During ICANN79, held in March 2024 in San Juan, Puerto Rico, the North American School of Internet Governance (NASIG 2024) was held with the overarching theme of “Confronting Truth, Trust, and Hope in Internet Governance.” I did. A pivotal panel discussion titled “Can we survive digital fragmentation?” The importance of global connectivity and the urgency of understanding and addressing the layers of fragmentation that impact the universal fabric of the Internet. I emphasized one thing. The discussion was moderated by William Drake and featured deep insights from panelists Mark Datysgeld, Pari Esfandiari, and Milton Mueller, each of whom brought a unique perspective to the complex concept of Internet fragmentation.
Mr. Drake provides a brief background and explains how the story of Internet fragmentation has significantly evolved, moving from an obscure technological anomaly to a central concern in the global Internet governance dialogue. explained. The Snowden revelations were a turning point, revealing the extent to which geopolitical forces can influence the digital realm. This fact has sparked widespread discussion about the potential for various forms of fragmentation, from technical protocols to user access and experience. As the panel highlighted, the discussion on fragmentation has expanded to include not only government actions, but also corporate actions that can limit the open and interconnected nature of the Internet.
Mr. Datysgeld’s intervention focused on a key distinction in the fragmentation debate: the differences between the Internet’s underlying technical infrastructure and user experience. While protocols like TCP/IP guarantee a baseline of connectivity, the actual digital experience varies widely by geography and socio-economic context. For Datysgeld, this disparity raises questions about the promise of a uniform internet that everyone can access, leading to fragmentation. Muller refuted the notion of a homogenized user experience, arguing that it is an undesirable outcome and stressing that the natural diversity of Internet usage is not indicative of fragmentation.
Esfandiari’s comments highlighted the complexity of the Internet ecosystem and suggested that understanding fragmentation requires a nuanced understanding of the Internet’s hierarchical structure and the interactions of diverse stakeholders. . She argued against a binary understanding of fragmentation and suggested instead that the state of the Internet lies somewhere between fully fragmented and fully integrated. Esfandiari disputed her belief that technological cohesion alone could prevent fragmentation, and she stressed that the Internet as a whole is more than the sum of its components. She highlighted how minor fragmentation arising from different constituencies and contributors can cumulatively lead to broader fragmentation. This perspective was reinforced by Ms. Drake, who pointed out that when a set of technologies or actions is applied broadly across many jurisdictions, it creates a divide and can be seen as fragmentation.
Mueller and Esfandiari brought the geopolitical aspects of internet fragmentation to the forefront. Esfandiari identified geopolitical dynamics as the most important factor in fragmentation, pointing in particular to actions by states like Russia that are experimenting with alternative internet infrastructure. He also touched on the impact of technological innovation and corporate activity on Internet cohesion, but argued that these are easier to address than the deeper challenges posed by geopolitical factors. She highlighted escalating geopolitical tensions that threaten to split the internet into separate blocs, and emphasized the delicate balance between forces pushing for division and those seeking unification. Mueller’s perspective brings the geopolitical implications into sharper focus, as she argues that the essence of fragmentation lies in state efforts to impose control over the digital realm. He argued that the push for digital sovereignty, characterized by national policies regulating internet access and content, constitutes a form of fragmentation that could undermine the global internet architecture.
Panelists proposed a variety of strategies to counter the forces driving Internet fragmentation. Mr. Datysgeld advocated strengthening DNS as a key unifying element of the Internet, and suggested that increasing the security and reliability of DNS could reduce the risk of fragmentation. Esfandiari called for intensive diplomatic efforts to bridge the geopolitical divide, calling for a compelling narrative that shows the mutual benefits of a unified internet for all countries, including those with authoritarian regimes. Emphasized gender. She further emphasized the importance of protecting and promoting a multi-stakeholder model of internet governance. Following that line of argument, Mueller argues that insulating internet governance from state intervention and strengthening the role of the private sector and civil society can preserve the internet’s global nature and resist pressures that lead to fragmentation. He argued that it was possible.
The conversation transitioned into an engaging Q&A session that provided a broader canvas for understanding the impact of fragmentation and the collective efforts needed to maintain the global integrity of the Internet. One audience member highlighted concerns about the proliferation of alternative naming systems and standards as a potential source of fragmentation. Datysgeld said the emerging Web 3 domain addresses the challenges posed by alternative Internet architectures and highlights that the ingrained nature of existing protocols such as TCP/IP and DNS is a major barrier to their widespread adoption. Did. He points to the resilience of these underlying technologies, and while new entrants may introduce diversity, they are likely to cause significant fragmentation without overcoming the huge network externalities that support the status quo. suggested that it was low. Esfandiari echoed this sentiment, noting that there is a geopolitical undercurrent in the debate over the ITU versus ICANN-led governance model. She attributes its lasting stability to deeply rooted network effects and the inherent advantages of the current Internet infrastructure, and expressed skepticism about major deviations from established standards. did. Conversely, Muller expressed her concern about the rigidification of standards and warned against complacency that could arise from the Internet’s success in establishing ubiquitous protocols. He advocated a dynamic approach to governance of the Internet that welcomes innovation, adapts to new technologies, and ensures that the Internet remains fertile ground for development and diversity.
Responding to concerns about business practices that lead to fragmentation, such as walled gardens and zero-rating, panelists offered a variety of perspectives. Moller downplayed the impact of commercial strategy on fragmentation, arguing that market dynamics and consumer choice naturally regulate these practices. He emphasizes the importance of focusing on state-driven fragmentation, which he believes is a more serious threat to the interconnected structure of the Internet. But Esfandiari highlighted the nuanced implications of commercial practices, especially in the context of developing countries, where access programs like Facebook’s Free Basics have sparked controversy. She questioned whether such efforts, while expanding access, would limit users’ Internet experiences to a select set of content and services, contributing to “soft” fragmentation.
Audience questions about the potential for cyberwar and its impact on internet fragmentation brought geopolitical considerations to the forefront. Mr. Esfandiary detailed the resilience of internet infrastructure during the conflict in Ukraine, underscoring the robustness of global connectivity in the face of geopolitical conflicts. She stressed the importance of maintaining open channels of communication and cooperation across borders to reduce the risk of fragmentation arising from state actions. Mr. Mueller expanded on the cybersecurity dimension, highlighting the dangers of militarization of cyberspace and the vital role of global cooperation in preventing the slide into a fragmented and conflict-ridden digital environment. She called for protecting the Internet from becoming a battleground for national conflicts and emphasized the value of a unified, secure and open Internet for promoting international stability and prosperity.
The panel discussion, enriched by a lively Q&A session, highlighted a range of experiences and aspirations related to internet fragmentation, highlighting the imperative for multiple stakeholders to work together towards solutions. it was done. He emphasized the importance of fostering dialogue and building consensus around core principles that will guide the evolution of the Internet. Through collective action like this, the international community can protect the Internet as a realm of freedom, innovation and connectivity, and overcome the divisions that risk fragmentation. This effort takes on added significance in light of his upcoming WSIS+20 and related preparatory activities, which provide an opportunity to rethink the future of the Internet. Mobilizing to maintain the Internet’s universality, openness, and adherence to the multistakeholder model is critical to its continued success.
