The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF intervention. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
The session today is going to discuss, I think, one of the main topics or one of the main issues that has been on everyone's agenda, but we also want to talk about the broader space on Internet Governance and what should happen on things such as the GDC implementation, and other things.
So it might feel sometimes that it's a session about the GDC, but it's the other way around. We want to take a lack at what happened with the Global Digital Compact based on the PNIF framework that discusses among other things the fragmentation of coordination spaces. I'm joined today by an amazing set of speakers. Their names are all in the screen right now. I will introduce them later, but I will also say hello to my co‑facilitators, Wim and Sheetal who is joining us remotely from London. Without further ado, I will hand the floor to you, Wim.
>> WIM DEGEZELLE: Thank you. And good morning to everyone. I can say high to Sheetal a co‑facilitator, waving from us from a very early hour in London. So my name is Wim Degezelle. I am actually consultant with the IGF Secretariat, and supporting this Policy Network. Thank you.
So Policy Networks are intersessional activities of the IGF. That means in the beginning of the year, the MAG decides on a number of topics where they want the community to work on during the months and the weeks before the IGF meeting.
They come together, organize meetings, organize sessions, and then my role as consultant with the Secretariat is to help support the work. The positive thing about intersessional activities is that we have a little bit more time to prepare for the IGF meeting, and as you will see, what we, where we are today with the Policy Network is actually the result of three webinars we had during the year where we discussed more or less the same questions, but in a way that it builds up to the meeting today, so we hope to share some of the findings, some of the input we received during the webinars and share with the audience, with the panel so in a way get new input, but also get feedback and confirmation that we understood things right.
So the Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation is in its third year already.
It was started as an initiative suggested from the community or as a follow‑up on an existing initiative in the community that aims to raise awareness of actions and measures that risk to fragment the Internet.
The Policy Network itself wants to serve as a platform to foster a holistic and inclusive discussion on fragmentation and more important how to avoid fragmentation of the Internet.
On the next slide you will see the framework for discussing fragmentation. That is the output of the PNF work in the previous two years.
Just take a minute because we have been discussing this for two years. It framework is built on the input we get and the discussions we had with the community, and it's a little bit different than what you, the normal approach you would take. We tried at the beginning, at the first meeting of the PNF two or three years ago to come up with a definition of what fragmentation is, what fragmentation is not.
Very quickly, we ran into long discussions, discussions that were turning around focusing just on that question, black/white, yes/no, fragmentation and what is not. We came up with a framework that we can discuss fragmentation. A where we say there are different views, different ideas on what is fragmentation or what could be fragmentation of the Internet. And we put them. We can somehow put them in different baskets.
That's why we came up with framework where we say based on the conversations we had, you can make a difference between fragment nation of the user experience, fragmentation of Internet Governance and coordination and fragmentation of the technical layer.
We don't see that as very fixed categories because they are relations between all of those baskets because one, they can be, the baskets can be, there might be some overlap, but there is also definitely a relation between those things. And more important there is the relation between technical, political and commercial developments, things that can be decided that might influence different kinds of fragmentation.
We thought it would be important to have this framework show it again at the beginning of the session, but the aim of the session is not to have that discussion again. The aim is to, as it was intended to use the framework as a background so if we have a discussion and if people do not necessarily agree or not necessarily talk about the same definition of fragmentation, we still have it in the background that we can park or situate where the people are but continue the discussion. That's why also we call it framework for discussing fragmentation, and not framework for defining fragmentation.
The PNF, we have been discussing for two years building the framework. In 2024 we wanted to make a step further, but we started the year with a question is fragmentation or is avoiding Internet fragmentation still a matter of concern in 2024 and how should the PNF contribute to have an inclusive discussion and holistic dialogue?
When we asked that question, we really wanted to hear from the people participating in the Policy Network. Should we actually continue the work? It was almost an existential question we were asking. Does it make sense?
Because there were in documents also, UN documents that were published two years, three years before mention of fragmentation, but at that moment, we were asking is this still a topic on the people's agenda. Already an initial discussion, we got the feedback, well, it is maybe not that on top of all discussion, but the discussion is still relevant.
Then, of course, through the years we had to the Summit of the Future, and the Global Digital Compact. And you will see on the next slide that there is a very interesting commitment that's called exactly the same, I would say job description, the PNF was given for itself, a commitment that Member States took.
So that's how we end the year at this meeting with having, with having as one of the important questions we have how should we understand the commitment that was taken by the GDC or in the GDC, and how can the PNF further contribute to this operationalization.
It's in very small print, but I have it a little bit larger. So in the Global Digital Compact that was agreed in September, one of the commitments the Member States take says, it's Article 29C, a commitment to promote international cooperation among all stakeholders to prevent, identify, and address risks of fragmentation of the Internet in a timely manner.
I will leave it there because that's exactly the point where we want to start the discussion, see how this relates to our work as a PNF, but also how we have to interpret and how we have to understand this commitment.
But then I hand this over back to Bru in. A and the panelists to share their thoughts. Thank you.
>> BRUNA MARTINS DOS SANTOS: As Wim was saying the goal is really discussing the operationalization and to understand what 29C means and how actually the multistakeholder community can work together and towards its implementation. So this is also going to be an interactive session.
We do hope to hear input from all in the audience, but starting to introduce our panelists, just a quick mention to their names, because I do trust they have some more things or had to add, but we have joining us today Alisa Heaver from the Ministry of Economic Affairs and climate in the Netherlands., Amitabh Singhal from the ICANN Board of Directors, welcome. And Gbenga Sesan from Paradigm Initiative. Thanks for joining us.
