Overcoming the fragmentation of the digital governance: what role for the Global Digital Compact and e-trade rules? (South Centre)
7 Dec 2023 10:00h - 11:30h UTC
Knowledge Graph of Debate
Session report
Full session report
Vitor Ido
The analysis explores ongoing negotiations surrounding global digital governance and highlights the need for increased engagement and transparency in these discussions. One of the challenges identified is the management of multiple parallel processes and the difficulty in establishing policy coherence. Additionally, the analysis points out that developed countries can potentially exploit fragmentation to their advantage, underscoring the need to avoid duplicating issues and effectively address market power, digital rights, and digital divides through the implementation of a Global Digital Compact.
Market power within multistakeholder processes emerges as a significant concern. It is argued that measures should be taken to curtail market power to prevent these processes from becoming platforms that primarily benefit tech giants. The analysis draws attention to the potential bias these processes may have towards market players, posing a considerable challenge for developing countries. The adoption of a multi-tiered model that reinforces market power is discouraged.
The role of digital trade agreements in shaping policy space and impacting national platforms is also discussed. The analysis highlights how the change in the United States’ position at the World Trade Organization (WTO) raises questions about policy space. Moreover, it is argued that trade agreements can impede the development of national platforms and hinder public digital goods by reinforcing market power.
Capacity building emerges as another important aspect in the realm of digital governance. Diplomats and staff often struggle to engage with the fast-paced and complex nature of the evolving digital arena. Therefore, integrating capacity-building efforts with negotiation preparation is proposed as a means to enhance awareness and understanding of these processes.
The analysis proposes the strategic use of global digital conflict as a tool for stimulating broader conversations and fostering cross-disciplinary awareness. This approach is seen as effective in creating a wider understanding of the challenges posed by digital governance.
However, concerns are raised about the UN’s digital governance initiative. It is argued that the outcomes of this initiative may not be positive due to a mandate that avoids duplicating work covered in other areas. Additionally, the absence of discussions on market power, influence, and competition is highlighted as a potential limitation.
The analysis acknowledges the increasing role played by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in technical standards and digital governance negotiations. ITU’s involvement is recognized beyond technical standards and is seen as playing a crucial role in digital governance negotiations.
Lastly, the misuse of the concept of multi-stakeholderism to legitimize the role of big tech platforms in digital governance is commented upon. It is noted that there are insufficient conflict of interest provisions at the UN level, similar to those seen in finance law and corporate law, which raises concerns about the integrity of the decision-making process.
In conclusion, the analysis underscores the importance of enhanced engagement and transparency in global digital governance negotiations. It emphasizes the need to address challenges such as managing multiple processes, market power, and digital divides. Furthermore, it highlights the significance of capacity building, the use of global digital conflict, and the role of ITU. The analysis raises concerns regarding the UN’s digital governance initiative and the misuse of the multi-stakeholderism concept.
Isabella Bassani
Fragmentation in digital governance has emerged as a significant concern, posing challenges to digital inclusiveness and policy convergence. This issue arises from the enactment of diverse digital laws by different countries, leading to a lack of coherence in governing digital technologies. The participation of the global north in digital governance processes further exacerbates the imbalance, limiting the influence of other regions.
On a positive note, the Global Digital Compact offers a potential solution to address this fragmentation. The Compact aims to promote multistakeholder participation in digital governance and is set to be adopted next year at the Summit of the Future. By encouraging collaboration and inclusivity, the Compact can help foster better coordination and convergence of digital policies across nations.
The digital divide remains a significant hurdle in achieving digital transformation. Currently, a staggering 2.6 billion people are still offline, highlighting the persistent disparity in internet accessibility. Moreover, there are significant variations in internet usage between regions, with the global north enjoying higher percentages. This digital divide poses challenges to achieving equitable and inclusive digital transformation efforts worldwide.
In addition to the digital divide, the complexity of digital issues adds another layer of difficulty in creating effective governance strategies. Developing countries, in particular, face challenges in keeping track of discussions and negotiations related to digital governance due to the cross-cutting nature of these issues. This complexity calls for the adoption of comprehensive and adaptable approaches that can address the unique needs and circumstances of different countries.
