[Chapter-delegates] For Your Review: Internet Society Digital Sovereignty Draft White Paper

Wed Sep 14 02:57:05 PDT 2022

Thank you for the paper. 

It is helpful to see this stab at comparative definitions as reactions
around the world to the Internet are influencing legislative,
regulatory, technical and market developments.

I am wondering if this exercise started out as an attempt to work out what "digital
sovereignty" is or might be?

Can this term become something that can be defined closely enough so it could be
or become a helpful metric in understanding how regulatory, legal and
market powers interact as an element in the "toolkit"? 

I am not sure whether I am now clearer on that or not after reading the paper. 

So for the purpose of helping me reach a better understanding and for
discussion.

The basic rationale for a definition and appreciation of "sovereignty" is
it is fundamentally about boundaries, what they are and then about who
controls them. 

I have a few concerns with these in the Internet context I am trying to figure out.

Firstly the term "sovereignty" is loaded politically particularly with
reference to concepts and powers of self determination of and
interactions between nation states as drawn from the Westphalian and successor settlements and treaties since the 1700s. 

That could be seen as the realpolitik layer for network and service
boundaries if you will. You go into some of the key issues for this
layer in the paper. 

Secondly appreciating the limits and extents of personal and entity self
determination online. This bleeds into the noise of managing or
regulating application and content media centralisation in a globalised world of the last thirty to
forty years. Of particular relevance to this layer would be how data is
valued, distributed and the control capacity of data subjects to exert local
rights of confidentiality, privacy, child protection, policing, anonymity etc.

This could perhaps be described as the cultural layer for network and
service boundaries?  This layer contains a morass of concerns. 

Thirdly when managing any boundaries online sits in the context of a
network of networks that involves end to end communications despite
network boundaries. This holds a particular set of characteristics 
when considering the effects of actions by those concerned with the above layers.

For the Internet to function as a global network of networks that
supports direct connectivity between any two points that is independent of any particular intervening
networks and application support networks (for instance so packets
reroute efficiently to get around blockages, provide redundancy and so on). 

This could perhaps be described for Soverignty discussions as the Internet layer and is exemplified
by the IP layer or what Steve Deering and others analysed as being
important to maintain as a narrow waist of protocols as in itself an important
technical policy objective. An objective with implications for the other
boundary conditions to respect.

Each of these layers are important and relevant and how the boundaries
are managed in and between each layer has consequences not only across the boundary
for that layer but also the other layers.

It is the latter point which has the  most concern for me. To give an
example the attempts to weaken encryption fail the third layer test but
for those who debate the Internet with the focus of concern with the
second layer or first layers alone are tending to under appreciate cost
to their utility of weakening the Internet layer for what they want and need.

It would be wonderful if this work can help establish a toolkit that helps better appreciate
how to apply the faustian bargains to determine where the cost is greater
than the benefit in pushing policies on some boundary conditions. 

In particular it would be helpful to counter the prevailing shoulder
shrugs over the global damage that fragmentation of the Internet layer would cause.  

C

Noelle Francesca de Guzman via Chapter-delegates <chaptiirer-delegates at elists.isoc.org> writes:

> Hi Richard,
>
> Thank you for your swift feedback, and for taking the time to review the draft. We’ve reached out to colleagues in the region and will look more closely into these policies
>
>
> I should also mention that while we found many policies around the world with themes akin to policies driven by digital sovereignty, we limited our scope to policies that either explicitly include digital sovereignty in the text, or is directly referred to as a digital sovereignty policy by government, or a public official, in other literature (e.g. government press release). As many of these policies are in non-English languages, we also took our cue from other published analyses, such as those of local or regional think tanks, who attributed a certain policy to a country’s push for digital sovereignty. This is to avoid having us inadvertently assign digital sovereignty as a motive to states that may not have expressed support for digital sovereignty, despite having similar policies
>
>
> We welcome your suggestions, and pointers from the community on other policies that we should investigate, especially those that might yield approaches different from the ones we’ve outlined in the draft.
>
>
> Thanks and kind regards,
>
> Noelle
>
> ________________________________
> From: Chapter-delegates <chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org> on behalf of Richard Hill via Chapter-delegates <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
> Sent: Monday, 12 September 2022 10:55 pm
> To: DigiSov <digisov at isoc.org>
> Cc: 'ISOC Chapters' <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] For Your Review: Internet Society Digital Sovereignty Draft White Paper
>
>
> Thank you for this.
>
>
>
> In 4.1, I am astonished that you do not mention the United States, whose national security laws apply not just domestically, but also extra-territorially. The US does not impose direct state control, but its laws empower judicial and law enforcement authorities to assert control over many aspects of digital matters, in particular personal data.
>
>
>
> In 4.2, again, I am astonished that you do not mention the United States, which has a plethora of policies and programs to favor national production of many technologies, in particular ICTs.
>
>
>
> In 4.3, I would mention yet another approach: the United States approach of leaving “individual sovereignty” matters up to the private sector, with very little state-imposed consumer protection.
>
> Best,
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Chapter-delegates [mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Noelle Francesca de Guzman via Chapter-delegates
> Sent: Monday, 12 September 2022 15:34
> To: chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> Subject: [Chapter-delegates] For Your Review: Internet Society Digital Sovereignty Draft White Paper
>
>
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
>
>
> Our draft white paper on the impact of Digital Sovereignty on the Internet is ready for your review.
>
>
>
> We couldn't have gotten this far without you!
>
>
>
> In April, the Internet Society began to focus on digital sovereignty.
>
>
>
> We wanted to find out how public policies driven by digital sovereignty affect the technical foundations of the Internet, and how they could change the future of the Internet.
>
>
>
> Using our Internet Impact Assessment Toolkit, we analyzed policies in countries where we found increased use of digital sovereignty in both government rhetoric and legislative proposals. Our findings were eye opening.
>
>
>
> As a member of an Internet Society chapter, we invite you to review our draft paper, and to submit your comments. Here's how:
>
>   1.  Download the draft paper here<https://isoc.box.com/s/ql4i4boryisuxcdifc4ht931jloaj09e>, or
>   2.  Watch the short video on our key findings here<https://isoc.box.com/s/45n11u9fpmvhajkd45ggdz1iskr3v3ci>, then
>   3.  Read our guiding questions here<https://isoc.box.com/s/8ou3cz3uoc8ay7se2w8fw3o10drjlbpm>
>
> You can submit your comments using one of these options:
>
>   1.  This form [link<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/51a8b310cce549cd80276064f8ac5980>]
>   2.  Email to digisov at isoc.org
>   3.  Join one of our group discussions:
>   4.          a. 28 September 2022, 09:00-10:00 UTC, register here<https://isoc.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZwrf-qvrz4pEt1T5LhHjT90rmcrFEr8KtEq> to join
>   5.          b. 5 October 2022, 15:00-16:00 UTC, register here<https://isoc.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZwkce6vpzgsHdP7_1nZZxkbHQAwZ8n8HECV> to join
>
>
>
> This document will be available for your review for four weeks, from today until 23:59 UTC on October 7th.
>
>
>
> Thank you for your interest in our work, and we look forward to receiving your feedback
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Noelle, on behalf of The Digital Sovereignty Project
>
>
>
> _____________________________________
>
> ps: Thank you again for all the hard work so far. If you want read more about how we got here - together - have a look at this blog on Internet Society's website.<https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2022/08/exploring-digital-sovereignty/>
>
>
>
> About the Internet Society's Policy Development Process (PDP): In 2018, ISOC established a Policy Development Process (PDP) to lead consultation of Members (Chapter/SIG leaders, Organization Members and individual members) ahead of the publication of new policy positions. For more information, please visit: https://www.internetsociety.org/about-internet-society/policy-development-process/
>
>
>
> --------
>
> Processus d'élaboration des politiques (PDP) : Livre blanc sur la souveraineté numérique
>
>
>
>
>
> Bonjour collègues,
>
>
>
> Notre Livre blanc sur l'impact de la souveraineté numérique sur Internet est prêt à être révisé.
>
>
>
> Nous n'aurions pas pu mener à bien ce projet sans vous !
>
>
>
> En avril, l'Internet Society a commencé à s'intéresser à la souveraineté numérique.
>
>
>