And I guess my first question to you is how do you react to what PNIF participants said regarding the GDC commitment? What is your view as to how we should interpret and operationalize it and ensure implementation of the commitment in Article 29C, and if there are inventory examples useful in that sense. So I don't know what wants to take the floor first, but I will leave it for you.
>> AMITABH SINGHAL: Good morning, and thank you for having me here. And thank you, Wim, for the summarization of the discussions the PNF had during the webinars. It gives us background to go on, and to consider things going forward and how the multistakeholder, Bruna, if I understand your question correctly how does the multistakeholder Committee go forward and how does it operationalize or look at operationalizing the Global Digital Compact commitment mentioned in Article 29C.
I think in Article 29C. The UN Member States promote cooperation among stakeholders to look at fragmentation in a timely member. As an ICANN board member and part of the technical community I would say we are supporting of such a Committee by the UN Member States. We have a role to play in preserving the Internet. We acknowledge that the GDC Article 29C involves elements that the technical community has actually addressed in the past. And has been working on for some time.
The risk of Internet fragmentation on a technical level has been steadily increasing in recent years due to geopolitical tensions. This trend is reflected in regional and national legislations on data protection, for example, evolving concepts on data sovereignty and some of the discussions that we see at multilateral and international fora.
Speaking for the technical community, we have a stable, secure and unified Internet and the technical community works in support of this mission. It advances the multistakeholder model of Internet Governance which is where the multistakeholder has a contribution going forward. ICANN has been facilitating inclusive dialogues and collaboration.
The technical community has expertise and extensive experience in working with and advising Governments, civil society groups, and commercial entities on the technical aspects of the Internet. It employs inclusive multistakeholder governance processes that include diverse and relevant perspectives.
These organisations exemplify GDC principles and elements dealing with Internet Governance. There are some steps we have taken and we encourage our stakeholders to do so, which is aligned with the text of the paragraph 29C.
The multistakeholder community plays a central role by fostering inclusive discussions that represent diverse perspectives particularly from the Global South and marginalized communities. This included leveraging the IGF platform as a bridge between technical expertise and policy making to foster common understanding of fragmentation risk and ways to address them. We are happy to see the UN Member States are committed to promote such international cooperation, and we are happy to share our expertise and experience with them.
Capacity building programmes for policymakers and stakeholders helping them to navigate Internet Governance. This promotes policies that support the Internet's continuous development. So ICANN has initiated and engaged in such programmes through the work we do regionally, including through the Coalition of Digital Africa.
So the multistakeholder community has been doing a lot of work described in Article 29C as well. For example, promoting open standards and collaboration and cooperation with standards organisations and relevant entities. Organising policy briefing to understand the economic consequences of measures that risk fragmentation, developing monitoring frameworks to track Internet fragmentation risks and the effectiveness of global and local measures. I will stop for the time being and we will carry on the conversation we will see from other participants and panels. I hope that was some of your...
>> BRUNA MARTINS DOS SANTOS: Especially for highlighting the role of the multistakeholder community in that sense. ICANN is a key part of the community and the long‑term contribution to the Internet Governance base and being one of the main model of the multistakeholder model we have been addressing and quoting an example that you highlight. Thanks for joining us. Alisa Heaver, can I hand it to you? Thanks.
>> ALISA HEAVER: So good morning, everyone. Good evening or afternoon. Yes. I'm coming from the Dutch Government and I've been working there are to four years now or at least at the Ministry of Economic Affairs where I have been dealing with Internet Governance issues.
And the PNIF has also inspired us partly in our international cybersecurity strategy that was published last year. So in the Dutch international cybersecurity strategy we mentioned Internet fragmentation specifically, and we said that interference with the structure, management and administration of the Internet jeopardizes global interoperability.
We saw that if a country or a group of countries would no longer recognize authority of multistakeholder organisations, we didn't mention any specifically, but, well, to be specific here at least, I would definitely mention ICANN. Or if countries no longer recognize the importance of the multistakeholder model, we believe that this could lead to fragmentation to the core of the Internet.
And the Netherlands has always been vocal on protecting the public core of the Internet which the cyber Ambassador, Mr. Anju spoke about on a panel this week. And so the Internet fragmentation, I'm sorry, not recognizing the multistakeholder model, it would lead to, to a coexistence of different Internet systems. As we said, a free one, and ‑‑ let me see. A free one and one that is more state controlled. We think that such a split would significantly disrupt interstate communications and Internet services, such as email or messaging apps and that's obviously then on a different layer and more focusing on user experience.
But if that fragmentation would become so deep, it could affect, as I said, the user experience. And another part that we don't touch upon very often is the possible economic effects of Internet fragmentation as it, if we could not email freely together anymore or not use the same messaging apps, we very much believe that that could have a significant effect on global trade.
I think I would like to leave it here, but we will get back to the GDC Article. So I will touch upon that later.
>> BRUNA MARTINS DOS SANTOS: The fact we have you here is proof of the Government's long‑term commitment to this space and to digital cooperation broadly speaking and also to help avoid Internet fragmentation for that matter. So we appreciate you joining and we will come back to you soon. Gbenga, I will bring the question to you, just as a reminder for you since I asked it a couple of seconds ago, how do you react, the question is how do you react to the PNF participant ideas around the GDC commitment, and what is your view as to how we should interpret it and operationalize it? Thanks.