It is worth noting that fragmentation can sometimes encourage market power, hindering concurrence in digital governance. This weaponization of fragmentation further emphasizes the need to find common ground and foster cooperation between nations to achieve effective digital governance.
To overcome these challenges, it is crucial to have more open forums and discussions that allow for meaningful engagement and collaboration. Top-down approaches may not always be effective as they may not fully consider the realities and perspectives on the ground. Therefore, adopting a multistakeholder approach and creating inclusive spaces for dialogue can enhance the effectiveness of digital governance efforts.
Trade agreements also play a significant role in achieving coherence in digital governance. While fragmentation is not a new challenge, more agreements are needed to address it and ensure consistency in policies and regulations. By creating frameworks that promote cooperation and harmonization, trade agreements can contribute to the development of a more unified and coordinated approach to digital governance.
In conclusion, fragmentation in digital governance presents challenges to digital inclusiveness and policy convergence. The enactment of different digital laws by countries and the dominance of the global north in participation contribute to this fragmentation. However, initiatives like the Global Digital Compact offer promising solutions by promoting multistakeholder participation. The persistence of the digital divide and the complexity of digital issues must also be addressed through inclusive approaches and increased international cooperation. Trade agreements can also play a vital role in achieving coherence in digital governance. Overall, fostering collaboration, inclusivity, and coherence is crucial to ensure that digital technologies can be harnessed for the benefit of all.
Rao Mehroz Khan
The proposed global digital compact aims to address fragmentation in digital governance and optimize the potential of digital technologies for the global good. It seeks to enhance digital literacy, bridge the gender digital divide, harmonize digital procedures, support SMEs, empower women entrepreneurs and marginalized communities, standardize data protection laws, advocate for sector-specific regulations, promote global digital connectivity and capacity building, and ensure interoperability between different mechanisms. While there is a need for a centralized platform, concerns about practicality and the influence of big tech companies have been raised. It is vital to overcome challenges associated with data protection and localize requirements to create a fair and secure digital trade environment. Ensuring that data protection measures do not hinder international trade is also essential. By addressing these issues, the global digital compact can contribute to sustainable development and economic empowerment.
Burcu Kilic
Fragmentation at a local level is seen as beneficial as it allows countries to have their own policy space and introduce regulations that suit their specific needs and priorities. This argument is supported by the fact that certain countries, such as South Korea and Australia, are taking steps towards implementing their own regulations. The sentiment towards this idea is positive.
However, there is a negative sentiment towards the idea that more forums and discussions do not necessarily result in effective policies but instead serve as a distraction. It is argued that too many forums lead to more discussions and less concrete actions. Real discussions are taking place in trade agreements or the World Trade Organization (WTO), but there is a concern that they do not lead to effective policies.
To address the issues related to competition and AI, there is a recognition of the need to synchronize tech and trade policies. It is highlighted that the United States trade representative, Catherine Tai, is a member of all interagency committees on competition and AI. The sentiment towards this argument is positive.
The concept of a “race to the bottom” in regulations is viewed as dangerous. Currently, there is a lack of regulations in the digital economy, especially in countries like the US. It is suggested that more global bindings and enforceable regulations may lead to a downfall in regulations or a ‘race to the bottom’. This sentiment towards the issue is negative.
Fragmentation is identified as a real problem in the internet. The owner of Microsoft testified that there is fragmentation, with Google having Google Internet and Google web, confirming the existence of this problem. The sentiment towards this argument is also negative.
It is argued that scalable forums and negotiations are needed to address the issue of internet fragmentation. The narrative around agreements may differ from what is actually implemented on paper, and this gap needs to be bridged for effective solutions to be achieved. The sentiment towards this argument is negative.
Trade agreements are criticized for focusing on positive goals but failing to address key issues such as the digital divide. It is pointed out that the purposes of trade agreements often mention addressing the digital divide, but the actual provisions overlook these issues. This flaw in trade agreements needs to be addressed. The sentiment towards this argument is negative.
The idea that each country should introduce regulations that are good for them and their people is seen in a positive light. It is acknowledged that not all regulations are either good or bad. Instead, each country needs to create its own set of regulations that benefit its people and its economy.
