cyberspace.  The governance has social technical implications.  And then it is not really all together surprising to find ‑‑ between actors across the spectrum with each side attempting to pose vision and reflect the world. 

    The discourse on Global Internet Governance north/south divide it is not new.  It has meant extension.  Massive information, communication divide between north and south which largely emanated from north globalization of information order which including everything from news agencies to phones.  These asymmetric flows give well documented concerns that are voiced by the developing world, which is the balance of information, the general respect for developing world culture and France national cooperations and the inequitable distribution.  But also to characterize these matters period was marred in issues of development, democratization and matters of sovereignty. 

Fast forward a few decades and the information order has not only been resolved but in the context of the astonishing advances in the areas of ICT has resurfaced.  In today's world, the digital gap has emerged as one of the most visible aspects of the developmental divide, both within and across nations. 

    To give you an example of this, consider India.  While the spread of information about the widest was almost as wide ‑‑ was very wide.  Amongst urban digitally connected India there was lack of awareness in the rural areas. 

    And to talk about the divide in a global context, you have nations invest in Europe who are thriving in this Digital Age and those in Africa are still struggling.  Industrialized nations' dominance of Internet in terms of technical resources and broader public policy has added a new dimension to the north/south divide. 

    And even though it envisioned as a platform to bring stakeholders across the spectrum on a level playing field through structured problems and their power imbalances, the multi‑stakeholder model has ended up privatizing, what it does is marginalize the concerns of the south.  As a result you have Global Internet Governance which has become a complicated and multi‑facetted issue.  Major consequences for equitable Internet Governance but for a global economic system.  It is very interesting to look at the manner in which these disparities manifest in regulatory structures. 

The already fuzzy line we spoke about tends to get even more bloodier around this area.  What we are witnessing right now is a dramatic shift in global norms towards greater state of dimension.  The recent report by Freedom House, because of a push towards censorship ‑‑ and ‑‑ that's not to say that all forms of interstate intervention has been carried out in bad faith.  No.  But many measures and many of these measures and initiatives have been carried out in good faith, which represent legitimate efforts on the part of the Government to read an online hub, use of data and so on and so forth. 

    But also something that needs to be acknowledged at the same time is that many states have also passed various proposals and enactments to censor the problematic content or to force them to share data with the authorities.  And you have numerous examples. 

    And these instances are not just limited to countries which we associate with regressive and progressive activities.  Many of the developed liberal nations are indulging in suppression of speech at home and abroad. 

    What is evident from all this it is setting a dangerous precedent.  It can have long‑term cultural ramifications and this compromises the Internet's free, open and ‑‑ has become the bedrock on which the Digital Economy strikes.  We have had some positive developments, too, such as the EU's GDPR regime.  It has been criticized for stifling innovation.  We have a very precarious situation where the Developing Countries are under pressure to embrace policies as a means of boosting economic growth.  And parallelly they are ‑‑ which is in line with the international standards.  One which necessitates extensive use of state resources at the state of the fledgingly private sector.  And many states increasingly hesitant adopt a limited role in framing the future course of Global Internet Governance, it is not hard to imagine that the alternative team's more appealing.  That would inevitably lead to containment of original rights. 

    And even if you take an example of some states like India or Singapore who established policy combinations, the possibility of Internet grows increasingly.  What we can definitively see at this juncture is that all unique in structure, Global Internet Governance is another avenue.  Across the spectrum engage equitably in Global Internet Governance.  This is crucial, but also ensures development and security of the world at large.  

   >> SIDDHANT CHATTERJEE:  How effortlessly you bring in to conversation the very frameworks without reproducing binaries.  Notably you and much like the speakers before make the conversation much more realistic and nuanced with the promises and potential it holds. 

   >> SANSKRITI SANGHI:  Having said your articulation of Raghu's response as lending themselves to political, social, economic and overall systemic manifestations which be at contest with each other but not devoid of hope for harmonization and agreement.  And I guess it is this insight which helps us segue way in to our next set of questions, which are targeted towards thinking about how we can draw on extended practices and scholarship to map our digital futures together. 

Our question arises out of this, this quest, this endeavor and Hiba, the question for you is, what are some of the promising precedents, case studies and mechanisms to consider as we attempt to shape the future of digital governance?  Are there often spoke of mistakes that we can learn from as well? 

   >> HIBA HASSAN:  Thank you.  We can agree there is transformation of power of how the digital space has taken over aspects of society, from political and social.  Digital platforms have far‑reaching impacts.  Is it wrong to state that the Internet is perhaps the most key developments of our time, the irony is despite it being so deeply integrated in our lives, very few understand the complexity of how it works.  What we need to understand is is the Internet is not a technologic tool, but organizations that come together to make this virtual space. 

