Session
Free Moscow University
Dr. Andrey Shcherbovich, [email protected], Professor, Free Moscow University, Academia, Eastern European Group Alexander Isavnin, [email protected], Professor, Free Moscow University, Academia, Eastern European Group
Dr. Ksenia Ermoshina, [email protected], Research Professor, Center for Internet and Society, Academia, WEOG Dr. Keith Goldstein, PhD, [email protected], Post-Doctoral Researcher, School of Education, Faculty of Humanities, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Academia, Asia Pacific
Dr. Andrey Shcherbovich
Dr. Andrey Shcherbovich
Alexander Isavnin
16. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
Targets: We believe that IGF process in general, as well as this particular event, would be meaningful for implemenation of the SDG 16, especially 16.7 Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels and 16.10 Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements
Roundtable
Free exchange of opinions between participant, based on the following questions. How should governments establish political control over the Internet? How can governments implement sovereign internet regulations (partial control)? What regulations are being proposed and enacted for critical information infrastructure? How are governments digitalizing public services? Are these services working? What improvements are they planning? Where are we going: digital interdependence or fragmentation?
The very meaning and significance of the Internet is that it is a global network. In this regard, any restrictions on its functionality in connection with the protection of state sovereignty, often misunderstood, will inevitably lead to fragmentation of the Internet. In fact, the main functionality of the Internet is the transfer of information, including international one, and this functionality is violated when any fragmentation measures are applied. In addition, the inclusion of the Internet without restrictions and on the territory of the entire planet is the main value of the Internet as a global resource and property protected by the international community. Different jurisdictions, even unexpected ones, apply different official means to protect their citizens, but in reality to enforce their sovereignty over citizens, infrastructures, digital economies, and information. Digital transformation and information technologies facilitate surveillance, profiling, digitalizing restrictions and repressions. A Multi-stakeholder approach is the only way to protect peace, development, and sustainability, but it needs to be constantly applied to ensure balancing risks in the digital spaces. Non governmental stakeholders widely represented in the digital sphere, could be important participants in the discussion making move from multilateralism to real multistakeholderism. The Internet itself is much larger and less linear than the state borders of any country, and therefore the measures that are taken in relation to the sovereign Internet, the introduction of consequent regulatory norms within the country, are only negative and serve as a closure of the network from the world, then fragmentation on a global scale. The Internet is of value only when it has an interconnectedness that allows it to provide international communication without technical interference created by the state. Any complex technological system is the result of international efforts to create and maintain. Generally speaking, today it is impossible to create any technology only within the framework of one country, or such creation would be economically inexpedient or technologically deficient. Splintered Internet leads to growth of mistrust and risks of global conflicts. Today we can see that the Internet remains an exclusive tool for cooperation between nations without any political factors within countries. We can see its importance for global cooperation, not just multilateral, but multi-stakeholder. Bringing stakeholders from affected digitally transformed locations, high risks in freshly created digital space, is one of the targets of this session. We expect to create output documents summarizing risks and suggesting approaches for further development.
Remote Moderation would allow remote participants to interact in the Session as well as onsite participants.
Report
Inaccountable data processing by huge corporations leads to increased attempts to soverenigse technologies and the Internet
There are some examples of succesful non-autarchic multistakeholder lead digital transformation, while there are are also very sad examples.
Bad guys (from criminals to governments) digitally transforms much faster than good guys
Mapping of success stories of mustistakeholder digital transformations need to be created
People, who live in countries with greater internet autarchy are eager to speak and share the urgency of establishing multistakeholder forums to create a free non-fragmented internet.
The event was devoted to the Digital Transformation and Sovereignty in Russia and Other Countries. We focused on the impact of digital transformation on sovereignty, focusing on the experiences of the Russian Federation (technical community) and other countries. It discusses how technology is used to control and block information, and how digitalization is happening in different regions, often while remaining local.
Key Ideas:
The Global Nature of the Internet: The Internet is a global platform created by various stakeholders. However, digital transformation is often happening at the local level, and users may not realize how it is happening in other countries.
Digital Services and Control: In Russia, for example, the digitalization of government services such as obtaining a driver’s license provides convenience, but also gives the state the ability to track citizens’ actions. The laws adopted to regulate the Internet increase administrative pressure on businesses and citizens.
Experiences from Other Countries: Panelists from Tanzania, Nigeria, and South Africa (civil society) share their examples of digital transformation. In Tanzania, despite successful government initiatives, there is a problem of insufficient digital literacy among the population. Nigeria demonstrates strong work on digitalisation of the financial sector, but faces challenges in the area of data sovereignty.
Challenges to data and data protection: Participants discuss how data collected by multinational corporations can be used to the detriment of countries that do not have sufficient control over their information. It is important for governments to ensure the protection of their citizens’ data and to engage in multi-stakeholder consultations with stakeholders.
Technological control and civil rights: Discusses how digitalisation can lead to human rights violations, particularly in authoritarian regimes where governments can misuse the information collected. Examples from Russia highlight how digitalisation laws can be used to restrict freedom of speech and expression.
Models of successful digitalisation: Participants from Estonia (government) share successful examples, such as a system for tracking access to personal data, which increases citizens’ trust in digital services. The Estonian model demonstrates how a multi-stakeholder approach can be effectively integrated into digitalisation.
Conclusion
Digital transformation is a dual process that offers both opportunities and risks. It is important for countries, especially developing countries, to consider the context of their sovereignty and ensure that the rights of their citizens are protected in the face of the growing influence of technology and transnational corporations. Active work is needed to create a secure and ethical digital environment that takes into account the interests of all stakeholders.
We can consider serious technical issues that made remote participation via Zoom impossible.