ICF 2023: Digital Commons for Digital Sovereignty | IGF 2023 Day 0 Event #82

Knowledge Graph of Debate

Session report

Audience

The discussions centred around the need for a broader understanding of digital public infrastructure in relation to digital sovereignty, rights, and the role of the state in promoting community-based solutions. It was argued that digital public infrastructure should go beyond digital IDs, payment methods, and content-based sharing platforms. The Brazilian Central Bank’s launch of the PIX initiative and the French Central Bank’s development of their own digital infrastructure were cited as supporting facts.

The importance of physical infrastructure such as data centres and satellites in promoting digital security and sovereignty was highlighted. However, concerns were raised that state-led digital sovereignty could go against the concept of commons. The positive example of Brazil’s Homeless Movement was mentioned, illustrating the role of community-based solutions in promoting sovereignty.

Interoperability among infrastructure built from different countries was also a key topic of discussion. It was pointed out that existing systems like UPI and PICS do not communicate with each other, emphasising the need for interoperability.

The discussions further touched upon the importance of sustainable funding models for digital public goods. The Tor Project was mentioned as an example of a digital public good, highlighting the need for sustainable funding to ensure their continual development and availability.

Promoting self-determination before digital commons was emphasised as a crucial step. A case study of poor people’s data exploitation in India was cited as evidence, underscoring the potential for exploitation in the absence of self-determination.

The development of open standards technology to support freedom of thought and the rule of law in the digital era was advocated. The speaker’s involvement with W3C for creating open standards technology and the establishment of verifiable claims and credentials were cited as supporting evidence.

The discussions also focused on the necessity of building infrastructure that supports human rights. The speaker emphasised that individual AI agents should serve individuals rather than being used for profit. It was argued that public institutions should differentiate between good and bad people and not treat everyone as a natural resource.

One noteworthy observation was the need for creating alternative social media platforms to support the needs of refugees and other vulnerable populations. The speaker mentioned their ongoing development of a foundational framework to support digital presence for such populations. It was emphasised that these alternatives are vital for ensuring peaceful decisions and effecting change.

Lastly, the distinction between large language models and logical programming in properly encoding language was explored. While no specific evidence or arguments were provided, this topic indicates the importance of understanding the implications of different approaches to language encoding.

In conclusion, the discussions revolved around the need for a broader understanding of digital public infrastructure, the role of the state in promoting community-based solutions, interoperability among infrastructure from different countries, the importance of sustainable funding models for digital public goods, self-determination before digital commons, and the creation of alternative social media platforms to support vulnerable populations. The discussions also touched upon the importance of open standards technology, building infrastructure that supports human rights, and the distinction between large language models and logical programming in language encoding.

Anita Gurumurthy

In this analysis, the speakers delve into a comprehensive discussion of the digital commons and its management, emphasising its significance in promoting self-determination and reducing inequalities. They highlight the central role of commoning and communitizing in effectively managing digital commons. Notably, the purposeful and prudent use of commons is regarded just as important as the act of commoning itself. By recognising sovereignty as self-determination, the concept of the commons becomes intrinsically interconnected.

The speakers go on to assert that digital policy should not only focus on creating the commons but also enable the practice of commoning. They argue that openness alone does not necessarily lead to commoning and stress the importance of addressing disembedded imaginaries that hinder the recognition of public goods and the rule of law in digital environments. It is proposed that digital policy should facilitate an environment that fosters commoning and encourages the responsible use of commons.

Moreover, the embodied nature of commons is highlighted as a crucial aspect. They argue against regarding commons as dematerialised or abstract ideas and emphasise that commons should be understood as particularised and embodied concepts. The impact of commons on individuals’ abilities and means to choose their life course is acknowledged, and it is reiterated that accountability to human beings is an integral part of commoning and self-determination.

The analysis also emphasises the importance of state support for digital resources, such as data banks or local seed banks. The creation of standards and protocols, considered as public goods, is deemed necessary and is identified as the duty of the state. The provision of these public goods is crucial for the effective functioning of the digital commons.

One significant observation made is that capitalist systems have been exploiting and poaching the commons, leading to adverse consequences for the digital economy. The governance of non-commons, represented by capitalist systems, is identified as the real challenge. It is essential to address the encroachment of capitalist systems and protect the commons to maintain a healthy digital ecosystem.

