Fragmentation of the internet may lead to a deeper societal and economical problems. This is not just an infrastructure splintering, this is a break in the user experience. Europe needs to put efforts to preserve the global interoperable internet for all to avoid divergences that may cause even greater geopolitical conflicts.
While the core internet infrastructure is still relying on the TCP/IP and DNS system, some states are pushing for the new protocols. If we don’t counteract we’ll end up in the situation where we have to pick which internet we want to have. And once it happens, there will be no way back.
One of the ways to reduce the possibility of the splinternet is to avoid incompatible regulations for internet infrastructure. However there is an open question about what to do with those nations who deliberately decides to disconnect from the global internet.
Another chance to avoid fragmentation is to use the potential of the upcoming UN Global Digital Compact and Thech Envoy which could prioritize the global nature of the Internet and explicitly focus on the preservance of the digital human rights which are at the core of any piece of European regulation.
Participants of the session discussed what kind of initiatives may lead to fragmentation of the Internet and what can be done to avoid it. Moderator - Mr Vittorio Bertola (Open-Xchange AG) reminded that since the very invention of the Internet and its spread all over the word, different nations formed a spectrum of regulatory approaches from the open, liberal model in the US up to completely closed intranet in North Korea. Now there is a question, what path we should choose to make the best use of the internet today?
Mr Peter Koch (DENIC) said that «we're beyond that point where we say we don't want any regulation at all». He argued that regulation is not bad per se, but we must be cautious about side risks. For example, if regulation targets big tech, we need to look how it affects smaller participants and contributors to the internet infrastructure: «as we know, there is lots of important core infrastructure that's not run by American platforms, but by international and European in this case, small, medium enterprises». The subsequent problem here it compliance. By creating more rules and regulations for «big dragons» we do them more favor eventually, since only they can afford armies of lawyers and staff for compliance departments.
Ms Jurgita Miseviciute (Proton AG) also agreed on the necessity of regulation, though it should be balanced. She considers that regulation can foster innovation, providing more choice, it can also address the digital sovereignty goals. Regulation for tech field is a natural development as it was with telecom, finance and other sectors. The Digital Markets Act, for example, will set a level playing field for many innovative tech challengers to thoroughly compete with the dominant tech companies. With the current situation where a handful of dominant tech companies are building their closed ecosystems, we have more risks for fragmentation than with a proper regulation.
Mr Esteve Sanz (Head of Internet Governance Sector, European Commission) voiced the main concerns that EU has regarding the splinternet. «If the internet gets fragmented, if citizens, if businesses have a different experience when they go online across the globe, then this perception of interconnectedness is lost and then you enter into serious geopolitical conflicts», said Mr Sanz. On the one hand, some people argue that the internet is already fragmented (along national borders), but on the other the core infrastructure of the internet is still the same - TCP/IP and DNS system - this keeps the notion of the global internet real. Sanz continued that currently there are states pushing for a change on that technological architecture, for example, new protocols that would not be compatible with the existing protocols. Those states are very committed to this idea and it keeps the EU extremely worried: «In the end, this would split the governance of the internet, because if you have other protocols, you would have new institutions, new bodies, that would deal with those protocols. Then there is really no way back to a one single internet», warns Sanz.
Secondly, Sanz talked about European regulatory approach. He stressed that any piece of regulation should be in accordance with the EU Charter of Fundamental rights. «This, in terms of creating the common world, global common denominator for regulating the internet, it is very important». Another main concern is to be cautious of the size of companies affected by the regulation: «we want the SMEs, the digital sector to grow and to have the same possibilities that the big companies have had».
During the Q&A part participants discussed other questions related to the topic - whether particular states have the will to avoid internet fragmentation which actually harms the primary principle of internet to bring people together and to make them more united and empowered; whether European efforts to achieve digital sovereignty contribute to the splinternet; and what key principles and commitments should the Global Digital Compact include in order to prevent fragmentation.
For the last question Mr Sanz responded that «at the regulatory level, what keeps the internet moving and having a similar experience of openness and empowerment, it is the Human Rights aspect. Thus, the United Nations will have a very important role here». The global digital Compact should embed fundamental rights at the core. As for the new role of the UN Tech Envoy, Sanz considered he can contribute to the implementation of the digital Human Rights agenda of the UN by making visible the violations.
At the end Koch stressed that we need to avoid to have competing incompatible regulation for the infrastructure. However, he highlighted that it is not clear what to do with those states who decided to decouple themselves from the internet in order to preserve the global internet for all.
