[PNIF] PNIF - doodle working call

Sun Nov 13 15:58:08 EST 2022

I have to apologize for tomorrow. Not only did I plan a day off, I also have two conflicting meetings that conflicts with this call.

Mobile device, apologies for typos
________________________________
From: Sheetal Kumar via PNIF <pnif at intgovforum.org>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 4:32:10 PM
To: William Drake <williamdrake.org at gmail.com>
Cc: pnif at intgovforum.org <pnif at intgovforum.org>
Subject: Re: [PNIF] PNIF - doodle working call

Hi Bill

Of course, please find it here (at the bottom): https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/pnif-working-meeting

Glad you can make it!

Best
Sheetal.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 at 18:37, William Drake <williamdrake.org at gmail.com<mailto:williamdrake.org at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Sheetal

Thanks for the ping. Sure, the timing is Western Hemisphere-friendly (unlike the middle-of-the-night sessions in Addis).

Sorry I missed this but where does one read the draft framework?

Cheers

Bill

On Nov 10, 2022, at 4:31 AM, Sheetal Kumar <sheetal at gp-digital.org<mailto:sheetal at gp-digital.org>> wrote:

Hi Milton, Bill, all

We can't promise any bets will be won, but please join us for a 'working' call of the Policy Network on Monday to discuss a draft framework to conceptualise internet fragmentation (and that has come out of the webinars hosted in the past few months), which we plan to get wider consultation on at the upcoming IGF - with the view to using it as a foundation for work for the Policy Network next year. We would really appreciate it if you can join us, especially as we are committed to building on existing work. Wim has shared the details on another thread and I'm copying below.

[Joining details]

The PNIF working meeting will discuss and further refine the PNIF Internet fragmentation framework that emerged from the PNIF webinars and prepare it to feed into PNIF session at the IGF.

Topic: PNIF - working session

Time: Nov 14, 2022 03:30 PM Universal Time UTC

Join Zoom Meeting

https://intgovforum.zoom.us/j/93904282708

Meeting ID: 939 0428 2708

Find your local number: https://intgovforum.zoom.us/u/abQcw2cP2L

[Agenda]

The PNIF working meeting will discuss and further refine the PNIF Internet fragmentation framework that emerged from the PNIF webinars and prepare it to feed into PNIF session at the IGF.

  1.  Welcome and introduction, purpose of the framework.
  2.  Open discussion on the drat PNIF Internet fragmentation framework
  3.  Conclusion and next steps

On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 at 20:07, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>> wrote:
Yes, Knake replied and accepted the bet, and later a European conference organizer brought us together for a live debate and held a vote afterwards. (I won the vote 😉) That may be available somewhere.
https://ne-np.facebook.com/cyberseceu/photos/-at-some-point-in-this-decade-the-chinese-government-with-the-support-of-russia-/2913423022255590
हेर्नको लागि लग इन वा साइन अप गर्नुहोस्<https://ne-np.facebook.com/cyberseceu/photos/-at-some-point-in-this-decade-the-chinese-government-with-the-support-of-russia-/2913423022255590>
Facebook मा पोस्ट, फोटो र थप कुराहरू हेर्नुहोस्।
ne-np.facebook.com<http://ne-np.facebook.com/>

________________________________
From: William Drake <williamdrake.org at gmail.com<mailto:williamdrake.org at gmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2022 11:50 AM
To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at GATECH.EDU<mailto:milton at GATECH.EDU>>
Cc: Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang at kleinwaechter.info<mailto:wolfgang at kleinwaechter.info>>; pnif at intgovforum.org<mailto:pnif at intgovforum.org> <pnif at intgovforum.org<mailto:pnif at intgovforum.org>>
Subject: RE: [PNIF] PNIF - doodle working call

Hi Milton

Actually, we did a CITI meeting yesterday with Jason Pielemeier and Chris Riley based on their Lawfare critique of the recent Council on Foreign Relations report https://www.lawfareblog.com/defense-global-open-internet-0.  They said that alas that report is getting traction in DC policy circles, some relevant people are buying the notion that because of fragmentation, policies to promote Internet openness and freedom have failed and so the US should shift to a national security / great-powers-conflict mindset on Internet issues.  Despite the fact that the task force co-chair is now the ambassador in charge of State’s Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy, which has a policy unit on Digital Freedom, sigh.  All of which, per previous, points to the problems that can ensue if slanted conceptions of fragmentation become the basis for national and international policies.

