CITI Seminars on Global Digital Governance

Global digital governance concerns the “rules of the game” set by states and stakeholders for digital communication/information networks and related technologies. It encompasses post-war rule systems such as those for telecommunications; institutions and procedures created since the 1980s for Internet governance; and current efforts to establish shared rules for data, artificial intelligence, social media, interstate cyber-conflict and other issues raised by emerging technologies.  The purpose of this new webinar series is to foster expert dialogue on the analytical and policy issues that continually arise across the heatedly contested and complex institutional ecosystem of global digital governance.  The series seeks to build on the sort of debates that occur around multistakeholder Internet governance processes but which often go dim between international meetings and negotiations.
 
Each session begins with a roundtable discussion among a panel of leading analysts and practitioners, which is followed by open discussion among all attendees.  The sessions will be held monthly during university semesters at 11:00-12:30 (New York time). They are organized and moderated by Dr. William J. Drake, Director of International Studies at the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information (www.williamdrake.org).

Register at https://CITIDigitalGovernanceTradePolicy.eventbrite.com

On October 25, the US government set off positive and negative shock waves in the world of digital and trade policy by announcing the abandonment of its longstanding advocacy of ambitious negotiations for digital trade.  Until last week, the United States had been the leading proponent of strong trade rules that would curtail governments’ restrictions on cross-border data flows and their requirements of forced data localization and access to source code as a condition of foreign firms doing business in their countries.  Difficult negotiations on these points have been underway in multiple settings including the World Trade Organization’s Joint Statement Initiative (JSI) on E-Commerce, and in the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF). The US policy reversal has thus greatly dismayed like-minded governments, business interests, and trade analysts who advocate international regimes that promote openness in the global digital economy.  Conversely, the decision has been warmly welcomed by opposing governments and civil society organizations, and by critics of Big Tech in the US Congress.

Why did the United States reverse a long-standing position that has been central to its posture as a global leader in international trade policy?  Who benefits and what is gained or lost by the shift?  How will this affect current and future trade negotiations? What could the new US posture mean for the future evolution and governance of the global digital and Internet environments?

This webinar assembles a panel of expert analysts to assess the causes and consequences of the new US approach to digital trade negotiations.  As always, the panelists’ conversation will be followed by an open dialogue among all webinar participants.

Introduction of the topic

Eli Noam is Paul Garrett Professor of Public Policy and Business Responsibility, Emeritus, and Director of the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information at Columbia Business School.

Moderator 

William J. Drake is Director of International Studies at the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information and an adjunct professor at Columbia Business School. 

Panelists

Nigel Cory is an Associate Director covering Trade Policy at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. He focuses on cross-border data flows, data governance, intellectual property, and how they each relate to digital trade and the broader digital economy. Nigel is a member of the United Kingdom’s International Data Transfer Expert Council.  (USA)

Jonathan McHale is Vice President for Digital Trade at the Computer & Communications Industry Association.  He engages with U.S. and foreign governments in seeking to remove barriers to digital commerce through the development, negotiation and enforcement of international trade rules. Previously, he spent two decades at the Office of the US Trade Representative and the Department of State where he focused on telecommunications and digital policy.  (USA)

Lee Tuthill is a visiting Fellow at the University of Adelaide’s Institute for International Trade in Australia. From 1990 to 2021, she worked at the World Trade Organization where she was a senior expert supporting negotiations on the General Agreement on Trade in Services, telecommunications/ICT services, emerging technologies and global digital trade.  (USA)

Register at https://CITImodularpaths.eventbrite.com

Digital Economy Agreements and Digital Partnerships are new approaches to international cooperation and policy convergence. Governments from the Asia-Pacific, Latin America and Europe have established a handful of these arrangements since 2020, and more are in negotiation. They use  modular architectures to treat individual issues separately within an integrated framework. Modular approaches allow policymakers a much greater flexibility and avoids the ‘all or nothing’ negotiation dynamics that often impede progress in trade and other negotiations.  

