What is the nature of the internet? Different Approaches | IGF 2023 WS #445

Report

Anriette Esterhuysen, a staunch advocate for reclaiming the Internet as a connector of people and a disruptor of power concentration, argues that the concepts of the commons, rights, and the public good can work harmoniously together to create a more inclusive and equitable online environment.

She believes that these concepts should not be seen as opposing forces, but rather as synergistic entities.

Esterhuysen supports the protection of the public core of the Internet, emphasizing the need for effective governance involving not only the state but also commercial and common interest parties.

She recognizes the importance of coexistence and collaboration among different stakeholders to ensure affordable and accessible Internet connectivity without government and corporate interference.

While Esterhuysen opposes the nationalization of the Internet, she expresses concern about surveillance capitalism and the commercial exploitation of data.

She calls for greater control over the collection and use of personal information, advocating for regulations that safeguard individuals’ privacy and prevent their data from being solely used for commercial gain. She commends the European Union’s efforts to regulate data access for researchers.

Highlighting the shortcomings of current Internet regulations, Esterhuysen suggests a shift in focus from targeting users to addressing the concentration of power among corporations and manufacturers.

By holding these entities more accountable and responsible, she believes that regulations can play a more effective role in ensuring a fair and democratic Internet.

Esterhuysen also raises concerns about the environmental impact of the Internet, calling for regulatory measures to limit the proliferation of electronic waste (e-waste).

She proposes the introduction of standards for device production to extend their lifespan and reduce e-waste, aligning with the principles of responsible consumption and production.

Challenging the notion that economic growth alone equals development, Esterhuysen argues for a more holistic approach that incorporates poverty alleviation and reduced inequalities.

She suggests redefining the concept of development to address social and economic disparities and create a more equitable society.

In terms of community empowerment, Esterhuysen advocates for communities to have agency in determining their level of interaction with the Internet.

This includes recognizing the value of local Internet access over global connectivity, allowing certain communities to prioritize specific online services according to their needs and preferences.

Lastly, Esterhuysen stresses the need for increased accountability and transparency from governments in regulating the Internet.

She highlights the tendency of government entities to prioritize their own interests over the public’s best interest, emphasizing the importance of stringent oversight and regulation to ensure Internet governance serves the public interest.

In conclusion, Anriette Esterhuysen presents a comprehensive approach to reclaiming and governing the Internet.

By emphasizing the concepts of the commons, rights, and the public good and addressing issues such as power concentration, data exploitation, environmental impact, and development, she advocates for a more inclusive, equitable, and democratic Internet. Her insights and analysis provide valuable perspectives on the future of the Internet, its potential to empower communities, and its role in fostering social and economic equality.

Report

The analysis highlights the issue of internet inaccessibility for individuals who cannot read or write. It reveals that globally, approximately 3 billion people lack basic literacy skills, with 1 billion residing in India facing difficulties in performing tasks such as conducting Google searches and comprehending results.

This underscores the need to address the digital divide in society.

One speaker expresses a negative sentiment, emphasizing that the internet is inaccessible to those who lack literacy skills. This poses a barrier to accessing information, participating in online activities, and benefiting from online resources and opportunities.

The speaker calls for innovative solutions to bridge this gap and make the internet accessible to all.

Contrasting the negative sentiment, another speaker takes a positive stance, suggesting that technical experts focus on developing solutions for hyperlinks that do not rely on text.

This would enable individuals with low literacy levels to navigate the web and access information without the need for reading text-based links. By removing this barrier, the internet can become more inclusive and provide opportunities for personal growth, education, and economic development.

The analysis also introduces the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as potentially influential in advocating for technology that supports web accessibility for low-literate individuals.

Collaborative efforts between governments, technology companies, and civil society organizations are vital in addressing internet inaccessibility. By uniting diverse perspectives, progress can be made in developing technology solutions that enhance internet accessibility and reduce inequalities in accessing digital resources.

In conclusion, the analysis illuminates the pressing issue of internet inaccessibility for those who cannot read or write.

It emphasizes the impact on billions of people globally and particularly in India. However, it also presents potential solutions and initiatives to improve internet accessibility. By tackling this challenge, we can work towards a more inclusive and equitable digital world where everyone can benefit from the internet’s resources and opportunities.