Similarly, there are many other aspects of Internet Governance that require engineering and coordination across Governmental and private parties.  To put the consent of Internet Governance simply taken, it is a development of and application by Governments and private sector and Civil Societies of shared procedures.  For long, Internet Governance bodies have open, transparent Internet standards.  The idea goes that openness of governance begins openness of technology.  That believes in a free and open Internet concept. 

    Quoting Barro's independence of cyberspace, it rejects the cyberspace needed in real world and supports the original idea of the Internet being free to free people.  Whereas the Intergovernmental control model takes a more reserved approach and prefers a centralized body of governance.  We see how cyberspace infiltrates the model.  There will be much conversation surrounding the fragmentation of the Internet, whether democracies with the user friendly policies are able to give justice to the nonfragmented model and authoritarian regimes, state dominate, fall in to the fragmented models remains a debate yet to be resolved. 

As the world enters a phase of increased censorship we need to question ourselves as to where the consent of Human Rights in a digital space stand.  As identified by NETmundial rights in a virtual setting should be like the ones implemented in the physical space.  Human Rights which encompasses freedom of expression and privacy become a vital component. 

    This is something the freedom of expression initiative under Article 19 tackles.  Social media companies have great influence over freedom of expression, and oversight world in moderating online content.  We have all seen how the COVID‑19 pandemic accelerated the digital transformation across various channels.  We see how emerging technology like IoT and AI are changing the digital affair.  As emerging technologies shape modern society we must take an interdisciplinary approach, all the while tackling issues surrounding trust, security and privacy on these platforms. 

    The governance of emerging technologies are the Oxford Institute investigators how to design, deploy and govern emerging technologies.  Digging deeper, cybersecurity becomes important. 

    Thus creating a more vulnerable cyberspace.  So what action is the fate of the Internet headed?  Let's look at the key policies to help answer this.  The EU is a class supporter of unfragmented Internet model with the initiative Europe's digital divide, aims to promote the multi‑stakeholder model of Internet Governance as well as the cybersecurity strategy for the digital decade it is evident that the EU wants to be a norm maker in the Internet affair. 

Taiwan is another great example, maintaining a Democratic approach to governance it hosts one of the most freest online environments in Asia.  China introduced an initiative that's a more fragmented approach. 

    While India tries to promote the idea of digital sovereignty in cyberspace it is trying to be more future oriented and strike a balance between gated globalization and libertarian paternalism.  The recent online safety bill is changing the game for India.  Has the potential to inhibit freedom of expression.  At this point in time whether there are so many conflicting governance models in place it is tough to state which is better.  Global norms shift towards dramatic ‑‑ towards Government intervention in the digital sphere.  We keep all factors in mind.  It is imperative to take a global approach to governance and identify a unified front that balances Governmental control all the while ensuring the essence of what the Internet was created for, the freedom to be and let be is very important. 

   >> SIDDHANT CHATTERJEE:  Thanks.  Help us identify some lessons we can move from as we move towards charting a just ecosystem.  Techno nationalism is on the rise and we are seeing manifestation across jurisdictions in different forms of intensities. 

   >> SANSKRITI SANGHI:  Your point about EU wanting to be a law maker.  It shows this unspoken race that has started globally to create regulation.  One that we have seen multiple examples in history at other various sites of Governments.  Governments must be cognizant of the many tradeoffs.  Balancing these wicked problems would be one of the most significant challenges for digital policy making in the future.    

   >> SIDDHANT CHATTERJEE:  With this in mind we raise our question, how can the enumerate dichotomies and tradeoffs be reconciled as we move towards our collective digital futures? 

   >> HARSHVI TRIVEDI:  In the sphere of digital governance, how are tradeoffs defined in this case?  They signify how to move more opposing factors in order to make a decision.  Most familiar tradeoffs in the sphere exist in the friction between individual rights, privacy and agency and anonymity and collective rights.  In the context of the COVID‑19 pandemic, the most blatant tradeoff is the one between privacy and public health.  The numbering of stakeholders, situation or circumstances in specific, and the outcome based on subjectives and how it is measured.  But to start off, let's look at the tradeoff between privacy and national security. 

    Post 9/11, national security has changed.  At the national level the countries have revolutionalized to justify what is done in the name of national security. 

    But what raises an eyebrow in India's case are two things.  Firstly, India's domestic data protection laws remains to be notified in Parliament after three years of discussion.  And secondly the efficacy of bands, lack of a proper legislative framework thus far makes it possible to violate data protection through a foreign or Indian company.  It is not protected. 

    Now another interesting case study is China's latest law.  What's conspicuous even with all the emphasis on protecting citizen's data is responsibility and liability does not extend to the state in any way.  Now both these cases are crucial to consider vis‑a‑vi the existence of digital governance regimes which is ideal and intense purposes. 