>> GBENGA SESAN: Thank you. So I had a chance to participate in the webinars and that for me was very useful, not just to share what I my own thoughts are, but also to listen to what people are saying and in the spirit of multi‑stakeholderism, I think there are three different sides of me sitting on the stage, there is the engineering thinking the entire reason for the Internet is to have an international network of networks.
So if for any reason there is a threat to that, then what we then have is not the Internet. In fact, when you fragment and create a national Internet, it is not the Internet. It is not an Internet. And so I think the idea behind fragmenting and scaling to a level where you can have more control and to be honest there is a reason why 29D talks about shutdowns. One of the likely things that would happen with a segmented, fragmented and disconnected, in quotes, Internet, is that you can flip the switch at any point in time.
And that is not a sense of it. What that does it disconnects people from opportunities, disconnects people from even reaching services that could be critical to their lives. So for me looking at the original design of that, it is not, it is strange to have ideas of fragmentation as a proposal of making progress by any Government. That's one, you know, side of it.
The other side of it is I'm looking of over the last 19 years we have had conversations at the IGF. When the Leadership Panel was set up, the first thing we did was to summarize all of the conversations that we had had for 16 plus years.
And all of that conversation is what informed, what eventually became The Internet We Want Paper. And The Internet We Want Paper summarized all of that stakeholders have been asking for in five broad areas, and the first one is a complete, whole, and open Internet. You cannot speak of a complete or whole or open Internet if we have conversations around fragmentation.
And when we had this conversation earlier in the year and the question was posed, do you think it is still a threat, you know, one of the things I was thinking is, well, we will find out during the GDC conversations.
And during the GDC conversations as we were saying others with Wim and others, the we is was this 29C, was it not controversial because people were not paying attention or because everybody actually agrees that, well, to be honest this is a challenge. This is a threat to the real definition of the Internet.
And I think it's the latter. I think that even people who have made proposals for fragmentation know themselves that when you fragment, what you have is not the Internet. When you fracture things you don't have the whole.
The thought stakeholder in me sitting on the stage today is the user. I'm an Internet user myself. I have kids who learn online. You know, coming in this morning, it's two hours, I had to say good morning to my family. I'm using the Internet.
As a user, my user experience and the user experience that everyone has is very different in an environment where we talk about fragmentation. We do know in real terms that there are communities in our world today where people are prevented from seeing what is happening on other sides of the world.
And it is one of the strongest instruments of manipulation. You can literally tell people various things about other parts of the world, let me crack a joke, and I hope this is funny.
Packing for Saudi Arabia somewhere in the corner of my head and I suspect this happened to many other people, somewhere in the corner of my head is it's Saudi Arabia, it's going to be warm.
And then I got here, Bahamas! This, and I said to someone, this is not the weather that we ordered, but that was based on my perception of Saudi Arabia that I had been to only once. Imagine that on a grander scale where someone is fed with certain information about certain processes, about certain geographies, about certain things over and over again, and prevented from seeing the whole or the complete Internet. That is dangerous.
I'll top there for now.
>> BRUNA MARTINS DOS SANTOS: Thank you, I think you answered a question for you guys. We promised there would be no surprises on the stage, but what we had in mind as you were doing your initial interventions is whether you had different perceptions what an unfragmented Internet was, but maybe going forward on that, I would maybe ask you guys, and I know you want to come back on the floor, but before you come in, I would ask you if you still think of that that the initial idea of the Internet is still valid, right?
And I think the reason we are asking that is not just because user experiences tend to be very different, but policymaker's approaches to the Internet is also very different, especially if you look at spaces like trust and safety or platform regulation.
People tend to refer to Meta or Facebook platforms as the Internet when we know there is a much broader aspect to the conversation than just that. So, but just food for thought and I will hand the floor back to you.
>> AMITABH SINGHAL: Thank you for the question, and I will take my cue from what Gbenga said about the network of networks. I think it's important to understand what Internet is and be very clear about when we talk about fragmentation what is really the fragmentation and you talked about technical fragmentation. So let me get to that first and make it very clear as to what we think about what fragmentation is and whether it should be a concern now.
So I think as you likely put that's transformative technology that has become an integral part of our daily lives that we can go online and we expect it to work all of the time. So a fragmented Internet is not an Internet and contradicts the technical community's perception of what an Internet should be or a globally interoperable single open Internet should be.
And Internet fragmentation occurs when the Internet brings down the technical layer resulting in a loss of interoperability amongst various networks. We know there are 70,000 plus networks. That would be the fragmentation.
However, technically speaking there is no Internet fragmentation at that level. Okay. So let me qualify it further.
There are threats that undermine the interoperability of the Internet. So for ICANN, avoiding Internet fragmentation remains a critical concern and, therefore, it closely monitors emerging risks that could potentially threaten or undermine and fragment the domain system, the DNS, and your effort at Government legislations and stuff, so there are technologies like alternative name spaces based on Blockchain technologies, widespread adoption of these technologies could result in disparity and compatible Internet systems.
Attempting to assert different sovereignty at the technical level can undermine the seamless functionality of the Internet. We have seen examples in certain regions where they are trying to control the servers and stuff like that. I'm not going to take us there, but those are the risks that one has to keep track of.
So, for example, Top Level Domain names could stop resolving or resolve differently between the country and that is some of these control mechanisms that are discussed at the national Government levels.
So there are also risks posed by having duplicative Internet standards which could result in incompatibility. Incompatibility and interoperability issues across various networks during implementation.