Report

The debate surrounding whether internet access should be considered a human right is complex and ongoing. Some argue that internet access is a tool or means to an end, rather than an inherent right. However, others believe that internet access is essential for individuals to exercise their other rights, such as freedom of expression and access to information.

Restrictions on internet access raise concerns about the potential violation of human rights, as they can unduly interfere with rights such as freedom of expression and assembly.

Denying individuals access to the internet significantly impacts their ability to participate in public discourse, seek and share information, and engage in political and social activities.

Several countries, including Greece, France, Costa Rica, Finland, and Estonia, have recognized internet access as either an individual or constitutional right.

These countries have implemented laws that place a positive duty on the state to ensure universal and affordable internet access, reflecting a commitment to promoting equal opportunities for all citizens.

At the international level, there is a growing recognition of the importance of internet access in enabling individuals to enjoy and exercise their rights.

The Human Rights Council passed a resolution in 2012 calling upon states to promote and facilitate access to the internet. Additionally, human rights mechanisms have increasingly acknowledged the significance of the internet in relation to the enjoyment and exercise of rights.

Despite these developments, further exploration is needed to define the parameters of a human right to internet access.

Questions remain regarding the conditions for imposing restrictions, the roles of the state and private sector in ensuring access, and the state’s duty to protect individuals from cyber attacks. Continued discussion and analysis are required to establish a comprehensive framework for the right to internet access.

In the context of internet governance, the development of a rights framework has influenced discussions and decision-making processes.

However, it is important to note that the existing rights framework does not cover all aspects of internet governance. Therefore, further exploration and adaptation of the rights framework are necessary to address the dynamic challenges and complexities of the digital era.

In summary, the debate on whether internet access should be considered a human right is multifaceted.

While some view it as a means to an end, others emphasize its role in enabling the exercise of other rights. Restrictions on internet access can pose obstacles to the enjoyment of human rights, and several countries have recognized the importance of universal and affordable internet access.

At the international level, there is a growing recognition of the significance of internet access, but further exploration is needed to establish a comprehensive framework. The ongoing development and application of a rights framework to internet governance require continuous examination and adaptation to address emerging challenges.

Report

The discussions surrounding internet governance have emphasized the need for a normative framework that focuses on rules and values. The internet is considered critical for societies and development, and there is a rich heritage and experience in understanding how it works.

This positive sentiment suggests that the existing discussions have guided us well through the processes.

However, the resilience of the internet is being affected by complex societal issues and problematic governmental interventions. There are significant problems and discrepancies related to access and empowerment, and merely having access to platforms like Facebook is not equivalent to having access to the internet.

This negative sentiment highlights the challenges posed by societal complexities and the need to address governmental interventions.

An argument is made that the internet should be recognized as a global public resource that is universally accessible and affordable.

Its governance should be based on human rights standards and public interest principles. The internet plays a crucial role in addressing global challenges, and global calls to action are needed to advance access to technology and promote country-level development. This positive sentiment emphasizes the importance of viewing the internet as a public good.

The proactive engagement of the technical community is identified as a key requirement in internet governance.

The operation of the internet relies on technical expertise, and the success of spaces like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) relies on the involvement of this community. This positive sentiment underlines the significance of technical expertise in shaping internet governance.

Furthermore, it is argued that the global equity crisis needs to be a central aspect of internet-related discussions.

Internet-related problems are rooted in inequality, and the abuse of power and insufficient collaboration further exacerbate these issues. Narratives from regions hardest hit by interventions should play a role in shaping policies. This negative sentiment highlights the urgency of addressing the global equity crisis in internet governance.

There are gaps in internet governance that need to be addressed urgently.

These gaps have existed since the inception of internet governance and still persist today, indicating a negative sentiment. It is essential to work towards filling these gaps.

Safeguards are necessary to protect rights, privacy, and data, as well as to ensure the inclusion of all communities, genders, and regions.

This positive sentiment highlights the need to discuss appropriate measures that guarantee the protection of individual rights while fostering inclusivity in the digital space.

Lastly, there is a call for the recognition of the internet and information as a commons or a public good.

This positive sentiment suggests that more recognition is needed for the internet and information as collective resources that require appropriate governance and management.

In conclusion, internet governance discussions have highlighted the importance of establishing a normative framework based on rules and values.

However, challenges related to complex societal issues and governmental interventions impact the internet’s resilience. There is a need for the internet to be considered a global public resource that is universally accessible and affordable, with governance based on human rights and public interest principles.