BTW did Knake ever reply to your post and take your bet? Offer a defense of his systemic frag prediction?  Would also be interesting to know how policy circles elsewhere are processing frag talk.

Cheers

Bill

On Nov 6, 2022, at 4:02 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at GATECH.EDU<mailto:milton at GATECH.EDU>> wrote:

All:
Robert Knake (the author of the CFP report Wolfgang referenced) said in January 2020 that “at some point in the next decade, the Chinese government, with the support of Russia and other authoritarian regimes, will move forward with plans to establish a separate [DNS] root system for their share of the internet.”

In other words, Knake was predicting “real” fragmentation – the splitting of the DNS – within 10 years.

I disagreed with him, based on my belief that the Chinese (like us) need global compatibility. In fact, I made a bet with Knake: he will owe me $500 if China doesn’t split the DNS by Jan 2030. You can read about the terms of the bet here, https://www.internetgovernance.org/2020/02/26/the-knake-mueller-wager-will-china-form-an-alternate-dns-root/ and in fact it’s a pretty good primer on one aspect of the meaning of “fragmentation.”

Dr. Milton L Mueller
Georgia Institute of Technology
School of Public Policy
Internet Governance Project<https://internetgovernance.org/>

From: William Drake <williamdrake.org at gmail.com<mailto:williamdrake.org at gmail.com>>
Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2022 12:11 PM
To: Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang at kleinwaechter.info<mailto:wolfgang at kleinwaechter.info>>
Cc: pnif at intgovforum.org<mailto:pnif at intgovforum.org>
Subject: Re: [PNIF] PNIF - doodle working call

Hi Wolfgang

As this report is from 2010---before e.g. Snowden, IANA transition, NetMundial, the social media & disinfo booms, escalation of great power tensions in cyber, etc. etc.---one would think any potential to cause fragmentation would have been realized by now.  While there was some controversy and debate about it back then, one could argue it seems pretty anodyne from today’s overheated perspective. A number of things Knake called for—doing cybersecurity outside the COE, creation of a Bureau in the US State Dept, changing the status of the root, etc.---did happen, but not because of the report.

The more recent CFR report on Confronting Reality in Cyberspace that I believe (?) was discussed a little here months back seems much more problematic, not only because it says there’s massive fragmentation without defining what that means and then concludes that in consequence policies to promote openness and multistakeholderism have failed.  The guy who chaired the task force that signed off on it is now the head of the State Dept.’s Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy.  Whether US policy (or at least those bits of it that are driven by State) could turn toward operationalization of this vision and what that could mean are something we should talk about in upcoming fragmentation sessions.

Adam Segal, who runs CFR’s digital stuff, did an interview on the Lawfare podcast a couple months ago comparing the two reports and their differences, if anyone wants to delve further.

Cheers

Bill

On Nov 6, 2022, at 6:30 AM, Wolfgang Kleinwächter via PNIF <pnif at intgovforum.org<mailto:pnif at intgovforum.org>> wrote:

Hi,

here is another CFR-Study with a "potential" to stimulate Internet Fragmentation.
https://www.cfr.org/report/internet-governance-age-cyber-insecurity

“It is safe to conclude that the "coordination" and "encouragement" model has not yielded the desired results, and stronger leadership by the federal government is necessary.”

“The US government should challenge the IETF to develop a new suite of more secure protocls.... This should include a dealine for four years... It should be made clear that failure to meet the deadline would result in the initiation of federal effort to create new protocols.”

How you read this? Is this the end of the "good old times" or the start of a new beginning? Multistakeholder approach under "federal government" (US) leadership? And how this is related to the DFI and the dubious "multistalkeholder event", organized top down and intransparent under the Czech EU presidency recently in Prague?

Wolfgang

Sheetal Kumar via PNIF <pnif at intgovforum.org<mailto:pnif at intgovforum.org>> hat am 03.11.2022 18:49 CET geschrieben:

Dear Anriette
This is very helpful, thank you! We'll integrate your notes/reflections into the prep for the working call group and the call itself.

Best
Sheetal.

On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 at 17:56, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org<mailto:anriette at apc.org>> wrote:

Dear Bruna, Wim and Sheetal and all

Thanks for two very interesting webinars. I won't be able to make the call. I think the framework looks fine. I took some of my own notes at the time which I share below in case it is helpful.

