Session
Avoiding Internet Fragmentation
Digital Sovereignty
International Legal Perspectives
Organizer 1: Pilar Rodriguez Pita, IGF Spain
Organizer 2: Turra Daniele, Internet Society
Organizer 3: Pedro de Perdigão Lana, ISOC Brazil
Organizer 4: Germán López Ardila, Colombian Chamber of IT and Telecoms
Speaker 1: Andrea Beccalli, Technical Community, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Speaker 2: Neelesh Maheshwari, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
Speaker 3: Bruna Santos, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Speaker 4: Venceslas Katimba, Government, African Group
Round Table - 60 Min
What are the most impactful legal initiatives around the globe with potential fragmenting effects and what are their justifications? Are there tools/protocols to promote digital sovereignty, while also avoiding (i) unfair limitations to legitimate economic use of data; (ii) restricting free trade, and (iii) harming the physical infrastructure of the Internet? How are the stakeholders of different countries and regions approaching the discussions regarding digital protectionism and digital sovereignty and their impact on Internet fragmentation?
What will participants gain from attending this session? Participants will gain a deeper understanding of the issue from different perspectives as represented by the various stakeholder groups contributing to the workshop, avoiding a Manichean approach. They will be able to map diverse legal initiatives around the globe which are allegedly fragmenting, getting access to arguments on why they are harmful or beneficial to a certain population, technology, or country. We hope participants will get more ideas on how to tackle the question at least at their national level, taking into consideration the economic and political advantages of keeping the Internet open and interoperable, while also establishing some common ground on the heated debate that arises from digital sovereignty arguments.
Description:
This session will discuss the intertwining between the concepts of digital sovereignty and digital protectionism, as well as the effects they may have on national and regional approaches to Internet regulation. The discussion will rise from concrete examples of national or regional legislations that have been identified as capable of fragmenting the global network and have already been implemented or are in advanced stages of debate within legislative bodies. Particularly, we want to explore how different regions and stakeholders perceive the need to strike a balance between these two categories, and how this creates new dimensions in the discussions on Internet fragmentation. Digital sovereignty has been a topic largely associated with Internet Fragmentation. While some stakeholders rightfully seek to protect the best interest of their citizens' interests, be it through economic or social considerations, others use the broadness of the concept to promote censorship and raise trade barriers for foreign companies. The tension between digital sovereignty and digital protectionism, if wrongly managed, might lead to unwanted consequences that restrict the free flow of data for legitimate uses. Also, if not enough consideration is given to data protection, it might end up with insufficient safeguards for the citizens’ rights This risk is increased by the fact that IT procedures, standards, and access to data infrastructure could be used to raise technical barriers to trade or negatively affect the sharing nature of the Internet, shifting the equilibrium towards particular interests, be them economic or political in nature, reinforcing a protectionist approach. Hence, the discussion proposed in this workshop will focus on identifying the limits dividing sovereignty from protectionism, from the perspective of different stakeholders representing various regions.
This workshop aims to create a document that contains the following: - A typology of risks brought by different approaches to digital sovereignty in various regions. - A sketch of measures and actions for ensuring compliance with data regulations on a local level based on open and interoperable protocols - General, multi-stakeholder guidelines on how to avoid Internet fragmentation and digital protectionism, while advancing in legitimate protection of citizens and governmental interests.
Hybrid Format: We will promote hybrid participation by: (i) alternating questions between online and on-site audiences; (ii) using Mentimeter (or an alternative website) to collect questions so the audience that does not or can not speak at that moment may present their question or interactions, showing them on the screen and selecting a few to be asked by moderators; (iii) actively invite some people interested in the thematic to participate online; (iv) giving a proactive role for the online moderator in presenting the speakers and commenting on presentations. The debate will be started with an initial question presented by both moderators to break the ice and encourage participation by the audience. These first questions will be collected through Mentimeter and, if there is none until the open discussion phase, moderators will have a backup question ready. Mentimeter will also be used sometimes to allow for anonymity in questions and commentaries.
Report
DigiSov: Regulation, Protectionism, and Fragmentation
IGF WS#345
- Policies and regulations play an important role, however we must make sure they don’t make more harm.
- Different states have different norms -> we should aim for unified norms among states where applicable and share practices.
- Data is the new oil in the world -> some states has yet been excluded from the digital economy.
- We should strike for accessibility and equal conditions among states. So that everyone can use the benefits and opportunities.
- They newly have a law that regulates the digital sector.
- We should bring internet connectivity to all the people.
- New projects are arising to help with the new challenges connected to internet accessibility.
- We should strike for sharing the important discussions among multiple parties (technical community, academia, etc.) => multistakeholder approach
- IG and policies should coordinate, otherwise the fragmentation may occur.
- User experiences may differ (e.g., internet shutdowns, geo-blocking)
- Essential principals: equality, experience with assessing the internet, harmonization (new policies should be talking to other existing policies).
- Many user choices are now shaped by other parties.
- We tend to take the internet for granted (we tend to do many small tasks on the internet without not even realizing that).
- Governments tend to regulate content with intentions to protect the people – but do they really do so?
- We should strike for a multistakeholder model in discussing the internet fragmentations and related impacts.
- Not all critical r. are made my states!
- DSA, AI act and other related regulations may impactfully change the internet as we know it now.
- We currently observe a change in the mindset of states – they try to also consider the freedom of speech and human rights.
- Fragmenting has different impact on different states (for example on market in Africa vs in Europe)
- The digital divide is coming to the debate as a strong influential factor.
- We need to find a solution for dissemination of disinformation. Especially in global south it is incredibly impactful. However, the regulations cannot go beyond the boards of the freedom of speech.
- Having dialogues on the international level is to way to go.
- Regulations are not problematic per se.
- Global South -> information security is essential. There possibly can’t be a unified solution.
- Everyone should be equally protected from the harms and consequences related to the internet fragmentation.
- There are new challenges and other will arise soon. The world is changing rapidly.
- Regulations are needed but there need to be also a space for multistakeholder dialogue as well as country specifics.
- The impact of internet fragmentation is even more crucial in the Global South, and we need to keep that in mind.