Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation | IGF 2023

Report

The analysis delves into the topic of internet fragmentation and its various implications. It highlights the negative effects of technical fragmentation on the internet’s ability to evolve, innovate, and adapt. The argument is made that when the internet is split into different networks, its potential for growth and development is hindered.

The analysis underscores the importance of maintaining the unity and interconnectivity of the internet to enable progress and positive outcomes.

The need for a uniform and unharmful user experience on the internet is also explored. It is noted that elements representing the user experience should be safeguarded to ensure a consistent and positive online environment.

Additionally, the significance of interoperability is underscored. It is stated that interoperability is crucial for the smooth functioning of the internet, allowing different systems and devices to communicate effectively with each other.

The harmful effects of fragmentation are examined, particularly in relation to blocking user access to certain sites or content.

This type of harmful fragmentation is seen as a significant problem, as it restricts users’ freedom and limits their ability to fully utilize the internet.

The analysis further delves into the impact of fragmentation on democracy and the digital space.

It is argued that the integrity of the digital space is crucial for the defense of democracy. The risks associated with fragmenting the digital space are highlighted, bringing attention to the potential negative consequences.

Additional topics discussed include the ownership of IP addresses and the importance of decoupling IP addresses from networks.

The analysis suggests that everyone should own their own IP address, allowing for more control and autonomy in the online space.

The involvement of regional or cultural leaders in internet policy formation is explored as a way to mitigate the impact of internet shutdowns and address the needs of specific communities.

Engaging these leaders can lead to more inclusive and effective initiatives.

The potential widening of the digital divide due to the availability of satellite internet is also discussed. The rise of satellite and private corporate satellite internet is seen as a concern, as it could lead to the exclusion of certain populations and affect the quality of the online experience for many.

The challenges of implementing recommendations for internet fragmentation and the importance of internet governance are also addressed.

The analysis acknowledges the difficulty in implementing recommendations due to the evolving and decentralized nature of the internet. It is concluded that there is a need to create governance to prevent internet fragmentation and ensure a cohesive and inclusive online environment.

Overall, the analysis offers a comprehensive examination of the topic of internet fragmentation, highlighting its negative effects and the importance of maintaining a unified and interconnected internet.

It emphasizes the need for a uniform and unharmful user experience, interoperability, and inclusive internet policies.

Report

During the session, a comprehensive presentation will be given on the Policy Network’s discussion paper. The paper examines various aspects outlined in the Policy Network framework, and debates will be held to delve further into these topics. The aim of the session is to foster a thorough understanding of the discussion paper and encourage insightful discussions among participants.

The presentation and subsequent debates are of significant importance to the Policy Network as they provide an opportunity to seek feedback, gather perspectives, and refine the framework.

The Policy Network values the contribution of its volunteers and acknowledges their role in shaping the document. Bruna, in particular, expresses profound gratitude to all the volunteers who helped shape the document with their time and effort. It is heartening to note that some of these volunteers are present during the session, indicating their continued commitment to the Policy Network’s values and goals.

The discussions and presentations align with two Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): SDG 16 and SDG 17.

SDG 16 focuses on promoting peaceful and inclusive societies, providing access to justice for all, and building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions. The Policy Network’s efforts to facilitate debates and discussions on the various aspects outlined in the framework contribute to these goals.

Furthermore, SDG 17 emphasizes the importance of partnerships and collaboration to achieve the SDGs. The Policy Network recognizes the significance of collaboration and appreciates the volunteers who have worked alongside them, highlighting the importance of partnership for the goals.

In conclusion, the upcoming session will involve a detailed presentation of the Policy Network’s discussion paper, as well as debates on the various aspects outlined in the framework.

The volunteers of the Policy Network are greatly appreciated and thanked for their invaluable contribution in shaping the document. The discussions and presentations align with SDG 16 and SDG 17, incorporating elements of peace, justice, strong institutions, and partnerships for the goals.

By engaging in these activities, the Policy Network aims to further progress towards achieving the SDGs and creating positive change.

Report

In the analysis of internet governance, several key points were highlighted. Firstly, there was a strong argument for the need for broad-based participation in standards bodies and global internet governance organisations. The analysis acknowledged the Western bias in participation that currently exists and stressed the importance of greater inclusivity to ensure a more equitable representation.

Another critical issue discussed was the definition of governance fragmentation in internet governance.

The analysis criticised the current definition, stating that it is too narrow. This suggests that a more comprehensive understanding of fragmentation is required to effectively address the challenges.

Further examination revealed that the narrow mandates of many technical internet governance organisations contribute to governance fragmentation.

While these mandates serve important purposes, they can restrict organisations from adopting a systemic view of the internet. This limitation hinders their ability to address the complex governance challenges faced in the digital age.