The involvement of the technical community plays a crucial role in shaping internet governance. Addressing the global equity crisis and implementing safeguards to protect rights and ensure inclusivity are other significant aspects of internet-related discussions. Recognition of the internet and information as a commons or public good tops off the list of essential considerations in internet governance.

Cooperation is crucial in advancing the development and use of digital public goods. The analysis reveals a range of sentiments, both positive and negative, showcasing the multifaceted nature of internet governance and the need for comprehensive and inclusive solutions.

Report

The analysis delves into the conceptualisation of the internet and raises concerns about the potential dangers of becoming entangled in the semantics of different conceptualisations. It asserts that it is crucial to move away from such debates and instead view the internet as a public good.

The initial perception of the internet as a utility that provides a service to everyone supports this argument, underlining the belief that the internet should be universally accessible and available at affordable prices.

The study also acknowledges the presence of infrastructure, intermediaries, and power structures within large-scale systems like the internet.

It recognises that these elements are necessary for the functioning of the internet. This understanding further emphasises the need for regulatory structures based on traditional economic models, taking into consideration the inevitable power structures that arise.

However, while traditional economic models are viewed as essential for regulatory frameworks, the analysis points out the limitations of the rights framework in this context.

It argues that the rights framework primarily focuses on states rather than corporations. Furthermore, it highlights the under-emphasis of economic, social, and cultural rights within the rights framework. This observation suggests that the rights framework may not adequately cover all the aspects needed in the context of the internet.

Additionally, the study explores the complexity of empowerment through the internet.

It points out that while the internet can empower individuals, including those who are traditionally marginalised, it also has the potential to empower those who abuse their power. This observation highlights the need for careful consideration and balancing of power dynamics in internet governance, recognising the potential for misuse of power.

Lastly, the analysis draws attention to the environmental impacts of the digital sector and proposes the adoption of a broader perspective.

It identifies three key areas of unsustainability: overexploitation of scarce resources, high energy consumption, and improper management of e-waste, often leading to its improper disposal in developing countries. In response, the study suggests the introduction of an environmental ethos in internet governance, directing decision-making processes such as setting standards, developing new applications, and deploying networks towards more sustainable practices.

Overall, the analysis sheds light on various facets of the conceptualisation of the internet.

It underscores the need to move beyond the semantics of different conceptualisations and recognise the internet as a public good. It highlights the presence of infrastructure, intermediaries, and power structures in the internet ecosystem, necessitating the consideration of traditional economic models in regulatory frameworks.

It also urges a critical examination of the limitations of the rights framework in addressing the complexities of the internet. Moreover, it emphasises the necessity of vigilance in ensuring that empowerment through the internet does not enable the abuse of power.

Finally, it urges a broader perspective on the environmental impacts of the digital sector, advocating for the integration of sustainability principles into internet governance.

Report

The impact of the internet on public goods and social good is a complex issue with mixed sentiments. On one hand, the internet has the potential to facilitate justice, democracy, security, and public health. It provides a platform for citizens to engage in democratic processes, access information and services, and participate in public discourse.

The internet has been instrumental in promoting transparency, accountability, and citizen empowerment.

However, the internet also poses challenges and threats to public goods. The rise of infodemics, or the spread of misinformation and disinformation, has become a significant problem with the proliferation of fake news and manipulation tactics.

This can negatively affect public perception, distort facts, and ultimately undermine the democratic process. Moreover, cybersecurity attacks pose a serious threat to the security of individuals and nations. These attacks can disrupt critical infrastructure, compromise sensitive information, and hinder the functioning of democratic institutions.

In addition to its impact on justice and democracy, the internet is also considered a global public good.

It has broken down cultural barriers by making culture more accessible than ever before. However, the benefits of internet access are not evenly distributed. Factors such as availability and affordability of good internet connectivity greatly influence the extent to which individuals can benefit from the internet as a global public good.

This digital divide creates disparities in access to information and opportunities, exacerbating existing inequalities.

Furthermore, the internet has a dual nature, simultaneously serving as a tool for strengthening public goods while also undermining them. The manipulation of individuals through the internet puts at risk the principles of democracy, human rights, and economies.