In addition, the analysis highlights the importance of platform regulation to ensure fair markets. It is noted that Uber, as an example, has threatened to exit the European Union if the Digital Services Act (DSA) comes into force. Therefore, governments of the Global South are urged to support platform regulation to safeguard fair markets and protect the interests of the community.

Lastly, the analysis proposes the establishment of state-supported alternative Over-the-Top (OTT) platforms. It cites the example of the state of Kerala in South India, which is in the process of setting up an alternative OTT platform. This move indicates a growing recognition of the need to create alternatives to existing digital platforms and promote fairness, justice, and strong institutions in the digital space.

Overall, this analysis provides valuable insights into the management and implications of the digital commons. It stresses the importance of commoning and communitizing, the need for supportive digital policies, and the challenges posed by capitalist systems. It further highlights the significance of state support, platform regulation, and the establishment of alternative platforms to ensure the integrity and fairness of the digital ecosystem.

Franziska (Ziski) Putz

The analysis highlights several important points made by different speakers. Firstly, the resilience of Wikipedia as a digital commons model is emphasised. It is noted that Wikipedia is supported by over 300,000 volunteers globally and is read around 6,000 times per second across 300 languages. Furthermore, it is highlighted that Wikipedia does not engage in data theft, content sales, or the practice of putting content behind paywalls. This showcases its commitment to providing free and accessible knowledge for all.

The use of AI tools by Wikipedia volunteers is also discussed in relation to supporting human rights and the public interest. It is stated that these tools are used to scale activities such as detecting vandalism or translating content. Importantly, the AI tools built by the Wikimedia Foundation are open-source and transparent, and are developed in consultation with users. This ensures that the technology is aligned with the values of inclusivity, openness, and fairness.

Another argument put forth is that AI tools and large language models should acknowledge and attribute human contributions. Evidence is provided to support this claim, stating that large language models trained on the output of other large language models tend to become worse. Therefore, the inclusion of clear and consistent attribution helps AI tools recognize and honour the role of human contributions, ultimately improving their performance.

The need for proactive policy and regulatory discussions to promote a positive vision of the internet is highlighted as a significant point. It is suggested that current discussions often focus on commercial interests and harmful content online, while neglecting the importance of championing a positive vision for the internet. This lack of action in shaping the internet’s future direction is seen as concerning.

However, it is also acknowledged that Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation face challenges in terms of biases, limitations, and access. While Wikipedia operates under an open access model, it is noted that this does not guarantee equal access for all individuals. Factors such as language, internet access, and time can limit people’s ability to contribute and access its resources. Additionally, the existence of biases and issues related to harassment are recognised as areas needing improvement.

Lastly, the analysis also highlights the desire for more shared resources and collaboration. This includes access to talking points used by others in similar spaces and more case studies and stories from different contexts and countries. This emphasises the importance of coordination and collaboration for more effective conversations and outcomes.

Overall, the speakers in the analysis raise important points about the resilience of Wikipedia as a digital commons model, the positive role of AI tools, the need for proactive policy discussions, the challenges faced by Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation, and the importance of collaboration. These viewpoints provide valuable insights into the complexities and potential of online knowledge sharing and collaborative work.

Lea Gimpel

Lea Gimpel, a strong advocate for digital public goods (DPGs), emphasises their significance in achieving sustainable development goals. DPGs are categorized into five groups: open source software, open AI models, open standards, open content, and open data. The Digital Public Goods Alliance, endorsed by the United Nations, plays a key role in promoting and supporting the use of DPGs.

Gimpel highlights the alliance’s efforts in advocating for DPGs and maintaining DPG standards and a registry. The DPG standard consists of nine indicators used to assess whether a product can be considered a DPG. The DPG registry provides a platform for product developers to apply for the DPG label, and it already lists over 150 products.

Furthermore, Gimpel emphasizes the need for open source digital public infrastructure to grant countries control over their IT architecture. This infrastructure consists of four fundamental components: payment systems, digital identity, civil registries, and data exchange. By establishing digital public infrastructure, countries can exercise sovereignty over their own infrastructure.

Gimpel also advocates for a democratic approach to AI development and usage, emphasizing responsible openness. From the perspective of the Digital Public Goods Alliance, not all AI systems should be fully released into the public domain. Safeguards need to be in place to ensure responsible usage. To achieve this, Gimpel suggests breaking down AI systems into their components (data, models, and code) and determining which elements should be open, closed, or in-between.