The analysis also emphasised the need for better coordination between internet governance bodies.

It highlighted the potential for meaningful collaboration among the individuals involved in global internet governance bodies, stressing that improved coordination would enhance effectiveness and outcomes.

Lastly, the analysis touched upon the relationship between the multi-stakeholder-driven internet governance system and the multilateral or state-based regulatory and legal system.

It argued that these two systems should work together and influence each other positively. By shaping policies and practices collaboratively, a more effective and balanced internet governance framework could be achieved.

Overall, the analysis underscored the importance of broad-based participation, the need for a broader definition of governance fragmentation, and the significance of coordination and collaboration between internet governance bodies.

It also highlighted the potential benefits of aligning the multi-stakeholder-driven system with the multilateral or state-based system. These insights bring attention to key areas where improvements are necessary to ensure a more inclusive, effective, and cohesive approach to internet governance.

Report

User experience fragmentation refers to the division or segregation of users into different information environments or platforms, resulting in varying levels of access to content and features. This issue has both positive and negative aspects.

On the positive side, user experience fragmentation can include features and content that are specifically designed to benefit the user.

For example, certain platforms may tailor recommendations based on the user’s preferences, resulting in a more personalised experience. Additionally, some users may appreciate being able to navigate through smaller, more specialised content ecosystems that align with their interests or values.

However, on the negative side, user experience fragmentation can restrict users’ access to certain content and limit their exposure to diverse perspectives.

This can create information bubbles or echo chambers, where users are only exposed to information that supports their existing beliefs or biases. As a result, users may be deprived of opportunities to engage with differing opinions and challenge their own viewpoints.

Moreover, this kind of fragmentation can lead to the reinforcement of social, political, or cultural divides, as it inhibits the free flow of information and impedes dialogue and understanding among different groups.

Negative user experience fragmentation affects all users and is a cause for concern.

It has significant implications for the rights to access information and freedom of expression. When users are unable to access certain content or are forced into specific information environments, their right to freely seek and impart information is restricted. Additionally, non-targeted users, who may have diverse perspectives, are hindered in their ability to associate with those who are isolated in different information spaces.

This ultimately curtails the richness of public discourse and limits the potential for fostering inclusive and diverse dialogue.

Furthermore, user experience fragmentation can be classified as either good or bad. Good fragmentation describes situations where fragmentation is achieved through a multi-stakeholder process and upholds principles of openness and accessibility.

On the other hand, bad fragmentation tends to be the result of unilateral decision-making processes, disregarding the interests of users and reducing openness and accessibility.

It is argued that principles regarding user experience should be rooted in human rights standards.

Human rights standards are globally accepted and provide a solid jurisprudence foundation for assessing the legitimacy of interfering with the freedom of expression. Adhering to these principles ensures that user experience is guided by ethical considerations and serves the broader goal of promoting peace, justice, and strong institutions.

To mitigate the negative effects of fragmentation, it is suggested that enforcing platform interoperability, data portability, and enhancing users’ media and information literacy can be effective strategies.

Platform interoperability allows users to seamlessly navigate between different information environments, fostering exposure to diverse sources and perspectives. Data portability enables users to retain control over their personal information and move it between platforms, preserving their agency and reducing reliance on a single platform.

Strengthening users’ media and information literacy empowers individuals to critically evaluate information and navigate the vast amount of content available on the internet in a safe and informed manner. These measures can counteract the negative consequences of fragmentation, such as echo chambers and the spread of misinformation.

In conclusion, user experience fragmentation has both positive and negative dimensions, with its impact extending beyond individual users to society as a whole.

While it can provide tailored experiences and niche content, it also limits access to diverse perspectives and contributes to societal divisions. Adhering to human rights standards and implementing measures to mitigate the negative effects are essential in ensuring that user experiences are inclusive, ethical, and conducive to fostering an informed and democratic society.

Report

The discussion revolves around the topic of internet fragmentation and its implications on connectivity and global inclusivity. One aspect highlighted is the lack of a clear and operationalized definition for technical fragmentation, resulting in different frameworks for understanding the concept.

While fragmentation is often seen as a negative phenomenon, certain types of fragmentation, such as decentralisation, lack of connectivity by choice, or temporary network glitches, are considered to be non-problematic.

However, the evolving nature of the internet and its changing routing behaviour may lead to a different kind of fragmentation, potentially increasing the digital divide.

This digital divide could be more prominent in lesser connected parts of the world and could result in a disparity in user experience. Therefore, it is important to address and mitigate these effects to ensure global connectivity.

A key argument presented is the need to protect the critical properties of the internet for global connectivity.

Fragmentation in the technical infrastructure is likely to be reflected in the user space, affecting the overall user experience. It is crucial to continually evolve the internet and avoid ossifying it in its current state.