By locking people into a few social media platforms and exposing them to fake news, there is a decrease in diversity of information sources, leading to echo chambers and a reduction in critical thinking. This not only undermines democracy but also impacts the economy by distorting public perceptions and decision-making processes.

Cooperation is essential for the effective management of the internet as a public good.

As public goods often transform into utilities, the market is unable to effectively price them, leading to the need for state provision. The challenge lies in determining how to manage and govern the internet in a way that protects public goods while balancing the interests of different stakeholders.

Measuring the impact of internet restrictions on public goods, such as democracy and the economy, is a challenging task.

The internet is a complex and dynamic system, making it difficult to quantify its precise impact. Additionally, determining who should bear the cost of internet restrictions is another challenge. Balancing the interests of governments, internet service providers, and users is crucial for finding effective solutions.

Overall, the internet has the potential to be a powerful tool for promoting public goods and social good.

However, it also comes with risks and challenges that need to be addressed proactively. Cooperation and effective governance are key in harnessing the positive impacts of the internet while mitigating its negative effects.

Report

This analysis explores various aspects of internet governance and its impact on society. One argument posits that the internet should be treated and governed as a global communication commons, emphasising unmediated communication as fundamental to its nature. Progressive movements and feminists view the internet as a promising space for unrestricted communication.

However, concerns arise regarding the control exerted by large corporations over internet infrastructure, obstructing the concept of commoning.

It is noted that four companies currently own 67% of the cloud services infrastructure. Additionally, companies in the network infrastructure sector are encroaching into the communication services sector, raising concerns about the obstruction of commoning practices.

Furthermore, the negative effects of surveillance advertising on the generative power of the web are discussed.

Surveillance advertising has transformed the open expanse of the internet into echo chambers, limiting diverse and open dialogue. The Digital Services Act, currently in place, is deemed insufficient to effectively address this issue.

The analysis also raises concerns about the internationalization of internet governance.

Specifically, the incomplete internationalization of the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is pointed out, highlighting single-state control. It further emphasizes the political nature of technical choices, indicating that decisions made in internet governance have significant political implications.

The significance of a public goods approach and commons approach to internet governance is explored.

It is argued that these approaches are not antagonistic but rather complementary. The provision of infrastructure for commoning supports the public goods approach. It is suggested that an ideal internet governance model should incorporate a mixture of public, private, and cooperative enterprises.

In terms of accessibility, the analysis underscores the necessity of a proper public financing model to ensure universal and affordable internet access.

The World Summit on the Information Society is mentioned as a longstanding effort to develop an appropriate model, with particular concern for marginalized communities. Insufficient financing may limit these communities to walled garden-type internet services.

Furthermore, the analysis emphasizes the importance of equitable connectivity in order for everyone to access the development dividends of the internet.

Research from ICT Africa suggests that the current state of connectivity often worsens digital inequality. The need for connectivity to guarantee a fair share in data and development dividends for all is highlighted.

Lastly, the analysis underscores the importance of defining and addressing “Access to what” when discussing internet access.

The current landscape often provides connectivity without yielding substantive benefits for the community, leading to a “connectivity paradox.” This highlights the need to consider the purpose and impact of internet access to effectively address digital inequality.

In conclusion, this analysis sheds light on various aspects of internet governance and its implications.

It highlights the need for a global communication commons, concerns about corporate control, the detrimental effects of surveillance advertising, the necessity of internationalization, the complementary nature of public goods and commons approaches, the significance of proper public financing for universal access, and the importance of equitable connectivity.

These insights contribute to a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding internet governance.

Report

The internet is becoming increasingly integral to people’s quality of life as it enables them to connect with family and friends, while also facilitating the exercise of fundamental rights. This positive sentiment towards the internet is expressed through the argument that it should remain open, safe, interconnected, and accessible to all.

It is believed that the internet is essential in enabling the exercise of other rights as well.

Although there is general agreement about the importance of the internet, there is a debate surrounding whether internet access should be considered as a standalone right in public policy debates.

Some argue that the internet should be viewed as a tool for exercising other rights, rather than being a right on its own. Questions arise about who should be responsible for guaranteeing internet access if it is indeed considered a right in itself.

Reducing the economic, geographic, and technological barriers to internet access is seen as a significant policy challenge.

It is recognized that these barriers limit access to the internet and hinder people’s ability to fully benefit from its advantages. Efforts are being made to address these challenges and ensure that internet access becomes more readily available to all individuals.