The arrangements have institutionalized cooperation on many difficult issues: transparency, supply chains, inclusion, identities, cross-border data flows, forced data localization, online customs duties and the trade treatment of digital products, business and trade facilitation, e-invoicing and certifications, the protection of source code, cybersecurity, consumer protection, privacy and data protection, open government data, standards and interoperability, fintech and e-payments, innovation and regulatory sandboxes, artificial intelligence and support for small and medium-sized firms. 

Outstanding questions are how impactful they can be, and whether more major digital countries will pursue them. China is seeking to join a key one. And the United States is centrally involved in parallel initiatives that have some commonalities, e.g. the digital work streams of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Technology Council. 

This webinar assembles a panel of expert analysts to assess these new institutional frameworks and consider their potential for the future of digital cooperation and governance.  As always, the panelists’ conversation will be followed by an open dialogue among all participants.

Introduction

Eli Noam is Paul Garrett Professor, Emeritus, and Director of the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information at Columbia Business School.

Moderator

William J. Drake is Director of International Studies at the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information and an adjunct professor at Columbia Business School.

Panelists

Neha Mishra is an Assistant Professor at Geneva Graduate Institute. She was previously a lecturer at the Australian National University College of Law and a postdoctoral fellow at the Centre for International Law, National University of Singapore. She researches international legal issues in the digital economy, focusing on international economic law, data flows and digital trade, and the interface of trade law and emerging digital technologies. (Switzerland)

Richard Samans is Director of the International Labor Organization’s Research Department and has been its sherpa to the G20, G7 and BRICS processes. He was Founder and Chairman of the Climate Disclosure Standards Board, a Managing Director of the World Economic Forum and Director-General of the Global Green Growth Institute. He served as Special Assistant to the President for International Economic Policy and NSC Senior Director for International Economic Affairs in the second Clinton Administration, and as economic policy advisor to US Senate Democratic Leader Thomas A. Daschle. (Switzerland)

Marta Soprana is a Fellow in International Political Economy at the London School of Economics and Political Science. She has extensive experience working with international organizations – including FAO, ITC, UNCTAD, UNESCAP, World Bank and WTO – and national governments on trade policy-related projects. Her research interests include digital trade, trade in services, law and technology, with a focus on the relationship between AI governance and international economic law. (United Kingdom)

Stephanie Honey is a trade policy consultant, focusing on digital trade, regional economic integration in the Asia-Pacific region, and inclusion and sustainability in trade. She was formerly a New Zealand WTO trade negotiator, and currently serves as Lead Staffer to the New Zealand members of the APEC Business Advisory Council and Trade Policy Adviser to the New Zealand Asia Institute at the University of Auckland, alongside consultancy work for governments, international institutions and the private sector. (New Zealand)

Real Time Text Transcript: https://otter.ai/u/S1_tSm6PP40cSVu2Yg_mEA7ApCk?tab=summary

On June 5, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres presented a policy brief on his Global Digital Compact initiative to the General Assembly.  Among the brief’s ideas is a proposal to create an annual Digital Cooperation Forum (DCF). This new UN forum would not be a negotiation body, but would instead foster action-oriented dialogue and analysis concerning international cooperation on digital policy issues.  A proposal like this has been anticipated since the SG’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation issued its report in 2019. The case for a DCF is being championed in particular by the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Technology.  The proposal has yet to garner support but will be discussed by a ministerial meeting in September 2023 that is to help prepare the groundwork for the UN’s 2024 Summit of the Future.

The policy brief states that the DCF would coexist with existing bodies and processes like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in an integrated hub and spoke system.  However, aside from its presumably broader scope, in many respects the DCF appears to duplicate the IGF.  Given that the IGF has long faced challenges from those governments that are unhappy with its multistakeholder character, the existence of a comparatively intergovernmental DFC could complicate the renewal of the IGF’s mandate at the 2025 WSIS+20 review.  In addition, there are a number of other issues raised by proposing a new forum without specifying its substantive focus and institutional modalities or assessing the demand for one.  The experiences over the past twenty years with failed proposals to create new institutions for global Internet and digital governance merits consideration in this context.  