Furthermore, a multi-stakeholder approach is deemed necessary to ensure global connectivity and prevent fragmentation.

Stakeholders include the private sector, technical communities, civil society, and governments. By involving various stakeholders, it is believed that a collaborative effort can be made to address global connectivity issues effectively.

One notable observation is the call for a more nuanced understanding of the issues surrounding internet fragmentation.

It is suggested that a broader perspective is required to fully comprehend the implications and consequences of different forms of fragmentation.

Another important point raised is the protection of an open internet architecture. This open architecture should be safeguarded to promote common protocols and interoperability.

It is argued that an open internet architecture allows for the evolution of the internet and ensures its continued effectiveness and accessibility.

Additionally, the affordability and accessibility of the internet are highlighted as crucial factors in preventing the creation of a digital divide.

Issues such as the concept of the “death of transit” and pricing disparities are mentioned, which can hinder individuals’ ability to access the internet. To prevent exclusion, it is important to address these affordability and accessibility challenges, ensuring that everyone who wants to connect can do so.

In conclusion, the analysis emphasises the need for a clear definition of internet fragmentation and a comprehensive understanding of its various forms.

Protecting the critical properties of the internet, adopting a multi-stakeholder approach, preserving an open internet architecture, and addressing affordability and accessibility issues are crucial steps towards ensuring global connectivity and preventing the creation of a digital divide. The ultimate goal is to provide equitable access to the internet, ensuring that everyone who desires to connect can do so.

Report

Fragmentation at the governance layer of internet governance can have negative consequences, such as duplicative discussions and excluding certain groups from the decision-making process. This fragmentation occurs when global internet governance and standards bodies fail to coordinate inclusively. The lack of coordination can lead to redundant conversations and the marginalisation of specific stakeholders.

Furthermore, this fragmentation at the governance layer does not just impact that particular level; it can also have knock-on effects on other layers of the internet user experience and the technical layer.

The issues arising from governance fragmentation can trickle down to affect the overall user experience and technical functionalities of the internet. This highlights the interconnectedness of the different layers and the need for holistic approaches to address fragmentation.

To combat fragmentation, inclusivity is considered a central approach.

When multi-stakeholder community participation is limited or not fully empowered, fragmentation tends to occur. Therefore, promoting inclusivity becomes crucial in combating governance fragmentation.

Instead of introducing new bodies into the internet governance landscape, it is recommended that existing internet governance bodies focus on improving coordination.

Introducing additional bodies may further complicate the already complex governance landscape. Therefore, enhancing coordination among existing bodies is seen as a preferable solution to address fragmentation.

Moreover, it is important to ensure regional nuances and cultural contexts are considered in global internet governance bodies.

Internet governance bodies should strive to accommodate the perspectives and voices of all stakeholders, regardless of their cultural or regional background. This can be achieved through better coordination and utilising platforms like National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs) or the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).

These platforms provide opportunities to discuss local nuances, regional contexts, and ensure diverse perspectives are heard. For instance, the Africa IGF was identified as a fruitful opportunity to learn about regional perspectives and the importance of cultural and regional inclusions.

In conclusion, fragmentation at the governance layer of internet governance has negative implications, including duplicative discussions and exclusion of certain groups.

Inclusivity is crucial to address this fragmentation, and existing internet governance bodies should focus on improving coordination rather than introducing new bodies. Additionally, considering regional nuances and cultural contexts in global internet governance is vital for inclusive decision-making processes. Platforms like NRIs and IGF can play a significant role in fostering regional and cultural inclusivity.

Report

The issue of user experience level fragmentation is a complex one, with perspectives depending on one’s geographic and socio-economic context. People in Silicon Valley and the US West Coast express major complaints about actions taken by governments in authoritarian countries or the privacy laws of the European Union.

Conversely, Europeans primarily complain about the actions of Silicon Valley platforms.

Maintaining a balance between the global nature of the internet and the preservation of local sovereignty is vital. The original vision of the internet was to unite the planet by enabling unrestricted communication.

However, disparities in values, economic systems, and languages have caused tension and division.

Efforts to address these issues should focus on pragmatism and determining the existence of a problem rather than getting caught up in semantics. Rather than engaging in unproductive debates over definitions, it is more constructive to seek agreement on the existence of a problem.

This pragmatic approach allows for practical solutions and avoids getting stuck in semantic disputes that do not lead to meaningful progress.

In conclusion, addressing user experience level fragmentation requires considering different perspectives based on geographic and socio-economic contexts.

Acknowledging concerns raised by individuals in Silicon Valley and the US West Coast about governments in authoritarian countries or EU privacy laws, as well as addressing European concerns about the actions of Silicon Valley platforms, is essential for improving overall user experience.

