Future of the Internet Initiative’ Opportunity Mapping
Download 274.55 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- I.Background and Purpose of the Mapping
- II.Cross-Topical Themes and Observations
- A.Convergence of Online and Offline
- B.The Significance of Interoperability
| ‘Future of the Internet Initiative’ Opportunity Mapping
Scanning the Internet Ecosystem for WEF Engagement An Analysis from the Berkman Center for Internet & Society In-progress Draft: October 14, 2015 Executive Summary I.Background and Purpose of the MappingAt the 2015 World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, conversations relating to the Forum’s Future of the Internet Initiative demonstrated two competing desires on the part of the participants: (1) the need and desire for additional conversation; and (2) a strong desire for action. The challenge was in identifying and prioritizing those issues ripe for action and those in need of additional research, education, and conversation. The “opportunity map” summarized here and provided below is the Berkman Center for Internet & Society’s contribution toward addressing that challenge. That map informs our recommendations for how the Forum and the FII can best contribute to the development of better decision-making, both in the public and private spheres, on critical issues of Internet policy. The map highlights key opportunities and challenges for concrete contributions in selected areas of interest that the Forum asked us to explore. These four areas are: (1) data localization; (2) national/regional digital strategies; (3) Internet deployment; and (4) cyber-crime. For each of these areas, we identified and cataloged key public-private partnerships. Within these parameters and working in a bottom-up fashion, the mapping draws from the raw data several observations of emerging thematic trends, and describes how these trends create both opportunities and challenges for concrete engagement. That analysis is presented in full in the report below, and the catalogue of partnerships can be found in the appendix. As requested, the mapping analysis identifies key themes and opportunities for engagement within the four areas of interest. In this summary, however, we take two steps back to observe and describe some key themes across the mapping. Based on this cross-topical analysis, we offer a set of reflections on how the Forum’s Future of the Internet Initiative might best capitalize on these cross-topical opportunities over the coming months and years. The observations and recommendations are informed by the mapping exercise, but are also shaped by our professional background as researchers and academics. Simultaneously, our recommendations are but one perspective in a larger debate that spans both the public and private spheres, and we offer this as a contribution and input to that debate. II.Cross-Topical Themes and ObservationsLooking across the four areas explored within the mapping, we observe the following key themes: (A) the convergence of online and offline spheres; (B) the significance of interoperability; and (C) the tension between bottom-up growth and top-down governance. We address each cross-sectional theme briefly below. A.Convergence of Online and OfflineDating back to John Perry Barlow’s 1996 declaration that the Internet was a space beyond the reach of governments—something he knew to be poetic exaggeration1—there has existed a belief in Internet exceptionalism. In other words, there has been a view that the Internet represented something different and set aside from the “real world” – a space with unique problems that required unique solutions. In many ways, such exceptionalism shaped the past 20 years of Internet policymaking, with laws and regulations often developed specifically to govern behavior and action online.2 As technology evolves and coping mechanisms aimed at dealing with the “new” stabilize, such exceptionalism is harder to justify. The rise of the Internet of Things is an important next step in this evolution. Now that Internet connectivity can be a critical component of everything from thermostats and cars to airplanes and manufacturing processes, it is increasingly difficult to say where the online world ends and the offline world begins. In such an environment, do policymakers continue to treat the Internet as its own space with its own issues and solutions? Our mapping suggests that (in the areas we surveyed) a shift may be under way, indicating a growing convergence between online and offline policymaking. This is particularly evident where economic or security interests intersect. For example, on the issue of data localization, we observe several countries’ policies regarding online behavior being driven by a desire to stimulate manufacturing and management jobs in the offline world through the construction and operation of data centers. Similarly, in the contexts of digital strategies and Internet deployment, we observe a variety of actors recognizing and working to maximize the impact that Internet access and utilization can have on education, employment, economic growth, and innovation. Lastly, in the context of cyber-crime, cybersecurity has quickly become a key part of many countries’ broader national security strategies. In total, we are observing a trend away from digital policies toward more holistic policies that consider and even harness the role of the Internet. B.The Significance of InteroperabilityCentral to the convergence of online and offline technology and policy is the concept of interoperability (or “interop”). At its most fundamental level, interop is the ability to transfer and render useful data and other information across systems, applications, or components. This ability functions across four broad layers of complex systems: (1) technological – the hardware and code that allows one system to physically connect to one another; (2) data - the ability of interconnected systems to understand each other; (3) human – the ability for humans to understand and act on the data that is exchanged; and (4) institutional – the ability of societal systems (e.g., legal systems) to engage effectively. Interop can enable innovation and has made possible the Internet of Things and mobile payment platforms, for example. At the same time, higher degrees of interop also pose a risk to security, privacy, and more.3 Our mapping identifies a continuing unease of policymakers in balancing the risks and benefits of highly interoperable systems. The national and regional digital strategies and the work to improve Internet deployment represent efforts at interconnecting more people and systems in order to boost innovation, competition, autonomy, access, and openness. At the same time, data localization policies represent attempts at reducing interconnectedness at the technological and data layers, often motivated by a desire to reduce potential security and privacy risks. Cyber-crime approaches are perhaps the most in tension, with policies that seek to reduce interop at the technological and data layers and policies that reorganize government to increase interop at the human and institutional layers. Interoperability is not an end in itself. Highly interconnected systems can unlock greater levels of innovation but can also create new risks to privacy and security. The structure of the mapping, by proceeding topic-to-topic, creates the illusion that these decisions about balancing the risks and benefits of interop occur independently of one another. The challenge going forward, however, is to understand how choices made to optimize interop in one sector can impact or constrain the benefits of interop in other sectors. For example, some actors argue that reducing the availability of end-to-end encryption may have national security benefits, while others believe that may also suppress innovation in areas ranging from e-commerce to health records storage. Understanding and measuring those interrelations is a significant challenge for the future. Download 274.55 Kb. Share with your friends:
|