In addition, Gimpel supports the definition of digital public infrastructure (DPI) as infrastructure that performs society-wide functions. This aligns with the guidance provided by the World Bank and GovStack initiatives, which serve as references. Gimpel encourages the adaptation of open source technologies and their open and public sharing, aiming to reduce bilateral agreements and foster partnerships.

The importance of interoperability and standardization in technology development are other points emphasized by Gimpel. These elements are crucial for the adoption and common use of technologies, and the Digital Public Goods Alliance is committed to promoting open standards.

Gimpel’s perspective also centers on people, advocating for digital policies and regulations that empower individuals and governments to take control of their own destiny. Open source technologies are seen as a means to achieve this goal, particularly for governments and public services. Gimpel believes in the inclusivity of people’s perspectives in digital governance and encourages their prominent inclusion.

In conclusion, Lea Gimpel’s viewpoints highlight the significance of digital public goods (DPGs) in achieving sustainable development goals. The Digital Public Goods Alliance plays a crucial role in promoting and supporting the use of DPGs, maintaining DPG standards and a registry. Gimpel emphasizes the need for open source digital public infrastructure, responsible openness in AI development and usage, adaptability of open source technologies, interoperability, and standardization, and people-centered approaches in digital governance. Gimpel’s arguments contribute to the discourse on the importance of DPGs in fostering efficiency, reducing fragmentation, and empowering individuals and nations in the digital ecosystem.

Renata Mielli

Achieving digital sovereignty involves countries shifting from being consumers to becoming creators of technology. This can be achieved through the development of native technology solutions and the promotion of national tech and digital services. Strengthening national industries, universities, research centers, and technology infrastructure is critical for countries to attain digital sovereignty. By doing so, countries can reduce their dependence on others and assume leadership positions in digital development.

Linguistic and cultural diversity also play a crucial role in the pursuit of digital sovereignty. Efforts should be made to process large language models in national languages, which will strengthen a country’s position in artificial intelligence (AI) models. The Lusophone Internet Governance Forum is an example of how Portuguese-speaking countries have come together to promote multilingualism, recognising linguistic diversity as a strategic topic in the discussion of digital sovereignty.

The introduction of national digital initiatives, such as the PIX payment system in Brazil, serves as an example of achieving digital sovereignty. PIX, developed in Brazil, has become the most popular payment method in the country. Its implementation has led to tax-free transactions, especially benefiting small and personal businesses. Additionally, the introduction of PIX has reduced data concentration in the hands of big international financial companies. However, it is worth noting that while PIX has been successful, it does not fulfil the criteria for a public technology as it lacks an open-source approach.

Effective public policies are necessary to democratise commercial authorisation and further strengthen digital sovereignty. These policies should aim to empower businesses and individuals by providing equal opportunities for commercial ventures. Democratising commercial authorisation will contribute to a more inclusive and diverse digital economy.

The importance of digital sovereignty for nations lies in having policies on data centres and initiatives to ensure sovereignty over data. Discussions surrounding the challenge of formulating a policy on data centres underscore the significance of digital sovereignty. By asserting control over data and ensuring its protection, countries can safeguard their national interests and maintain their autonomy in the digital world.

Furthermore, convincing governments to invest in digital commons and sovereignty is of utmost importance. While it may be easier and initially cheaper to rely on existing services, investing in digital commons and sovereignty enables countries to have greater control over their digital infrastructure and safeguard against potential vulnerabilities and threats. By investing in their own digital capabilities, countries can foster innovation, economic growth, and strengthen their overall resilience.

In conclusion, achieving digital sovereignty requires countries to transition from being consumers to creators of technology. This entails developing native technology solutions, promoting national tech and digital services, and strengthening national industries and infrastructure. Linguistic and cultural diversity are crucial elements in the pursuit of digital sovereignty, as they enable countries to assert their position in AI models and promote multilingualism. National digital initiatives, such as the PIX payment system in Brazil, provide examples of how digital sovereignty can be achieved, while effective public policies democratise commercial authorisation and empower businesses. The importance of digital sovereignty lies in having policies on data centres and initiatives that ensure sovereignty over data. Governments must be convinced to invest in digital commons and sovereignty to secure their national interests and foster resilience in the digital age.