So these are some of the risks we need to be very, very clear about that would be, and I think from that standpoint, the framework is very clear, and I think it makes it very clear that there is a technical layer, there is a user experience level of fragmentation as you can understand it. And also at the governance level, so we have to see the silos and then decide what Internet fragmentation is and how it should be read or understood.
>> BRUNA MARTINS DOS SANTOS: Thank you very much, Alisa, Gbenga, do you want to come back on this question. Feel free to, but you don't have to as well. But just giving the opportunity. It's a little bit about what was said, right, the framework talks about different perspectives around this issue. So when we started the PNIF, I think the whole idea was to see what other perspectives there were besides the technical community perspective on fragmentation, and how could we implement those ideas in the broader aspect.
You both spoke a little bit on that on how the actors may have their own role, but as you were saying how certain types of interventions on access to the Internet can also be meaningful or could also harm users in a broader sense so if you want to come back to me, yes. Alisa.
>> ALISA HEAVER: Thank you. Well, maybe coming back to the Article 29C first, when it was negotiated in the GDC, if you look closely between the different, so there have been five versions of the GDC before the final one was published. This paragraph has not been changed, and I think that's what Gbenga was referring to and just to clarify a bit more.
I honestly don't know if everyone agreed or if everyone just didn't care, but I hope to say that everyone agreed because in the end, everyone has agreed with the GDC. I think it's a very important international document now that we can use. Also if we see countries or, well, mostly countries taking steps towards fragmentation that we can say, hey, that's something we agreed upon with each other that you should not do.
And I, well, maybe looking forward towards WSIS I hope that maybe something of this could also be used for the WSIS action lines because it, well, the WSIS obviously focuses on connecting everyone to the Internet.
So the other way around, disconnecting, that's something we definitely do not want and maybe 20 years ago people were not thinking about this fragment or this integrating with the Internet, and nowadays, I do still think it is an issue and it's good that we are talking about it.
And when we look at the framework that the PNIF produced I can agree with ICANN or with Amitabh on behalf of ICANN that fragmentation on the tech layer we still use TCPIP. So in that sense, we are not fragmented, but definitely at a user experience there is fragmentation. In some countries you not use Ted tack, you can't use Whatsapp or other messaging apps or any other app.
And that definitely affects your Internet experience. So, yes, I think it's an important Article to have in the GDC, and I really, yes, commend the work of the PNIF on this.
>> BRUNA MARTINS DOS SANTOS: Thanks Alisa and thanks for mentioning the magic word for the week that is WSIS and how will this part play a role in WSIS? And I think the question in the room is also how do we promote better coordination between the GDC process and its implementation and what's going to happen next year.
>> GBENGA SESAN: Yes, I'm thinking of the three key words in 29C again. The first is to prevent, identify, and then address the risks of fragmentation. And I think, I mean, those three words play various roles. But in terms of addressing the risk of fragmentation, one of the risks is that it is a direct attack on one of the major goals of inclusion, which is that we've given ourselves, and to be honest, we all agreed on this. It's too late for anyone to say, oh, I didn't agree.
We set a target to say that by 2030 and yesterday, I did put another date to it, the last day in 2030 is December 31, right? So by December 31, 2030 to connect everyone.
If we say we want to connect everyone to a global Internet, then any attempt or as my colleagues in the university will say at the time, attempted attempt to work towards fragmentation or to do that will be a direct contribution of what we have agreed on.
And I think it's really important while this, you know, as we have both, you know, mentioned, while this wasn't exactly one of the most popular phrases in all of the various sessions, it's one of those things that you look at all, and you are like this one didn't change and the others are changing in length and words. Even if it's not as popular, it is a direct message to everyone that we have agreed literally not to fragment.
>> BRUNA MARTINS DOS SANTOS: Thanks, and I think it's safe to say that in the same way how Internet wouldn't work out TCPIP or the stakeholder wouldn't work without one of the stakeholder groups, we shouldn't think that the mission has been achieved if there are still people facing connectivity issues and not being able to, you know, go to social media during an election period because of an Internet shutdown.
>> ALISA HEAVER: Very briefly, so when Gbenga mentioned addressing the risks of Internet fragmentation being an important part of Article 29C, it made me think of something else we also actually mentioned in our international cybersecurity strategy in the Netherlands. Is that we will commission a study that will focus on the risks of Internet fragmentation, and specifically focusing on the political and technical dependencies and on the economic implications of fragmentation because as I said in my opening statement, we really think that the economic effects are something that haven't been looked into that often.
If one would fragment what would be the cost of fragmenting? And maybe, well, in the end, I think that it could be a possibility that the economic stakes are so high in the end for a country to fragment that it in the end will not decide to do that.
But I haven't come across a study that has already mentioned this. So if anyone knows a study, please come up to me, then we can save ourselves some money and that's very welcome always. But if not, then we hope to do this study. Thanks.
>> BRUNA MARTINS DOS SANTOS: It's a goal for more studies in that sense as well. Thanks, Alisa. Sheetal, I know we have a comment from remote, so I'm bringing you to the floor as well.
>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Thank you, Bruna, good morning, everyone, it's a pleasure to see you there in Riyadh and I hope you have all had an excellent IGF so far. It's also been a pleasure to be a co‑facilitator of the PNIF over the last few months and see this discussion progress and to be so relevant as well to the ongoing multistakeholder and multilateral processes happening and really great to hear the discussion which are even more there on the stage today. Looking forward to taking it forward even further.