    Now that raises two questions.  Crucial for all stakeholders to consider and address for our digital future.  Can states be held liable for their own surveillance through the use of drones?  To what extent can it be upheld and guaranteed?  Secondly, should domestic and international law redefine what constitutes use of force in the digital world?  And if so, what frameworks would be helpful domestically? 

    Having raised these questions let's look more closely to the clash.  Our projects, landmark legislation, new anthology.  This gives us insights in to the possibilities of the asserting and protecting ourselves against misuse of malpractice.  In the book it mentions how platforms have introduced an era of surveillance, but even especially the right to autonomy and agency.  Some of these platforms have become essential to everyday life, in such a way that individuals are coerced and incentives are aligned and drawbacks exist.  While this still be legal, it is not so transparent. 

    Moreover there exists no services.  Now how can we reclaim our agency and regulate while also retaining the entrepreneurial and innovative spirit?  Three approaches are crucial.  It would be to enhance stakeholder conversations, so third parties have the requisite information. 

    Plus any Government or other stakeholder intervention requires adequate checks and balances.  Like, for instance, limiting state surveillance to necessity and proportionality.  The second approach requires antitrust.  Focused on awarding surveillance capitalism as a form of revenue.  Now the third and final approach is bridging the informational divide between the entity and the individual which is pivotal for additional and Democratic society. 

   >> SANSKRITI SANGHI:  Thank you for highlighting these fascinating dichotomies and challenges prevalent in this domain.  Your response raises many further questions of how we can harmonize policy making for the Internet as a global.  Because we are also running out of time perhaps this is a perfect question to end the panel.  And our question is can digital policy making worldwide adhere to certain values, standards, best practices and thresholds?  And if so, how? 

   >> HARSHVI TRIVEDI:  Thank you for the question.  We can all agree that positive and negative dataification has consequences for the well‑being.  Governments and regulators play a major role in incentivizing.  We can foster public interest by providing norms that reflect societal values and preferences.  For instance, so the global data protection framework, Governments aim to design data privacy standards for intermediaries to process and store data through secure and easy‑to‑use platforms.  However, despite efforts being made to accelerate institutionalization globally, technological advancement continues to outpace policy evolution, contemporary mechanisms lack the agility to accommodate the increasing space of technological developments.  They challenge the way that Government regulates.  Develop faster than the regulations and social structures that govern them making it difficult to design a fit for purpose regulatory framework.  Digitalization also blurs the lines between marketing and sectors, consumers and producers.  This questions the traditional notion of ability. 

    For instance, with Internet offering new ways to distribute content it is becoming more and more difficult to enforce copyrights.  The traditional institutional framework were made of agencies that dealt with sector based challenges.  But most of the challenges created by digitalization this framework is facing its limits.  It has transcended administrative boundaries and has increased the intensity of multilateral risks.  The leads to a decline in people's trust in Government.  The right way to deal with this fast pace of digitalization.  It might seem like the best way to develop policies as quickly as the digital space transforms. 

    In some cases the regulatory approach might not be the best action.  Pause, consult and question and test where approaches to data mine the frameworks that promote digital innovation.  Such innovations can include short‑term solutions, preventing the development and use of certain technologies.  To understand which perceived risk actually materializes or by creating regulatory sandboxes when new technologies can be tested in safe spaces. 

    Given the dynamics of digital transformation the chosen regulatory solutions will require adaptations and constant Government monitoring.  Adopting long‑term solutions that take a whole of Government approach that lies in coherence is needed to mitigate the current and prospective risk of organizations.  Engage in a diverse range of stakeholders, invest in foresight and horizon scanning, initial impact assessments early in the policy making process and carry out post‑implementation reviews. 

Like I mentioned earlier, the effects of digital transformation span across borders which mentions that solutions restricted to domestic domain.  However, such cooperation is challenging because of different priorities and different governing systems between nations.  A wealth of digital policy that adheres to universal thresholds. 

    Initiatives such as the Global Internet Forum, Global Network Initiative or Santa Clara Principles have facilitated dialogue.  Such practices however are sparse as most countries rely on traditional approaches that prioritize compliance and risk mitigation.  When it comes to Internet Governance regulators need to rethink their approach in a way that prioritizes active enablement over control.  It is timely to engage in such discussions given that the process of digital transformation are challenging our current regulations and creating new regulatory means as we speak. 

   >> SANSKRITI SANGHI:  Thank you.  Because we are out of time, we'd just like to thank you all for joining in today.  And as Hiba posted in the chat box do engage with us through our e‑mail, our social media handles, and through the feedback form that IGF has.  And we look forward to a continued conversation.  Thank you so much. 

   >> SIDDHANT CHATTERJEE:  Yes, thank you so much. 

   >> Thank you. 

   >> Thank you.

   >> Thank you. 

   >> Thank you.