Carlos Baca

The analysis emphasises the critical role of capacity building, community networks, tailored training programmes, and inclusive policy-making in addressing the needs of communities within the realm of digital technologies. Capacity building is essential in helping communities effectively utilise digital technologies. It involves providing training and guidance on installation, operation, and maintenance, enabling communities to rethink, analyse, and reflect on their challenges, and explore how digital technologies can be utilised to address their needs and aspirations. By empowering communities with the necessary skills and knowledge, capacity building equips them to leverage digital technologies for their benefit.

Community networks play a crucial role in strengthening local economies and identities. These networks are closely tied to the structure and organisation of a community, allowing them to integrate with their traditional ways of living. Community networks not only provide connectivity but also assist in the development of local content, reinforcing the identity and cultural heritage of the community. By enabling communities to develop and control their own content, community networks foster a sense of ownership and empowerment, contributing to the growth and vitality of local economies.

Tailored training programmes are crucial for effective capacity building. In order to be truly effective, training programmes need to be customised and contextualised to the specific needs and challenges of the communities. A “one size fits all” approach is ineffective as it fails to address the unique requirements of each community. Therefore, public policies must support the design and implementation of tailored training programmes that take into account the cultural, social, and economic contexts in which communities operate. With the necessary time and resources devoted to programme development and implementation, tailored training programmes can effectively equip communities with the skills needed to leverage digital technologies for their growth and development.

Inclusive policy-making is imperative to address the connectivity issues faced by communities. Policies that are co-designed by people who have experienced the challenges of being without connectivity are more likely to accurately reflect the needs of the communities. By involving communities and individuals in the decision-making process, policies can better address the specific challenges and opportunities faced by these communities. Public policies should be linked directly to the needs of the communities, ensuring that the voices of those affected by connectivity issues are heard and considered.

In conclusion, the analysis underscores the significance of capacity building, community networks, tailored training programmes, and inclusive policy-making in empowering communities to effectively harness the potential of digital technologies. By focusing on these key areas, communities can overcome connectivity challenges and leverage digital technologies to enhance their quality of life, economic opportunities, and cultural identity. It is essential for policymakers to recognise the importance of these factors and work towards creating an environment that supports community-driven initiatives and inclusive practices.

Luca Belli

The concept of digital commons goes beyond being just a type of resource; it is a mode of governance that links the resource with the community. It emphasizes the importance of understanding, developing, and regulating technology to achieve digital sovereignty. Elinor Ostrom’s Nobel Prize-winning research emphasizes the significance of having a governance system and defined rules in the functioning of the commons system.

In order to counter the influence of resource-rich corporations or states, the commons movement relies on the assistance and understanding of states. This requires states to facilitate and protect commons initiatives, which in turn strengthens the movement.

The current state of internet governance is seen as a concern, with arguments suggesting that it needs to change. The Internet should be established as a commons, prioritizing human rights, inclusivity, self-determination, and giving more control to people, communities, and content creators. This movement towards a more inclusive and transformative approach is supported by the Global Digital Compact, which emphasizes human rights, digital inclusion, and access. Efforts to implement gender balance in internet governance are also seen as important.

Digital sovereignty is highlighted by Luca Belli as a crucial aspect. This involves the need for autonomy from large tech corporations, and examples of such sovereignty can be seen in local initiatives such as Brazil’s payment system, PIX, and India’s UPI. Belli acknowledges the role of states in fostering digital sovereignty and the importance of understanding, developing, and regulating technology to achieve strategic autonomy.

Digital public infrastructure and digital commons are seen as potential tools to reclaim digital sovereignty. These concepts overlap in many ways, but digital public infrastructures are usually fostered by the government or public entities, while digital commons are about resources and communities that self-govern specific digital resources.

There is concern about the concentration of the cloud computing market in a few corporations such as AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud, which control 70% of the market. Addressing this issue is seen as necessary to ensure fair competition and reduce inequalities.

Policies in the digital realm should be co-designed by communities without connectivity to ensure their effective implementation. Community networks are considered a viable third option beyond state and market systems. They not only provide connectivity but also foster digital sovereignty.

The idea of digital sovereignty is viewed as empowering communities, individuals, and states, beyond government control. It is seen as essential for protecting human rights and promoting competition, which are both crucial to democracy.

To raise awareness about the benefits of community networks, it is important to repeatedly educate governments. Some governments, such as India and Brazil, have already shown understanding and successfully implemented community network initiatives.