Striking a balance between the global nature of the internet and the preservation of local sovereignty is crucial. Taking a pragmatic approach that focuses on assessing the existence of a problem rather than getting caught up in semantics will drive progress towards resolving these challenges.

Report

The Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation has spent the year exploring the complexities of Internet fragmentation. They have developed a comprehensive framework that allows them to understand and address fragmentation from different perspectives. The network aims to unpack the elements of the framework, identify priorities, and formulate recommendations for action.

They advocate for a multi-stakeholder approach, recognizing the involvement of diverse stakeholders in fragmentation. Seeking feedback from the community, the network wants to align their priorities with the international community and ensure comprehensive recommendations. Their ultimate goal is to provide clarity to the complex and contentious issue of Internet fragmentation, foster ongoing dialogue and engagement, and contribute towards a more connected digital landscape.

Report

The internet is a decentralised set of networks that lacks a single point of control. It is a collaborative effort involving multiple individuals who have built this expansive network. This characteristic of decentralisation is a fundamental aspect of the internet, allowing for its widespread connectivity and accessibility.

Technology plays a crucial role in the internet’s functioning by enabling interoperability between these networks.

It provides the means to bind different networks together, allowing seamless communication and data exchange. This interoperability is essential for the smooth operation of the internet and facilitates the flow of information across various platforms and devices.

Openness and incremental deployability are critical properties of the internet.

The internet constantly evolves with the deployment of new technologies. This adaptability and openness enable the integration of innovative technologies onto the internet, keeping it up to date and capable of supporting new applications and services.

Content filtering is an important consideration in the context of the internet.

It is argued that content filtering should occur at higher layers, taking into account the differences in laws across countries, states, and localities worldwide. This approach acknowledges the diverse legal frameworks and ensures that filtering is done in a way that respects local regulations whilst maintaining the internet as an open and inclusive platform.

The multi-stakeholder approach has played a significant role in the development and governance of the internet.

This collaborative approach involves stakeholders from various sectors working together to shape policies and decisions regarding the internet’s management. The internet has thrived and evolved due to this inclusive approach, allowing for diverse perspectives and expertise to contribute to its growth and stability.

Efforts in internet measurement are critical for understanding and improving the internet’s performance.

There is a need for more measurement points across the globe and a platform for individuals to conduct their own experiments and assessments. By increasing the focus on internet measurement, we can gain valuable insights into the network’s strengths, weaknesses, and overall quality, leading to targeted improvements and advancements.

However, a noteworthy critique is the lack of references in the document.

It is important to provide credible sources and citations to support the arguments and claims made. For example, referencing RFC 1958, which discusses the architecture of the internet, would add credibility and depth to the document’s assertions.

In conclusion, the internet’s decentralised nature, enabled by technology’s interoperability, openness, and incremental deployability, has shaped its development.

Content filtering should be approached in a way that considers the differences in laws worldwide whilst maintaining the internet’s accessibility. The multi-stakeholder approach has been instrumental in managing and evolving the internet. Finally, efforts in internet measurement are necessary for ongoing improvement, but it is crucial to provide proper references to support the document’s claims and arguments.

Report

Internet fragmentation is a complex concept without a clear definition, as there are different views on the subject. However, three categories or “baskets” of fragmentation have been identified: fragmentation of Internet user experience, fragmentation of Internet governance and coordination, and fragmentation of the technical layer.

The complexity of the topic led to the abandonment of creating a precise definition for Internet fragmentation.

To facilitate discussions and understanding of Internet fragmentation, a framework was developed. This framework aims to provide a structure for discussing the various aspects of Internet fragmentation rather than providing a strict definition.

It outlines the three aforementioned categories or “baskets” of fragmentation: fragmentation of Internet user experience, fragmentation of Internet governance and coordination, and fragmentation of the technical layer.

Multi-stakeholder discussions are crucial when addressing Internet fragmentation. These discussions involve various stakeholders, who may differ depending on the specific category of fragmentation being discussed.

This highlights the importance of different groups coming together to discuss Internet fragmentation, with each category attracting different stakeholders.

To effectively address Internet fragmentation, it is necessary to have discussions that span across all categories. This is because guidelines for avoiding or addressing fragmentation may not be fully complementary between different categories.

By having discussions across the “baskets” or categories, a cross-category approach can be developed to better tackle Internet fragmentation.

In conclusion, Internet fragmentation is a complex issue without a definitive definition. However, through the identification of three categories of fragmentation and the development of a framework for discussions, progress can be made in understanding and addressing this issue.

Multi-stakeholder discussions that encompass all categories are essential to effectively navigate the challenges posed by Internet fragmentation.