In March 2024, during the ICANN79 session in San Juan, Puerto Rico, the North American Institute of Internet Governance (NASIG 2024) held a conference with a very broad theme: “Facing Truth, Trust, and Hope in Internet Governance.” A key panel discussion titled “Can we survive digital fragmentation?” highlighted the importance of global connectivity and the urgency of understanding and addressing the fragmentation issues affecting the common fabric of the Internet. The discussion was moderated by William Drake and featured insightful presentations by panelists Mark Datysgeld, Pari Esfandiari, and Milton Mueller, each of whom brought a unique perspective to the complex concept of Internet fragmentation.
Drake provides a brief background, explaining how the narrative of Internet fragmentation has evolved significantly, from an obscure technological anomaly to a central concern in the global Internet governance conversation. The Snowden leaks marked a turning point in revealing the extent to which geopolitical forces exert influence on the digital realm. The revelation sparked widespread debate about the possibilities for fragmentation in all its forms – from technology protocols to user access and experience. As the panel highlighted, the discussion around fragmentation has expanded to include not only government actions but also corporate actions that may limit the open and connected nature of the Internet.
Datysgeld’s intervention highlights a key distinction in the fragmentation debate: the divide between the internet’s underlying technical infrastructure and user experience. While protocols such as TCP/IP ensure a baseline of connectivity, the actual digital experience varies widely across geographic and socioeconomic contexts. For Datysgeld, this disparity raises questions about the promise of universal access and a unified internet, and is a source of fragmentation. Muller dismissed the notion of a homogeneous user experience as an undesirable outcome, stressing that the natural diversity of internet usage does not mean fragmentation.
Esfandiari’s comments highlight the complexity of the Internet ecosystem, suggesting that understanding fragmentation requires a nuanced understanding of the Internet’s layered structure and the interactions of different stakeholders. She rejects binary understandings of fragmentation, arguing instead that the state of the internet lies somewhere between complete fragmentation and complete unity. Esfandiari challenges the idea that technological cohesion alone can prevent fragmentation, emphasizing that the Internet as a whole transcends the collection of its component parts. She highlights how smaller degrees of fragmentation from different layers and contributors may add up to wider fragmentation. Reinforcing this view, Drake noted that a range of technologies and practices, when applied broadly across multiple jurisdictions, could introduce fragmentation, leading to what might be considered fragmentation.
Mueller and Esfandiari bring the geopolitical dimensions of the Internet’s fragmentation to the forefront. Esfandiari identified geopolitical dynamics as the most important driver of fragmentation, singling out attempts by countries such as Russia to replace internet infrastructure. She also talked about the impact of technological innovation and corporate behavior on the unification of the Internet, but insisted that these are easier to deal with than the deep-rooted challenges posed by geopolitical factors. She highlighted the potential of escalating geopolitical tensions to splinter the internet into disparate blocs, highlighting the delicate balance between forces that drive division and those that strive for unity. Mueller’s view further strengthens the focus on geopolitical implications, arguing that the essence of division lies in the efforts of countries to exert control over the digital realm. He believes that the push for digital sovereignty, marked by national policies regulating Internet access and content, constitutes a form of fragmentation that threatens to undermine the global Internet architecture.
The panelists proposed various strategies to counteract the forces driving internet fragmentation. Datysgeld advocates strengthening the DNS as a key unifying element of the Internet and suggests that enhancing its security and reliability can mitigate the risk of fragmentation. Esfandiari called for increased diplomatic efforts to bridge geopolitical divides and stressed the need for a compelling narrative that demonstrates the mutual benefits of a unified internet for all countries, including those with authoritarian regimes. She further emphasized the importance of protecting and promoting the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance. Mueller followed this line of discussion and argued that by freeing Internet governance from state interference and increasing the role of the private sector and civil society, it would be possible to protect the global nature of the Internet and resist pressures leading to fragmentation.
The conversation transitioned into an engaging Q&A session that provided broader context for understanding the impact of fragmentation and the collective efforts required to maintain the global integrity of the Internet. An audience member highlighted concerns about alternative naming systems and the proliferation of standards as potential sources of fragmentation. Datysgeld addressed the challenges posed by emerging network tri-domain and alternative Internet architectures, highlighting the significant barriers to their widespread adoption due to the entrenched nature of existing protocols such as TCP/IP and DNS. He points to the resilience of these underlying technologies, suggesting that while new entrants may introduce diversity, they are unlikely to cause significant fragmentation without overcoming large network externalities that favor the status quo. Esfandiari echoed those sentiments, noting the geopolitical undercurrents in the debate over ITU versus ICANN-led governance models. She expresses skepticism about significant departures from established standards, attributing lasting stability to entrenched network effects and the inherent strengths of current Internet infrastructure. Instead, Mueller expressed concern about rigid standards, warning against complacency stemming from the Internet’s success in establishing ubiquitous protocols. He advocates a dynamic approach to Internet governance that welcomes innovation and adapts to emerging technologies to ensure that the Internet remains a fertile ground for development and diversity.
Panellists offered different perspectives on concerns about business practices that lead to fragmentation, such as walled gardens and zero-rating. Mueller downplayed the impact of business strategy on fragmentation, arguing that market dynamics and consumer choices naturally moderate the approach. He emphasized the importance of focusing on state-driven fragmentation, which he considered a more significant threat to the cohesive structure of the Internet. However, Esfandiari highlighted the subtle impact of business practices, particularly in developing countries where access programs such as Facebook’s Free Basics have sparked debate. She questioned whether such initiatives, while broadening access, might limit users’ internet experience to carefully curated content and services, leading to a form of “soft” fragmentation.
A question from an audience member about the possibility of cyberwarfare and its impact on the fragmentation of the internet brought geopolitical considerations to the forefront. Esfandiari spoke about the resilience of internet infrastructure during the conflict in Ukraine, emphasizing that global connectivity remains robust even in the face of geopolitical conflict. She advocated the importance of maintaining open channels of cross-border communication and cooperation to mitigate the risks of fragmentation posed by state actions. Mueller expanded on the cybersecurity dimension, emphasizing the dangers of militarization of cyberspace and the critical role of global cooperation in preventing a slide into a fragmented, conflict-ridden digital environment. He called for protecting the Internet from becoming a battlefield for national conflicts and emphasized the value of a unified, secure and open Internet in promoting international stability and prosperity.
The panel discussion, enriched by a dynamic Q&A session, illuminated the various experiences and aspirations related to Internet fragmentation, highlighting the need for collaborative multi-stakeholder efforts to address the problem. It emphasizes the importance of promoting dialogue and consensus around the core principles that guide the development of the Internet. Through this kind of collective action, the international community can preserve the Internet as a realm of freedom, innovation, and connectivity and overcome the divisions that threaten to divide it. This effort becomes even more important in light of the upcoming WSIS+20 and related preparatory events, which provide an opportunity to reimagine the future of the Internet. Mobilization to safeguard the Internet’s universality, openness and adherence to the multi-stakeholder model are critical to its lasting success.