> Nous voulions déterminer comment les politiques publiques motivées par la souveraineté numérique affectent les bases techniques de l'Internet, et comment elles pourraient changer son avenir.
>
>
>
> À l'aide de notre boîte à outils pour l'évaluation de l'impact sur Internet, nous avons analysé les politiques des pays où nous avons constaté une utilisation accrue de la souveraineté numérique, tant dans le discours gouvernemental que dans les propositions législatives. Notre constat a été révélateur.
>
>
>
> En tant que membre de l'Internet Society, nous vous invitons à réviser notre projet de document et à nous faire part de vos commentaires. Voici comment :
>
>   1.  Téléchargez le projet de document ici<https://isoc.box.com/s/ql4i4boryisuxcdifc4ht931jloaj09e>, ou
>   2.  Regardez cette courte vidéo sur nos principales conclusions ici<https://isoc.box.com/s/45n11u9fpmvhajkd45ggdz1iskr3v3ci>, puis
>   3.  Lisez nos questions directrices ici<https://isoc.box.com/s/8ou3cz3uoc8ay7se2w8fw3o10drjlbpm>
>
>
>
> Vous pouvez soumettre vos commentaires en utilisant l'une des options suivantes :
>
>   1.  Ce formulaire [lien<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/51a8b310cce549cd80276064f8ac5980>]
>   2.  Par courriel à digisov at isoc.org<mailto:digisov at isoc.org>
>   3.  En rejoignant l'un de nos groupes de discussion :
>
>         a. 28 septembre 2022, 09:00-10:00 UTC , inscrivez-vous ici<https://isoc.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZwrf-qvrz4pEt1T5LhHjT90rmcrFEr8KtEq> pour rejoindre
>
>         b. 5 octobre 2022, 15:00-16:00 UTC, inscrivez-vous ici<https://isoc.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZwkce6vpzgsHdP7_1nZZxkbHQAwZ8n8HECV> pour rejoindre
>
>
>
>
>
> Ce document sera disponible pour révision pendant quatre semaines, à compter d'aujourd'hui et jusqu'au 7 octobre à 23 h 59 UTC.
>
>
>
>
>
> Nous vous remercions de l'intérêt que vous portez à notre travail et attendons vos commentaires
>
>
>
> Cordialement,
>
>
>
> Noelle, au nom du projet de souveraineté numérique
>
>
>
> P.-S. : Merci encore pour tout le travail accompli jusqu'à présent. Si vous voulez en savoir plus sur le chemin parcouru ensemble, consultez ce blog sur le site de l'Internet Society.<https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2022/08/exploring-digital-sovereignty/>
>
>
>
> À propos du processus d'élaboration de politiques (PDP) de l'Internet Society :
>
> En 2018, l'ISOC a établi un processus d'élaboration de politiques (PDP) pour guider la consultation des membres (dirigeants de chapitres et chefs de groupes d'intérêts spéciaux, membres organisationnels et membres individuels) avant la publication de nouvelles prises de positions politiques. Pour plus d'informations, veuillez consulter : https://www.internetsociety.org/about-internet-society/policy-development-process/
>
>
>
>  -------
>
>
>
> Proceso de desarrollo de políticas (PDP): Informe técnico sobre Soberanía digital
>
>
>
> Estimados colegas:
>
>
>
> Nuestro borrador del informe técnico sobre el impacto de la Soberanía digital en Internet está listo para su revisión.
>
>
>
> ¡No podríamos haber llegado tan lejos sin ustedes!
>
>
>
> En abril, Internet Society comenzó a enfocarse en la soberanía digital.
>
>
>
> Queríamos averiguar cómo las políticas públicas impulsadas por la soberanía digital afectan los cimientos técnicos de Internet y cómo podrían cambiar el futuro de Internet.
>
>
>
> Usando nuestro kit de herramientas de Evaluación del impacto de Internet, analizamos las políticas en países donde encontramos un mayor uso de la soberanía digital tanto en la retórica gubernamental como en las propuestas legislativas. Nuestras conclusiones fueron reveladoras.
>
>
>
> Como miembro de Internet Society, lo invitamos a revisar el borrador del documento y a enviar sus comentarios. El procedimiento es el siguiente:
>
>
>
>   1.  Descargue el borrador del documento aquí<https://isoc.box.com/s/ql4i4boryisuxcdifc4ht931jloaj09e> o
>   2.  Mire el breve video sobre nuestras conclusiones clave aquí<https://isoc.box.com/s/45n11u9fpmvhajkd45ggdz1iskr3v3ci>, luego
>   3.  Lea nuestras preguntas de orientación aquí<https://isoc.box.com/s/8ou3cz3uoc8ay7se2w8fw3o10drjlbpm>
>
>
>
> Puede enviar sus comentarios usando una de estas opciones:
>
>
>
>   1.  Este formulario [vínculo<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/51a8b310cce549cd80276064f8ac5980>]
>   2.  Correo electrónico a digisov at isoc.org<mailto:digisov at isoc.org>
>   3.  Únase a uno de nuestros debates grupales:
>
>         a. 28 septiembre 2022, 09:00-10:00 UTC, regístrese aquí<https://isoc.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZwrf-qvrz4pEt1T5LhHjT90rmcrFEr8KtEq> para unirse
>
>         b. 5 octubre 2022,  15:00-16:00 UTC, regístrese aquí<https://isoc.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZwkce6vpzgsHdP7_1nZZxkbHQAwZ8n8HECV> para unirse
>
>
>
>
>
> Este documento estará disponible para su revisión durante cuatro semanas, desde hoy hasta las 23:59 UTC del 7 de octubre.
>
>
>
>
>
> La agradecemos por su interés en nuestro trabajo y esperamos recibir sus comentarios.
>
>
>
> Atentamente,
>
>
>
> Noelle, en nombre del Proyecto de Soberanía Digital
>
>
>
> P.D.: Gracias de nuevo por todo el arduo trabajo realizado hasta ahora. Si desea leer más acerca de cómo llegamos aquí, juntos, eche un vistazo a este blog en el sitio web de Internet Society.<https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2022/08/exploring-digital-sovereignty/>
>
>
>
> Sobre el Proceso de desarrollo de políticas (PDP) de Internet Society:
>
> En 2018, ISOC estableció un Proceso de desarrollo de políticas (PDP) para conducir la consulta de los miembros (líderes de capítulos y grupos de interés especial [SIG], miembros organizacionales y miembros individuales) antes de la publicación de nuevas posturas políticas. Para obtener más información, visite: https://www.internetsociety.org/about-internet-society/policy-development-process/
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/

-- 
christian de larrinaga 
https://firsthand.net