We do have a couple of comments from remote participants which I can convey over to you in case you do want to react to it, as I know we are also moving forward to the next part of the session considering the implementation mechanism for that commitment on avoiding Internet fragmentation.
So we have input which states multistakeholder approach to Internet Governance enables more voices to be heard and coming together as a community amplifies our message. The importance of educating and raising awareness in these communities about Internet Governance processes has been emphasized as a vital role, and the WSIS outcome of multistakeholder and intergovernmental Internet Governance is a success.
And then we have a response which says we need to examine if those among the unbalanced of the multilateral influence the designed flow of the IGF sessions so as to leave the multistakeholder participatory as that of being in appearance only where there are substantially different points of view. So I think that speaks to the importance of maintaining the multistakeholder approach and the value of the IGF in that regard, which we have heard, of course, a lot of this week and this morning as well.
And then we also have someone saying greetings from Pakistan, in my humble view fragmentation in low income countries without digital culture, proper infrastructure affects all private members. We have a question, actually, that has just come in about how building the digital divide, how do we achieve the 100% connectivity by all in 2030?
So I think that speaks to Gbenga's recent point about the fact that if we are moving towards the target of connecting everyone by 2030 as is a global commitment, that is directly in contribution, of course, to fragmentation trends and so it's very important to keep that in mind as well.
Okay. So back to you on the stage, Bruna and happy to come in later. I hope that has complemented the discussions there.
>> BRUNA MARTINS DOS SANTOS: Thanks a lot Sheetal. I would like to give the opportunity to the audience as well. If anyone would like to add a comment or a view as to how we should be operationalizing or implementing Article 29C, we have two microphones on both sides of the stage. The two podiums. So if anyone would like to comment, feel free to come to it and just add your thoughts.
If not, then I think we are going to move on with the session, which is taking some time to see if anyone comes to the stage.
That brings us to part 2 then and hopefully folks in the audience can join in part 2. And my question to all of you is also what are the opportunities to engage in future discussions and how are you guys looking at yet another pivotal year, yet another inflection point that's going to be 25 and all of the implementation conversation around not just the GDC but what might happen in the space as well. I don't know who wants to take the question first, but let's go with you, thanks.
>> GBENGA SESAN: You had me at 2025. It's, I mean, it's probably going to be one of our most interesting, and I use the word interesting vaguely, years in terms of many conversations, WSIS+20, the IGF mandate or fully making it permanent or and a lot of other conversations.
Specifically on the opportunities we have, I had assumed in making a recommendation earlier that we would have about a year between two IGFs. Now, we have six months. And while that sounds like a short time, I think it is still possible, and this is my proposal, that now there is a global agreement on the conversation we have been having for a very long time. Prevent, identify, address risks.
We have an opportunity to return to the next IGF with a report that speaks to the exact state and compares where we are at as of May or June 2025 and where we were by December 2024. Given that it's a short time, it may not have as much details as it would be if it was an entire year.
But I think it's a community, we need to start measuring because if we don't measure, we will make assumptions or we may not be able to grow what needs to grow or what needs to be reduced. So I think we have a unique opportunity of asking ourselves, what is the state of proposed fragmentation by various countries right now, and then we can compare in May.
Since we need time to write the report and convert a PDF, in those five months has anything changed? Have we, are we sliding towards less conversations? Are we sliding towards more people agreeing? And I think that is an opportunity, and one other thing we must do is to name names.
And what I mean is the report should identify who is still talking about fragmentation because I think in naming names in identifying who is talking about it, we can get the view of why they are talking about it. In fact, for all you care, they may not be thinking of it as fragmentation, and I say this from research we have done at Paradigm Initiative where we are talking to certain Governments who have shot down the Internet and in their explanation they have no idea, well, to be honest, they did, but in their diplomatic responses they, in quotes, it no idea, what the risks were. They were doing this to protect the same people that we were asking them to respect their rights.
I think it's a valid view to see because then you can have a real conversation, otherwise we are going to be talking at ourselves. We are going to say no fragmentation. Some are going to say it's not fragmentation, but we must have difficult conversations.
This is reality. Why are you intent on doing this, and is there another option? We've got all of those principles of legality, necessity, professional, is it legal? To be honest, right now it's not.
Is it necessary? That's have that conversation.
And is it proportional? Is it worth disconnecting everyone literally just because you want to address something that could be addressed culturally soar in another way.
>> BRUNA MARTINS DOS SANTOS: Thank you, Gbenga. And I think just as a comment as I come back on that point, I think the observation or the KPI part of this conversation is relevant especially because when the GDC review comes up, we will address the stage of the commitments with 29C. So that's a point that's important.
>> AMITABH SINGHAL: I think I would underline what was said about continuing the conversation, which is very important going forward. And I think the PNIF's role is very important here. It could actually help the dialogue on the Internet fragmentation with the IGF stakeholder community. The network framework for discussing Internet fragmentation provides a good foundation for that.
And you can build on these efforts by promoting inclusive participation, encouraging diverse perspectives, for example, ensuring that all relevant stakeholders are encouraged, are engaged in discussions to identify risks to fragmentation and contribute meaningful solution on how to prevent it.
You can do something by facilitating multistakeholder changes and knowledge exchange, for example, and by supporting policy coherence because people have different understanding of what fragmentation is, so there is a certain amount of changes one can bring about in terms of understanding what it is all about. And then capacity building, so this is where PNF's role is important and it can also facilitate the sharing of practices and tools that exist, resources and best practices, for example, Internet Society has an Internet impact toolkit.