An inclusive dialogue is needed to determine whether the DCF vision can overcomes the potential barriers to its realization or at least contribute to strengthening international cooperation in other settings.  To help with that task, this webinar assembles a panel of expert participants in the debate about the United Nations’ role in global digital cooperation and governance.  The group will assess the driving issues and interests, potential negotiation dynamics and outcomes, and larger digital governance implications of the DCF proposal.

As always, the panelists’ conversation will be followed by an open dialogue among all participants.

Introduction:

Eli Noam is Paul Garrett Professor, Emeritus, and Director of the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information 

Moderator:

William J. Drake is Director of International Studies at the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information 

Panelists:

Fiona M. Alexander is both Distinguished Policy Strategist in Residence in the School of International Service and Distinguished Fellow at the Internet Governance Lab at American University.  Previously, for close to 20 years, she served at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in the U.S. Department of Commerce where she was Associate Administrator for International Affairs.  (USA)

Anriette Esterhuysen is Senior Advisor for Internet Governance at the Association for Progressive Communications (APC).  She was APC’s Executive Director from 2000 until April 2017, and served as Chair of the IGF’s Multistakeholder Advisory Group from 2019 to 2021.  Anriette was inducted into the Internet Hall of Fame in 2013.  (South Africa)

Nigel Hickson works on Internet Governance at the United Kingdom’s Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) where, among other roles, he is the UK representative on the Government Advisory Committee at ICANN. From 2012 he worked for ICANN in Brussels and Geneva before returning to the UK government in 2020 to work on Brexit-related data protection issues.  (UK)

Real time text transcript:  https://otter.ai/u/7msJLBwTSwjC9FftMTqGzH_rFxI?tab=summary

The many issues raised by social media platforms have stimulated calls for new governance mechanisms.  Some platforms have responded by establishing self-governance systems like oversight boards, and some governments and regional bodies like the European Union have responded with laws and regulations, in particular for the largest platforms. At the multilateral level several initiatives are underway, in particular the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) effort to develop Guidelines for Regulating Digital Platforms.  The Guidelines are intended to promote regulations that both support freedom of expression and deal with content that is illegal and risks harm to democracy and human rights. A draft was debated at UNESCO’s February 2023 Internet for Trust conference. 

In the course of this process, stakeholders have raised a wide range of concerns.  Some have argued that:

• The need for UN-created guidelines has not been demonstrated;
• The process has been inadequately inclusive and transparent;
• The scope of entities covered and the respective roles and responsibilities of relevant actors are unclear;
• The intended creation of regulatory agencies and frameworks and their treatment of potentially harmful content are problematic;
• The inattention to competition policy, privacy and data protection, and business models based on data harvesting is severely limiting;
• Above all, that the guidelines, despite good intentions, could provide international legitimacy and support for nondemocratic governments seeking to penalize and suppress a wide variety of speech.

This webinar assembles a panel of leading expert participants in the UNESCO debate and related discussions.  The group will assess the driving issues and interests, negotiation dynamics, potential outcomes and larger digital governance implications.

As always, the panelists’ conversation will be followed by an extensive and open dialogue among all participants.