In conclusion, the concept of digital commons goes beyond just a resource; it involves a mode of governance that intersects the resource with the community. Digital sovereignty and strategic autonomy from large tech corporations are essential, and states play a crucial role in fostering these. Policies and infrastructures should prioritize human rights, inclusivity, and self-determination. The concentration of power in the cloud computing market, the importance of co-designing policies with communities, and the potential of community networks as a third option are also highlighted. Overall, the pursuit of digital sovereignty aims to empower communities, individuals, and states and protect human rights and competition.

Anriette Esterhuysen

The analysis provides insights into the various viewpoints on internet governance and digital commons discussed by different speakers. One speaker argues that it is crucial to identify the flaws in existing internet governance systems. They highlight the failure of the Global Digital Compact in bringing about substantive changes and assert that the current multi-stakeholder processes are merely labels without transformative measures. Their sentiment is negative towards the current state of internet governance.

Another speaker proposes an alternative approach by advocating for governing the internet as a commons. They argue that this approach would make governance more inclusive and transformative. Emphasising the importance of people’s control and self-determination, they call for a paradigm shift in understanding and governing the internet. Their sentiment is positive towards the idea of internet governance as a commons.

The recognition of the effort and labour of builders of digital public goods is highlighted by another speaker. They stress the need to acknowledge and directly benefit these individuals who contribute to the development of the digital commons. This observation has a neutral sentiment.

A human-centric approach in digital sovereignty is advocated by another speaker. They assert that internet governance is not about state sovereignty but rather about self-determination. They argue for giving more control to people, communities, and content creators, emphasising that it should be about community control rather than state control. Their sentiment is positive towards the concept of self-determination in internet governance.

The risks associated with state and corporate capture of digital commons are discussed by another speaker. They acknowledge the importance of mobilising the public sector and the role of the state in protecting the commons. However, they also express concerns about the potential capture of the commons by both corporate and state entities. Their sentiment is concerned about the risks of capture.

The concept of digital public infrastructure is seen as a useful approach for collaboration between different stakeholders. The opportunity to define common definitions and the need for regulation and interoperability are emphasised. This viewpoint has a positive sentiment towards the benefits of digital public infrastructure.

Support is expressed for the African Union Commission’s high-level framework on data policy. The framework is seen as enabling data sovereignty without data localisation, while also not restricting trade or harming freedom of expression. The sentiment towards this framework is positive.

The example of MOSIP, an Indian open-source digital identity system, is highlighted as a positive case. The need for frameworks and principles to ensure its successful implementation is mentioned. The sentiment is positive towards the potential of MOSIP.

Interoperability is considered a crucial component in internet governance, with the acknowledgement that it requires political will. This viewpoint emphasises the importance of collaboration and political support for interoperability. The sentiment is positive towards interoperability.

The need for a change in the regulatory paradigm in internet governance is highlighted. Currently, the regulatory paradigm is shaped by big companies, and there is a call for regulations that enable diversity and create more open markets for smaller players. The sentiment towards the current regulatory paradigm is negative, emphasising the need for change.

The DPI (Deep Packet Inspection) discussion is viewed as an opportunity to rethink approaches to internet governance. However, no specific arguments or evidence are provided to support this viewpoint. The sentiment towards the DPI discussion is positive.

The Digital Commons Forum is deemed to require a different approach as it tends to cover an overly broad range of topics. It is suggested that efforts put into alternative processes or approaches may yield more impactful results. The sentiment towards the Digital Commons Forum is neutral with a recognition of the need for improvement.

Advocacy for developing alternative approaches and processes in internet and digital governance is expressed. This viewpoint affirms the continuous development of internet governance and digital governance and highlights the interest in alternative processes and approaches. The sentiment is positive towards exploring alternative approaches.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights various perspectives on internet governance and digital commons. While some argue for identifying flaws, others propose governing the internet as a commons for inclusivity and empowerment. Recognition of the effort and labour of builders of digital public goods is emphasised, along with the need for a human-centric approach in digital sovereignty. The risks of state and corporate capture are brought up, and the concept of digital public infrastructure is seen as valuable. Support is expressed for the African Union Commission’s data policy framework, and the example of MOSIP is considered useful. Interoperability and a change in the regulatory paradigm are deemed necessary. The DPI discussion and the Digital Commons Forum are seen as opportunities for rethinking approaches. Advocacy for developing alternative processes and approaches in internet governance is also highlighted.

Speakers