[Chapter-delegates] Digital sovreignty and splinternet

[Ted Hardie]

"The Internet is borderless by design" is shorthand for a set of technical
characteristics of the communications enabled by the Internet.  A slightly
less shorthand version might be that if we define the Internet as the
reflexive set of network nodes which are reachable by IP, we can observe
that this set is not congruent with or affected by national borders.  The
corollary is that any node reachable by IP can offer resources or services
to any or all other nodes without regard to those same borders.  That
insight is what makes the World Wide Web world-wide; if you have a browser
and can identify the right node, you can get the resource from anywhere.

Digital sovereignty does not change this technical characteristic, but
creates a regime in which specific services must be sourced within specific
regions (mostly national but sometimes at the level of supranational
region).  If I could access a resource currently offered in the Netherlands
but the provider must offer it to me in Portugal, the service can no longer
take advantage of the Internet's characteristics.

Carried to its extreme, this results in a splintering of the reflexive set
of network nodes reachable by IP into a number of subsets.  Each subset has
nodes using the same technology,  but they are no longer able to provide or
access services to all the other nodes. "Splinternet" is the very short
shorthand for this condition.

Whatever the shorthand, the result is bad both for the network and for its
users.  At its most extreme, it could be read as a violation of Article 12
and/or Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
<https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights>.

regards,

Ted Hardie

On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 11:08 PM Richard Hill via Chapter-delegates <
chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> I refer to this post which was recently brought to our attention:
>
>
>
> https://www.internetsociety.org/action-plan/2022/digital-sovereignty/
>
>
>
> I’m puzzled by this bit: “The Internet is borderless by design.”
>
>
>
> All telecommunications are designed to facilitate cross-border
> communications flows. In fact, the ITU was created in 1865 precisely to
> facilitate the cross-border flow of telegrams, and subsequently facilitated
> the cross-border flow of other forms of telecommunication.
>
>
>
> While base telecommunication protocols (e.g. TCP/IP) are indeed designed
> to be borderless, the physical facilities that implement the protocols, and
> that provide services based on the protocols, are subject to national law,
> for example criminal law, copyright law, etc. (Recall that offline law
> applies equally online.)
>
>
>
> In addition, there may be telecommunications-specific regulation.
> Traditionally, those were heavy, and, in many jurisdictions, provided that
> only state-owned or authorized monopolies could provide certain services.
>
>
>
> That ended in the 1980’s, with the introduction of liberalization and
> privatization.  But certain specific laws still exist. For example, in the
> US, CDA 230 creates a liability regime for certain Internet services that
> is specific to the Internet.
>
>
>
> Names and addresses were traditionally assigned on a national basis, and
> this was carried over in the domain name system in the form of the ccTLDs.
> However, in keeping with the tenets of privatization, most ccTLDs are not
> state-owned, and in keeping with the tenets of deregulation, many ccTLDs
> are not regulated.
>
>
>
> IP addresses are handled differently: they are assigned on a regional
> basis.
>
>
>
> And Internet routing is not based on national borders.
>
>
>
> Here is a more detailed discussion:
>
>
>
>   http://www.apig.ch/Internet%203-characteristics.doc
>
>
>
> But the most important difference regarding the Internet is its funding
> model for many services: monetization of personal data through targeted
> advertising. This has had some unwanted side-effects, see for example:
>
>
>
> http://boundary2.org/2015/04/08/the-internet-vs-democracy/
>
>
>
>
> http://www.boundary2.org/2018/02/richard-hill-knots-of-statelike-power-review-of-harcourt-exposed-desire-and-disobedience-in-the-digital-age/
>
>
>
>
> http://www.boundary2.org/2018/10/richard-hill-too-big-to-be-review-of-wu-the-curse-of-bigness-antitrust-in-the-new-gilded-age/
>
>
>
>
> http://www.boundary2.org/2021/04/richard-hill-the-curse-of-concentration-review-of-cory-doctorow-how-to-destroy-surveillance-capitalism/
>
>
>
> Since the Internet now underpins most aspects of our lives and economic
> activities, it seems to me inevitable that governments will evaluate
> whether they should be more involved in its governance (e.g. by enacting
> data privacy laws, and/or by enforcing anti-trust law).
>
>
>
> Obviously there is a risk (and not just in non-democratic states) that
> government intervention could have unwanted side-effects. So it seems to me
> that it is important to provide information to governments that will enable
> them to make sensible decisions.
>
>
>
> Regarding the specific issue of splintering, I fear that it’s not just the
> Internet that might splinter, but the world as a whole. I fear that we are
> moving to a new version of the Cold War which some of us are old enough to
> have lived through.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS):
> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:
> https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20220526/2b5be599/attachment.htm>