And the ICANN's organisation provides emerging technologies and tracks proposed legislations that could have implications on this. These are some of the ways to consider going forward for PNF to meaningfully engage stakeholders to deepen discussions on fragmentation. That's a good way to move forward toward '25.
>> BRUNA MARTINS DOS SANTOS: Just on the impact assessment as well, I think although it wasn't mentioned yet, there are some multistakeholder guidelines are another of the mechanisms or tools that we can use to assess exactly this point about inclusion and distort that is going to be relevant for next year's IGF and for the mandate renew or for the IGF should be set hopefully as a permanent mechanism. Alisa, I had hand the floor to you as well.
>> ALISA HEAVER: Yes, thanks. This discussion made me think, so, we have the 2027 review of the GDC, and that will have to review actually what has been done to prevent, identify, and address fragmentation, but I guess today here, well, we are also slightly struggling on measuring, we don't have statistics here with us today so I'm wonder will how will the UN actually review this Article 29C if we cannot objectively review it.
So also regarding what Gbenga said, I think it would be really interesting to see if in the upcoming six months until the next IGF, we could put down a framework to actually measure or to install kind of a KPI for the UN to be able to measure what has been done to prevent, identify and address those risks of Internet fragmentation.
>> BRUNA MARTINS DOS SANTOS: For a lot of the GDC commitments, the question in the room is what will be the KPIs, how the implementation is going to go. We know it's rather early in the process to keep asking for the next steps, but at the same time, it's been a long time going for this process.
So I think it's fair that everyone has good expectations as to how we should be measuring, not just this, but many other aspects around the GDC and it's broader commitments. Does any one of you would like to add anything to the conversation? And while you think about it, I would just maybe bring it back to the audience and see, we have a question for you that would be what can the multistakeholder community do given that 29C is a commitment that exclusively UN Member States took this as a member state exclusive process in that sense.
I don't know if anyone into Riyadh wants to come to the mic or anyone remote. Sheetal, do we have any hands?
>> SHEETAL KUMAR: We do have Gopal who has his hand raised and wants to come in. Would you like to unmute yourself?
Okay. They may not be able to hear us. So we can go back to the room and see if that changes.
>> BRUNA MARTINS DOS SANTOS: Any of you would like to come in on that? Just what the multistakeholder community should do in terms of giving the commitment. We have Anriette, please introduce yourself.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:
Thank you very much Bruna and everyone on the panel, my name is Anriette Esterhuysen, I'm with South Africa and I work with the Association for Progressive Communications.
Just a crosscutting comment addressing ICANN, but not only, whether you think of the Internet as fragmented or not really depends on whose Internet you think it is. And I think if we think of the Internet as people who can access all aspects, all applications, all content, then the Internet is fragmented. If you think of people who can afford mobile data, who have good infrastructure, who don't just depend on using handheld devices to interact with the Internet, then that's a very different picture.
I think we just have to be very careful, I mean, I agree with the definition of fragmentation and the dimensions of fragmentation that the policy network has identified, but I think we as an Internet Governance community need to also be aware of our own elitism, our own privilege, how our experience of the Internet shapes how we see Internet fragmentation, and be very careful that that doesn't actually make us blind to the extent that that user experience fragmentation is the reality for billions of people.
>> BRUNA MARTINS DOS SANTOS: Thank you very much, Anriette.
>> AMITABH SINGHAL: Anriette, thank you for the comment. I think we make it clear when we say that Internet is not fragmented, there is a technical layer. There is a layer, and a system layer, but what is helpful is to also look at the PNF's framework of where you actually create these three different baskets and the layers.
And there would be issues about fragmentation at the user and at the governance level, and I do in my earlier points that I made in the first point was about the emerging legislation and the other technical developments of alternate name systems which could create a problem of fragmentation even at the technical layer, but these are emerging risks one needs to keep track of and not necessarily currently affecting the technical layer, just a short point on that.
>> BRUNA MARTINS DOS SANTOS: Thank you, Alisa.
>> ALISA HEAVER: Thank you. Actually, I wanted to comment practically that I would love to hear Gopal. It was promised to be a hybrid IGF, and everyone would be able to speak. So could we please ensure that Gopal can speak?
>> BRUNA MARTINS DOS SANTOS: Can we try again? Thanks for the reminder, Alisa.
>> GOPAL TADEPALLI: Opportunity is the recipe for chaos. Heterogeneity and ideas about fragmentation must go hand in hand. If I may be permitted to use the term geopolitics as the best envelope on heterogeneity because everyone is broken up today. Are we going to look at the super imposition of geopolitics in terms of the way the political groupings of the nations are forming in?
>> BRUNA MARTINS DOS SANTOS: Thank you, Gopal. Thanks for the comments and thanks, everyone, for the comments so far. I don't know if the microphone cut in the middle or if you would like to add anything, but if you would like to, please type in the chat and I'm sure Sheetal will be able to add more in case your comment was cut in the middle of it.
And also, thanks to our panelists. I don't know if you would like to add any last comments to that sense? I do think we had a fairly good discussion in terms of what are the challenges, what are the questions that everyone is asking each other, and, again, if there is anyone in the audience still that would like to add on what can we as different groups of stakeholders can do into this conversation and so on, please come to the mic.
We have two microphones on both sides of the stage. Thank you. And, remember to introduce yourself.
>> AUDIENCE: Actually I have different idea about the Internet Governance and the fragmentation. I think more practical Internet Governance and fragmentation, I think will stop the innovation. If we want to manage the future, we have to make little rule about control anything in content of Internet. Thank you.