In Chile, the issue of internet accessibility is being addressed through the discussion of a proposed bill that acknowledges the internet as a public service.

The aim of this bill is to reduce the accessibility gap that exists, particularly in the 35% of Chilean homes that currently lack internet access. By recognizing the internet as a public service, it is hoped that measures can be put in place to bridge this accessibility gap and ensure that all individuals have equal opportunities to benefit from the internet.

The role of internet providers is also a topic of discussion.

There are concerns about balancing the public interest with the protection of individual rights when it comes to regulating these providers. Internet providers are seen as agents that give access to an essential service, raising questions about how they should be regulated and their responsibilities towards ensuring equal and fair access to the internet.

In conclusion, the internet is increasingly seen as vital to people’s quality of life, connecting them with loved ones and enabling the exercise of their rights.

The debate surrounding internet access as a standalone right continues, with efforts being made to reduce barriers and ensure equal access for all. The discussion of Chile’s proposed bill recognizing the internet as a public service highlights efforts to address the accessibility gap.

Balancing the role of internet providers in ensuring equal access is also a point of contention. Overall, the internet’s importance and the need to ensure its accessibility and regulation are key considerations in public policy debates.

Report

The analysis emphasises the importance of comprehensively discussing the nature of the internet and the necessary policy responses. It highlights the need to consider both the current state and future implications of the internet. The primary focus is on exploring the policy consequences and formulating responses that are aligned with the unique characteristics of the internet.

This perspective is viewed positively, demonstrating recognition of the importance of addressing and adapting to the evolving nature of the internet.

Importantly, the discussion moves beyond theoretical contemplation and delves into practical applications and implications. It acknowledges the need to establish policies that are not only effective but also feasible in addressing the challenges posed by the internet.

By adopting this practical approach, policymakers can navigate the complexities associated with the internet and optimise its potential benefits.

Furthermore, the analysis highlights the relevance of Sustainable Development Goal 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure. This goal underscores the need to foster inclusive and sustainable economic growth through advancements in technology and infrastructure development.

By aligning policy responses to the nature of the internet with SDG 9, policymakers can contribute to achieving broader global objectives and promoting positive societal outcomes.

Overall, the analysis reinforces the necessity of engaging in a comprehensive and nuanced dialogue on the nature of the internet and subsequent policy responses.

It encourages policymakers to consider the practical implications and adapt their strategies accordingly. By leveraging the potential of the internet while addressing its challenges, policymakers can effectively shape the present and future landscape, fostering inclusive and sustainable development in the process.

Report

Various spaces and processes have emerged to address the complex landscape of Internet policy, governance, and digital governance. This proliferation reflects the ongoing evolution of Internet governance, which is closely interconnected with the governance of the digital realm. However, important unresolved questions remain regarding what the internet is and how it should be governed, giving rise to the need for compromises among stakeholders and guiding principles.

Efforts to imagine the future of Internet governance have been initiated, aiming to foster a constructive dialogue among multiple actors.

These conversations intend to nurture the development of necessary compromises, acknowledging the diverse perspectives and interests involved. The push for compromises is essential in navigating the complexities of internet governance and addressing the challenges that arise from this rapidly evolving environment.

Proper governance of the internet is crucial to avoid potential harm and ensure accountability.

In the absence of adequate governance mechanisms, there is a risk of further harm, as well as the concentration of power in the hands of corporations. This concentration may have detrimental consequences for individuals and society as a whole. It is also essential to hold public actors accountable in the digital realm to safeguard the interests and rights of the public.

Recognising the potential of the internet to contribute to a dignified life for all, it is important to address the unresolved questions surrounding its governance.

By doing so, we can work towards achieving basic compromises that can help redress structural inequalities. The internet can play a significant role in reducing inequality and promoting sustainable development, ensuring that everyone has equal access to the benefits of this powerful tool.

In conclusion, the evolution of Internet governance intertwines with the governance of the digital realm.

To address unresolved questions and overcome challenges, compromises between stakeholders and guiding principles are necessary. Proper governance is required to prevent harm, prevent the concentration of power in corporations, and ensure accountability of public actors. The internet should serve the purpose of fostering a dignified life for everyone and addressing structural inequality.

By actively engaging with these issues, we can create a more inclusive and equitable digital future.