Introduction

Eli Noam is Paul Garrett Professor of Public Policy and Business Responsibility, Professor of Finance and Economics, emeritus, and the Director of the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information

Moderator and Organizer

William J. Drake is Director of International Studies at the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information and Adjunct Professor, Columbia Business School

Panelists

Alison Gillwald is the Executive Director of Research ICT Africa (RIA), a digital policy and regulatory think-tank based in South Africa. She is also an adjunct professor at the University of Cape Town’s Nelson Mandela School of Public Governance.  (South Africa)

David Kaye is Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the International Justice Clinic at the University of California, Irvine. He is also Chair of the Board of Directors of the Global Network Initiative, a multistakeholder initiative that brings together 85 leading businesses, NGOs, and academics.  From 2014 to 2020, he served as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression. (USA)  

Laura O’Brien is Senior UN Advocacy Officer at Access Now, an NGO that advocates for the digital civil rights and organizes the annual RightsCon Convention. Previously, Laura engaged in strategic litigation support, including at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and for human rights organizations, clinics, and experts including two U.N. Special Rapporteurs.  (USA)

Real Time Text Transcript: https://otter.ai/u/xGdWHd4dSsJZ1f7Fz0v4FIdryNY 

The peering and transit model of interconnection has been a key building block for the Internet’s spectacular growth. But over the past decade, the major European telecommunications carriers have sought to move the EU toward a system under which the major content suppliers would be required to pay them volume-based fees for delivering content to their customers. The telcos argue that accommodating today’s explosive growth in network usage, especially for video on demand, requires broadband investments that they cannot afford to make without receiving mandatory payments from ‘Big Content’ originators. Accordingly, they have pushed at both the multilateral and regional levels for legally required ‘fair compensation’ by these originators for the use of their networks. The European Commission has welcomed this proposal in the context of its far-reaching Digital Agenda that has emphasized industrial policy and the regulation of US-based tech giants in the name of building Europe’s ‘digital sovereignty.’ In time, such fees also could target emerging data-intensive domains like the metaverse.

In response, the European telecom regulators and some other governmental entities, corporate suppliers and users, industry associations, the Internet technical community, civil society organizations, and others have mobilized against the telcos’ proposal. The critics argue that the proposal constitutes a Sending-Party-Network-Pays (SPNP) system that is contrary to the traditional peering model; content providers already invest heavily in infrastructure build-outs and the telcos are already adequately compensated by their customers; the mandated compensation could negatively affect many actors beyond Big Content; the proposal is contrary to network neutrality and would require further regulations that could favor incumbent carriers; and that an EU shift to SPNP could ripple across the global Internet. Amidst this heated debate over whether the telco proposal constitutes ‘fair compensation’ or rather an ‘Internet Traffic Tax,’ the EC is running until May 19 an online open consultation on electronic infrastructure in advance of considering legislation.

This webinar, by the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information, assembles a panel of leading expert participants in the raging debate. The group will lay out the merits of the respective arguments; assess the compatibility of SPNP with other policy frameworks and objectives; discuss alternative options for funding broadband rollouts and digital transformation; and in particular, consider the potential implications of EU adoption for the global Internet environment and digital governance.

As always, the panelists’ conversation will be followed by an open dialogue among all participants.

Introduction

Eli Noam, Paul Garrett Professor, Emeritus, and Director of the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information

Moderator

William J. Drake, Director of International Studies at the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information

Roundtable Panelists

Rudolf van der Berg is a Partner at Stratix Consulting. Previously, he was a regulatory affairs manager at Tele2, a senior policy advisor at the OECD, a management consultant at Logica Management Consulting, and a policy manager at the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs. (Netherlands)

Michael Kende is a Senior Advisor for Analysys Mason consulting and a digital development specialist with the World Bank Group. Previously he was the Chief Economist at the Internet Society, and a Visiting Lecturer at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies. (Switzerland)

Maarit Palovirta is the Senior Director for Regulatory Affairs at the European Telecommunications Network Operators'​ Association, ETNO. Previously she held manager roles at the Internet Society and Cisco Systems and worked in well-known Brussels based consultancies. (Belgium)

In 2023, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) celebrates the 25th anniversary of its founding and the 7th anniversary of its transition to independence from the United States government.  The 2016 transition ended the contract under which ICANN performed the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions subject to US government stewardship; created a free-standing organization that is accountable primarily to its multistakeholder community; and constituted a significant change in the international regime for Internet names and numbers.  In light of its dual anniversaries, it is timely to take stock of ICANN’s progress as a unique global governance mechanism that manages functions essential to the global digital economy and society.