>> BRUNA MARTINS DOS SANTOS: Thank you very much. Have we got a second comment?
>> AUDIENCE: Yes. Thank you so much. I'm sorry for waiting to the last minute to come up to the mic. My name is José, I'm a remember of the Canadian and Arab IGF. My comment relates to the technical layer and its relationship also to the governance of the Internet. We have seen over the last several years that there are proposals coming to standards organisations, particularly the ITU‑T that will result to a new protocol stack, new addressing scheme, new QRS scheme, new identification scheme of end users and full visibility of content. So non‑interoperable approaches to the global Internet architecture.
Of course, this will cause fragmentation at the technical layer, but not only this. The capability to completely identify end users and their content make it very visible to a central authority makes it a mass surveillance mechanism setting by default.
So I think this is a danger that we in compliance with this paragraph need to look into very closely and also follow its development under different names, under different key words or "buzz" words because such approaches to standardize new protocol stacks and also their implications on how the Internet is governed instead of a decentralized heterogenous architecture being guided by central authority that has full visibility on the content and end users and embed mass surveillance to be done by default is very dangerous. Thank you.
>> BRUNA MARTINS DOS SANTOS: Thank you very much Sheetal. How is the remote? We have another speaker here, yes, please. Can you introduce yourself.
>> AUDIENCE: My name is Koli from Nigerian IGF. I'm so much excited about this conversation, and I think one good thing about the IGF is the fact that we are able to come together to have a conversation about issues like this, and I think this is a very important issue.
I can see that you are trying to balance what the GDC is saying with respect to the SDG number 16. And for me, I think if we are going to have this kind of conversation it is very important not just important, very important, mark the word very, to have the Government involved in this kind of conversation. I'm saying that, yes, we are talking preventing Internet fragmentation, and fragmentation is going to be anything that has to do with fragmenting the Internet. Most of the time it comes from the Government side, and the argument, one of the arguments would be, yes, maybe because of security, you know reasons and so on, so forth.
So I think we need to advance this conversation and we need to start looking at, okay, yes, if the issue that is always when it comes to fragmentation is about security. So how do we solve the problem of security without tampering with the Internet? I think that's one of the things we need to being at.
What I'm proposing is, okay, let's do what we call reverse engineering, I'm an Ecuador, I'm sorry, so let's do reverse engineering we are talking about the problem, then let's try and focus on the solutions while we are trying to solve the problem. I think that will make a whole lot of sense, and that will add value to the conversation. Thank you very much.
>> BRUNA MARTINS DOS SANTOS: Thank you, appreciate it. Do I see a last speaker here? Please come in and introduce yourself.
>> AUDIENCE: Okay. Can you hear me. I'm fat Ma, youth representative from Sudan. I actually have a question. So at the Global Digital Compact commitment is operationalized so how do you see the collaboration evolving between Government, the Private Sector and civil society to prevent fragmentation?
>> BRUNA MARTINS DOS SANTOS: Thank you. Do we have any quick answers for this question? Would anyone like to take the implementation and the role of the stakeholders in the GDC and so on?
>> ALISA HEAVER: I'm sorry, so maybe to start with the last question about collaboration between Government, Private Sector and I think it was civil society, for me in the Netherlands, I'm also part of the Netherlands IGF and there we come together every, well, at least every year and also we have in between, well, we have moments that we meet each other in between. And very recently we had a multistakeholder discussion about Internet fragmentation.
So we sat together with approximately 20 people from Academia, from civil society, the public sector and the Private Sector, and there we discussed what to do about Internet fragmentation and we were discussing the research that we will be commissioning very soon.
And I would definitely encourage all NRIs to organisations such a debate on Internet fragmentation and bring in all stakeholders and obviously internationally, well, we are having this debate here and the Dutch Government has been Chairing the Freedom Online Coalition over the past year. Focus may not have been Internet fragmentation, but it has definitely been the flip side of Internet fragmentation addressing the risks of not working or not collaborating with each other and ensuring that the Internet remains open, free, and secure.
And maybe, regarding the new IP or I interpreted it as new IP question. My colleagues are definitely following this discussion in ITU‑T and we, we are very much in favor of keeping this protocol of the IPv4, IPv6 protocol that we have now and we are not in favor of changing that protocol.
>> BRUNA MARTINS DOS SANTOS: Thanks, and Gbenga, you wanted to add something?
>> GBENGA SESAN: I was thinking a bit more about the security question, and I know that we do not have an immediate answer. There is no magical one to solve all security problems, but one way not to solve it is fragmenting because to be honest if you are trying to solve cross‑border problems because many of the problems are cross‑border.
You do not isolate networks because when you do that, what you may be doing is you may be chasing things into the shadows. I think that is even more dangerous.
So while we do not have all of the answers, but there are challenges, there are challenges with the Internet. There are bad actors, but while we are looking at how communities can get better in identifying and isolating, while we are looking at community standards that will make people call out bad practices, we do not, and this is why I mentioned earlier the three part test. Is it legal? Is it proportionate? Is it necessary? I think that when you even apply the necessary test, fragmentation is not at all on the table of solutions when it comes to security.
In fact, I think what we need is even more cooperation across silos. And speaking of across silos, the question about what is happening at the ITU‑T and the implications of that, I think increasingly in this year 2024 we saw a lot more interest by civil society in technical conversations.
