The session — moderated by Sanskriti Sanghi and Siddhant Chatterjee, Co-Leads of the Research Program on Digital Constitutionalism at IIJS — was divided into two thematic segments. The first focused on the past and present of constitutional discourse on digital governance and the latter looked at the future of digital policy regulation.

Part I: The first batch of responses — though touching upon varied aspects — was collectively undergirded by the need to constitutionalise the internet and initiated a discussion on the manner in which this can be achieved.

Since challenges of the digital age are wildly different from those of the past, it is apparent that the norms, values, and the voices we emphasize in this constitutional moment need to reflect this paradigm change. Reflecting on this particular paradigm-shifting moment, Sonia Sangiovanni highlighted the concept of ‘Collective Intelligence’, pioneered by Geoff Mulgan, as a way to conceptualise a decentralised, democratic cyberspace.

Nicola Bressan brought to the fore an unmissable fact: the internet has completely transformed our economies, our democratic fora of participation and even our ways of interacting with one another — to the point that our pre-existing systems of soft and hard regulation have not kept up. His response dissected the reasons why achievements in other arenas of international collaboration are not easily replicable in internet governance as being: (i.) Positions and opinions on core issues here differ wildly across jurisdictions, and (ii.) A narrative on these issues is highly ambiguous. Subsequently, emphasizing the need for shrouding the discourse on digital governance in democratic fabric, Nicola put forth a set of broad directives that the stakeholders across the spectrum should ideally aspire towards if the global digital governance is to take a turn for the better.

Thereafter, the session segued into the prevalent divides in internet governance. Raghu Gagneja talked about how the North-South divide in the global digital governance discourse dates back to the 1960s, at a time when there were wide-ranging debates between these factions on issues of international information order. Expounding on the regulatory structures of digital governance, Raghu explained that even democratic “liberal” nations are partaking in compromising the open, free and interoperable character of the internet. He concluded by acknowledging the urgent need of bringing developing nations and stakeholders across the spectrum on the table to engage equitably in charting the future of global internet governance.

Part II: Moving forward, the discussion curated a pathway to help navigate our digital future(s) through identifying challenges, dichotomies, governance practices and value systems that have a key role to play. From understanding the core of governance models to posing concrete solutions to unify conflicting governance approaches and tying the conversation together by identifying digitization as a transformational force that ought to be dealt with smartly. 

Hiba Hassan’s response, analyzing the various governance structures, aided an understanding of the stark differences between each of them and the varied experiences they produce. The discussion took a well-balanced approach to give us a better sense of each of the models, without being biased towards any. It highlighted the importance of a unified front that balances primary governance norms while maintaining the originality of the internet. 

Digging deeper into dichotomies, Saishreya Sriram discussed the country-specific scenarios of these dichotomies and put forth three concrete approaches that strike a balance between innovation and regulation. Through enhancement of stakeholder conversations, review of antitrust laws, and elimination of the information divide between the entity and individual, Saishreya argued that we collectively progress toward a more democratic approach.

Tying together the preceding responses, Harshvi Trivedi showcased how digitalisation has transcended mainstream boundaries and brings with it an increasing intensity of multilateral risks. Harshvi argued that there is a need to adopt a mix of coherent short and long-term solutions that integrate varied prospects and prioritise active enablement over control through policies to help mitigate the prospective risks and challenges of digitalisation. Her response further underscored the need to be able to rely on coherence among government bodies and stakeholders to help mitigate the current and prospective risks of digitalization.

Call to Action: 

Overall, the round-table discussion helped question the existing digital constitutional practices and aids a pathway that leads to a broader discussion of where we are headed in the future.

As we build our digital futures, it is critical to ensure that the global internet governance is more inclusive, collaborative, participatory, and deliberative, with stakeholders across the spectrum — government, businesses, civil society, technical actors and the end users — engaging equitably. There must be a  reduction of information asymmetries through enhanced stakeholder engagement.

Furthermore, there is a need to strike a delicate balance between the upholding of civil liberties and fundamental rights with national security imperatives in a consultative and transparent manner. Finally, it is imperative to realize that the need for discourse is not just at the global or regional levels but rather equally needed at the grassroots level, where it is truly impactful.