This webinar takes up the challenge by assembling a panel of leading experts who have been deeply involved in ICANN processes.  The group will consider such questions as: the transition’s geopolitical, interest group, and institutional consequences; the implementation of ICANN’s accountability framework and of Public Technical Identifiers, the ICANN affiliate created to manage the IANA functions (most notably coordination of the Internet's unique identifiers); the challenges ICANN and its community have faced in responding to new pressures from technological change, industry demands, and government policies; ICANN’s role and engagement in the wider global Internet governance ecosystem; and the lessons of its experience for the future of multistakeholder cooperation in global Internet and digital governance.

Moderator

William J. Drake, Director of International Studies at the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information

Roundtable Panelists

Olga Cavalli, National Director of Cybersecurity in the Chief of Cabinet of the President of Argentina, and former Undersecretary of Information Technology and advisor to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Argentina)

James Gannon, Chair of the Board of Directors of Public Technical Identifiers, and Vice President of Quality, Trust & Safety at the PharmaLedger Association (Ireland)

Milton Mueller, Professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Public Policy, and Director of the School's Internet Governance Project (USA)

Realtime Text: https://otter.ai/u/kyA3D4GkEyuwHeQsDCH7vwdIr8k 

Since its inauguration in 2006, the UN’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) has become a key component of the institutional ecosystem of global Internet governance.  But while the annual meetings and intersessional activities generally enjoy strong support from their participants, there continues to be heated debate as to whether the IGF is living up to potential and fulfilling the mandate given it by the UN’s World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).  For example, many states and stakeholders are content to have the IGF serve as a non-negotiation space for inclusive multistakeholder dialogue and an incubator or platform for bottom-up initiatives on capacity building and norm development. But many others insist that the IGF must do more to attract engagement from developing country governments and to produce “concrete outcomes” that can help tackle the growing range of policy challenges raised by the Internet and advanced technologies. And in addition to these and other long-standing points of contention, there are new debates about whether the IGF should serve as a vehicle for a broadened range of global digital cooperation efforts, as well as its role and prospects in light of the UN’s Global Digital Compact initiative and the pending WSIS +20 review.

Convened in the wake of the IGF’s meeting in Addis Ababa, this webinar brings together a panel of experts who have been closely involved in the IGF’s organization and activities from its beginning.   The group will consider such questions as the IGF’s historical evolution and reform, relationship with the UN system, fit with the contending interests and visions of states and stakeholders, substantive and procedural impacts on Internet governance, outcomes, and future prospects.  As always, the panelists’ conversation will be followed by an open dialogue among all participants.

Moderator

William J. Drake, Director of International Studies at the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information

Roundtable Panelists

Raúl Echeberría, Executive Director of ALAI, the Latinamerican Internet Association (Uruguay)

Anriette Esterhuysen, Senior Advisor for Internet Governance, the Association for Progressive Communications (South Africa)

Adam Peake, Senior Manager for Civil Society Engagement, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (the Netherlands)

Flávio Rech Wagner,  Emeritus Professor in the Institute of Informatics, the University of Rio Grande do Sul in Porto Alegre (Brazil)