Anriette

a) Internet fragmentation which is the fragmentation of the technical layer, and which is not really happening at present but if it did, its effect would be profound

b) Fragmentation with regard to the user experience that results from (i) not having effective or affordable access to infrastructure (ii) interventions by states (e.g. blocking, shutdowns, censorship) or corporations (content control, walled gardens etc.

c) Fragmentation of internet governance and coordination - mostly as a result of insufficient collaboration between stakeholders, states, regions and/or tension between multistakeholder and multilateral approaches, geopolitics, and ideologically driven debates that encourages polarisation rather than collaboration, but also the result of insufficient crosscutting engagement by, for example, the technical community in broader public policy discussions, or, when it comes to technical governance, insufficient participation from people who understand the context of low bandwidth users, or users who rely entirely on mobile data

d) The "in between" for me is more a case of looking at consequences, intended and unintended of trends in technical and policy developments from the perspective or fragmentation of b) user experience and c) internet governance and regulation. Regulatory interventions can have a fragmenting effect, but they might also strengthen a unified unfragmented internet (e.g. by regulating to encourage adoption of IPv6).

Anriette Esterhuysen - anriette at apc.org//anriette at gmail.com<mailto:anriette at apc.org//anriette at gmail.com>

Senior advisor global and regional internet governance

Association for Progressive Communications

www.apc.org<http://www.apc.org/> // afrisig.org<http://afrisig.org/>

On 2022/11/02 15:06, Wim Degezelle wrote:
Dear All,

Thank you to all participants of last week’s PNIF webinar. The recording is available at https://youtu.be/kYmFsbD_nWM and a Summary will soon follow.

By the end of the webinar a rough draft framework emerged:  (a) Fragmentation of the user experience & information flows control management; (b) Technical layer fragmentation; (c) The ‘in-between’ (e.g. current technical developments that tend towards and away from fragmentation of the user experience).   It was agreed to set up a working call for those interested, to continue the discussion on the framework and whether it is helpful to further discussions on addressing fragmentation  (e.g. is the framework useful for collecting and sorting examples and best practice answers, or discuss guidelines and recommendations).

We selected time slots for a 90min working call and invite you to indicate a preference : https://doodle.com/meeting/participate/id/b816Vwmd

Best Regards
The PNIF coordinating team

Sheetal, Bruna, Wim

_______________________________________________
PNIF mailing list
PNIF at intgovforum.org<mailto:PNIF at intgovforum.org>
To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/pnif_intgovforum.org

--

Sheetal Kumar
Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514  |
PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31|
---
[https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/iUGzteDjfTIrFcQ7tLhAW-tCEIFkho4wyxyu0qY9dIN0qqh-fzlX7vlClGDDREgWSKVcgeux5wWz1mp2tYaIgqbVld03OscqgVxIu7WcF-05pjP6OdqqjqoLaTohCMs0LcOVQNZz3m3-0YD73-J1fq4VxJsc7ejs70BwSg-kfMAbXtXhJz6W1uJLcg]<https://www.4dayweek.co.uk/>
GPD is proud to be an accredited four-day week organisation that cares about the well-being of its team. Please note that our office hours are now Monday to Thursday (9am-5pm UK time). Find out more here<https://www.gp-digital.org/news/gpd-becomes-a-four-day-week-organisation/>.

--

Sheetal Kumar
Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514  |
PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31|

---

[https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/iUGzteDjfTIrFcQ7tLhAW-tCEIFkho4wyxyu0qY9dIN0qqh-fzlX7vlClGDDREgWSKVcgeux5wWz1mp2tYaIgqbVld03OscqgVxIu7WcF-05pjP6OdqqjqoLaTohCMs0LcOVQNZz3m3-0YD73-J1fq4VxJsc7ejs70BwSg-kfMAbXtXhJz6W1uJLcg]<https://www.4dayweek.co.uk/>

GPD is proud to be an accredited four-day week organisation that cares about the well-being of its team. Please note that our office hours are now Monday to Thursday (9am-5pm UK time). Find out more here<https://www.gp-digital.org/news/gpd-becomes-a-four-day-week-organisation/>.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/pnif_intgovforum.org/attachments/20221113/3c917498/attachment.htm>