There is a negative sentiment towards intellectual property rights, as they are seen to have failed in delivering on promises. An example of this failure is highlighted in the case of the COVID situation, where access to medicines and local manufacturing of drugs were affected by intellectual property rules.
The principles of multi-stakeholderism and the internet have significantly changed over time. The work of Burcu Kilic, who has been working on digital rights issues for almost two decades, is mentioned to support this claim. The sentiment towards this argument is negative.
Trade negotiation is criticized for focusing solely on trade rather than considering the well-being of people. Trade negotiators are seen to be primarily focused on exports and imports. It is highlighted that obligations in trade agreements are mandatory, while positive aspects are often treated as voluntary. The sentiment towards this argument is negative.
The need for data protection and privacy is emphasized in global discussions. Concerns are raised regarding data flows to the US and China. It is observed that the US lacks comprehensive privacy legislation, while China has a relatively good privacy law with certain problems. The sentiment towards this argument is negative.
In conclusion, fragmentation at a local level is seen as beneficial, but more forums and discussions do not necessarily lead to effective policies. Tech and trade policies need to be synchronized to address competition and AI. The concept of a “race to the bottom” in regulations is viewed as dangerous, and there is a lack of regulations in the digital economy. Fragmentation is a real problem in the internet, and scalable forums and negotiations are needed to address it. Trade agreements often fail to address key issues such as the digital divide. Each country should introduce regulations that benefit their people. Intellectual property rights have not delivered on promises. The principles of multi-stakeholderism and the internet have significantly changed. Trade negotiation focuses on trade rather than the well-being of people. Data protection and privacy are critical in global discussions, with concerns over data flows to the US and China.
Audience
The Global Digital Cooperation (GDC) is currently under discussion, with differing perspectives and arguments being expressed. One viewpoint suggests that the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), specifically the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and the enhanced cooperation mechanism, should be preserved and developed. These initiatives have the potential to make a significant impact and should not be overlooked.
On the other hand, there are those who argue that the establishment of the GDC could reinforce the relevance of the Tunis Agenda and the enhanced cooperation mechanism. They believe that the role of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) should be strengthened within the GDC, and that a clear legal framework should be defined. This viewpoint stresses the importance of a structured and legally binding agreement to guide the work of the GDC.
Concerns have also been raised about the influence of major tech companies, such as Meta, Amazon, Apple, and Google, in the GDC. It is feared that these companies could exceed their influence in the partnership, raising questions about the balance of power within the GDC and the need for measures to prevent undue influence and ensure fair participation.
Additionally, there is a call to incentivise tech giants to participate in the GDC in a regulated manner. It is questioned how the GDC can encourage these companies to willingly join and abide by the rules negotiated by the GDC. It is suggested that creating incentives for their participation could foster a more collaborative and productive environment.
Lastly, concerns exist about the potential withdrawal of the United States from the GDC, similar to its withdrawal from the Global Services Innovation (GSI) e-commerce agreement. The US is a significant player in the global economy, and if it were to withdraw from the GDC, it could affect the participation of US-based tech giants. This raises questions about the stability and sustainability of the GDC and the need for continued engagement from all stakeholders.
In conclusion, the discussions surrounding the GDC focus on preserving and expanding existing initiatives, strengthening the role of the ITU, defining a clear legal framework, concerns about the influence of tech giants, the need for incentives to promote regulated participation, and worries about US withdrawal. These perspectives highlight the complexities and challenges of establishing effective global digital cooperation.
Speakers
A
Audience
Speech speed
170 words per minute
Speech length
832 words
Speech time
293 secs
BK
Burcu Kilic
Speech speed
154 words per minute
Speech length
3402 words
Speech time
1322 secs
IB
Isabella Bassani
Speech speed
138 words per minute
Speech length
2427 words
Speech time
1054 secs
RM
Rao Mehroz Khan
Speech speed
136 words per minute
Speech length
1941 words
Speech time
857 secs
VI
Vitor Ido
Speech speed
181 words per minute
Speech length
3542 words
Speech time
1176 secs
Related event