Realtime Text: https://otter.ai/u/As13JAff4VGO3ljgHujxeG-YrOg

What exactly does “Internet fragmentation” really mean, and how does the way we define and conceptualize the term affect the lines of action undertaken in response?  A diversity of views is evident in the burgeoning global debate and growing number of pronouncements by states and stakeholders on Internet fragmentation.    For example, some participants in the debates take a broad approach and see fragmentation as having technical, commercial and governmental sources and forms, which implies that actions may be needed in each of those domains. Others take a narrow approach that equates fragmentation with only government policy, which means the only attention needed is to that domain.  Some participants see fragmentation as a continuously present condition that varies in form, intensity and impact over time and across domains of activity and the protocol stack, while others see it more in a totalized and binary manner – either the Internet is structurally fragmented at the root, or it is not fragmented at all. Some participants believe that mere differences in public policy orientation across countries or regions mean we now have multiple incompatible Internets, while others counter that such differences are simply a matter of there being one Internet with different zones of governance.  And some participants believe fragmentation is a threat that requires concerted responses and new strategies, while others see it as a matter of difficulties that can be overcome, or even as a natural and unproblematic phenomenon.  And so on --- there are many sources of difference in perspective about how fragmentation is understood and what sorts of actions by whom should be taken in consequence.

This webinar seeks to help advance our thinking about these foundational questions.  A panel of leading analysts and practitioners in the global Internet governance environment will discuss such topics as the nature, sources, forms, and consequences of Internet fragmentation, as well as the responses pursued by governments and stakeholders to date and going forward. 

(On November 28 at 9:00 EDT / 14:00 UTC a follow-up session on these issues will be held as part of the UN’s annual Internet Governance Forum meeting in Addis Abada, where fragmentation will be an overarching thematic issue.   https://intgovforum.org/en/content/igf-2022-day-0-event-68-understanding-internet-fragmentation-concepts-and-their)

Moderator
William J. Drake, Director of International Studies at the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information 
Roundtable Panelists
Vinton G. Cerf, Vice President and chief Internet evangelist, Google (USA)
Eli M. Noam, Director, Columbia Institute for Tele-Information and Professor of Finance and Economics, Columbia Business School
Andrew Sullivan, President and CEO of the Internet Society (Canada)
Tatiana Tropina, Assistant Professor in Cybersecurity Governance, Institute of Security and Global Affairs, Leiden University, Netherlands (Netherlands)
————
Related reading:
William J. Drake, Vinton G. Cerf, and Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Internet Fragmentation: An Overview. The World Economic Forum, January 2016.  
The Internet Society, Protecting the Internet 
Eli M. Noam, “Towards a Federated Internet”, InterMEDIA, vol. 41, no. 4, 2013.

On September 29 in Bucharest, delegates to the Plenipotentiary Conference of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) elected Doreen Bogdan-Martin to serve as the organization’s first female Secretary-General.  In the run-up to the conference, many media outlets, think tanks and pundits characterized the election contest between a US and a Russian candidate as an epochal battle between good and evil that would somehow determine whether the Internet would be open or closed, democratic or controlled by dictators. Little attention has been given to significant Internet-related policy decisions that are being negotiated during the three-week conference, an event that takes place every four years.  On some of these issues, the competing visions for the Internet of democracies and authoritarian regimes do loom large, but there are many other divisions—between proponents of state-led vs. industry-led development, the global North and South, regions, industry coalitions, and so on—that also will shape the resulting treaty instruments.

This webinar will convene just five days after the ITU Plenipotentiary ends. It will bring together expert attendees and close observers to analyze the conference’s potential implications for the Internet and its global governance.  Against the backdrop of the long-standing geopolitical tensions between multistakeholder vs. multilateral as well as open vs. closed governance models, the webinar will assess the ITU’s debates and negotiations on such issues as: the Internet resolutions, the International Telecommunications Regulations treaty, the follow-up to the World Summit on the Information Society, the work of the Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy, cybersecurity, the treatment of “over the top” services and Internet traffic exchange, the Chinese proposal for a “new Internet Protocol,” and more.

Moderator

William J. Drake, Director of International Studies at the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information

Roundtable Panelists
Samantha Dickinson 
Internet Governance Consultant and Writer (Australia)
Nermine El Saadany 
Regional Vice President, MENA Region, The Internet Society (Egypt)
Wolfgang Kleinwaechter
Professor Emeritus, International Communciation Policy and Regulation, University of Aarhus (Germany)