And I think we need a lot more of that because it is one thing for you to suddenly find out that there is a change in the standards, and then you on the ground as an advocate now need to start fighting with Governments and say, hey, respect human rights, but instead of doing that, we rewind a bit and participate in certain conversations including technical standards.
Yes, it's a bit complex because the conversations are not, I mean, the ITU‑T is not a multistakeholder body, but increasingly we have Governments who include civil society on their Delegations so that you can have a complete view.
And I think this is really important. I will make this case very strongly again that Governments should remember that the mandate you have is to represent the people. And the people you represent are made up of Government, Private Sector, civil society, technical community and others.
So Government Delegations need to stop being Government alone because when you do that, it gives you only a myopic view of the issues you are trying to address at these technical conversations.
And I think one of the things we must see in 2025 is many more Governments must include wholesome perspective because it is in your interest. Reality is you are getting free consultants when you include other stakeholders in your delegation.
>> AMITABH SINGHAL: That is the reason I think IGF platform is a bridge between the technical expertise and the policy making, makers to foster common understanding of the Internet fragmentation and the risk to the system. And I think that is a conversation that has been happening as I heard about the fact that whether the IGF mandate itself or not, and I think going forward we would fully sport that IGF gets the mandate to continue and it's a platform where all of these elements of Academia, technical community, policymakers, the Governments, for example, the Private Sector, they all converge together to exchange knowledge and that's going to be very important to clear some of these issues around understanding of Internet fragmentation and how to address the issue going forward, yes.
>> BRUNA MARTINS DOS SANTOS: Thank you for the comments and inputs and thanks to the folks in the audience too. I'm going to hand the floor back to Sheet Al and she is going to do a short summary of our conversation, and hopefully we will have time to bring it back to the three panelists on the floor.
>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Thank you so much, Bruna, and no pressure there to try and keep it short so that we can hear some last words from the panelists.
This has been a really great discussion building on what the webinars in the Policy Network already discussed, so what I have heard is a few key points really reiterating the importance of the commitment in the compact of Article 29C and the point was made regarding how much support consensus there was on that commitment which provides a really good basis for moving forward, but not just that commitment. It's also connected to others like the target of 2030.
And then another key set of points were related to, I'm sorry, getting an echo, but I will continue. Related to the risks that we are seeing at the technical layer to the Internet and to the unfragmented Internet, but the very real and ongoing fragmentation of the user experience and the importance of also realizing that there are risks in proposals for standards, the technical layer as well that really reinforce the importance of addressing this issue.
And finally, we spoke quite a lot here about what the Policy Network can do and what the wider multistakeholder community can do and the importance of 2025 in that regard is a key here. So we don't, as we often heard during the conversation, need to start from scratch. We have the Policy Network's framework as well to utilize to assess the state of fragmentation as we work towards the next IGF in 2025, but also the WSIS+20 review. We also heard ideas of the importance of using the NRIs, National and Regional IGFs as a space for continued discussion on the topic.
So I hope that was helpful simply, a very important Article and strong basis there continue to be not only risks, but real lived experiences of fragmentation, lots of opportunities to address this in a role for the IGF and for the policy met New York within that ‑‑ network within that. So back to you.
>> BRUNA MARTINS DOS SANTOS: Thank you very much, maybe as a closing remark I will ask the three of you to share with us probably either one take away from this discussion or, perhaps, a dream or a wish for next year as we go into WSIS+20 review, we go into new discussions around the IGF Mandate renewal and many of those things around the GDC implementation still an insert, but hopefully will be a year of inserts in a lot of ways, but if you could share a dream or take away based on this conversation, I would be very happy to hear.
>> AMITABH SINGHAL: What we have discussed, going back to the webinars and what the participants have said, I think what comes out to me clearly is we need more collaboration. We need to have accountability, stakeholders can contribute to meaningful discussions during the WSIS+20 and beyond. So this is all going to be very, very useful to have an interoperable and globally connected Internet and that is in line with the commitment of the UN Member States as outlined in 29C.
>> BRUNA MARTINS DOS SANTOS: Thank you, Alisa.
>> ALISA HEAVER: You asked different questions, what would be my dream. Well, my dream would very easily be that we wouldn't have to have this discussion on Internet fragmentation and everyone would perfectly be fine with this Internet that we have, but more realistically, a take away for me is that the research that we want to do as Governments, as Dutch Government, we really should do and that the needs to start measuring Internet fragmentation is more necessary than ever.
>> BRUNA MARTINS DOS SANTOS: Gbenga.
>> GBENGA SESAN: Two dreams. First, I can already see in my hands the report from the PNF, flipping through the report and June 2025, that's a dream. My second dream is it truly, truly multistakeholder conversation on this where Delegations have technical conversations learn from ICANN multistakeholder model, the IGF multistakeholder model, and truly get the best of all aspects of our society when we have these conversations.
>> BRUNA MARTINS DOS SANTOS: Thanks and thanks for dreaming high as well. It's important in these days. Thanks for everyone that was with us in the room or remotely. Thanks to our panelists. Wim, Sheetal, as usual, thanks a lot both of you for being great and amazing partners in all of this. And most of all thanks to the PNIF community for giving us a great year. We hope to continue this conversation in 2025 as we go into new steps and new, a new report that Gbenga is looking forward to reading and I give the floor to you, Wim, if you want to add anything.
>> WIM DEGEZELLE: No. The only thing I wanted to add not that we don't forget to thank you, Bruna, for leading the panel and also the work that you do. Thank you. And, of course, Sheetal for doing the same online. So thank you.
And we finished exactly right on time. So perfect. Thank you.