The complexity of global internet governance can not be understated; new issues and challenges arise every year. Consequently, this year is the fourteenth meeting of the UN Internet Governance Forum, in which the vision is “One World. One Net. One Vision.” The Forum, along with copious other discussion points, is a way to bring together the rights of individuals both offline and online. How does the evolution of technology impact the capacity for governing the internet? And what challenges have arisen for the future of the internet, and its regulation and related institutional mechanisms? 

We have all seen the drastically increasing presence of technology, specifically the internet, in our lives. Due to inefficiencies in governmental sectors, accounting, science and engineering, the world began to turn towards digitizing for increased productivity in these sectors. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, several international organizations began using this technology for population and infrastructure censusing. The expansion of ICTs did come with a few economic unknowns. From this, two challenges that the implementation of ICTs faced around the world include its scalability and transferability across different geographic and contextual locations. 

One crucial aspect of the evolution of the internet that is necessary to point out is that it developed outside of any governmental or organizational context, and even outside of the Westphalian Sovereign State system at large. It grew without early regulation or government approval, which renders it a much more complex and convoluted issue to address. As such, internet governance faces domestic and international challenges. Global differences in culture and politics is a prime example. Countries like China have a completely government-monitored internet system in which they try to address problems through top-down changes in the structure of the internet. Comparing that to democratic nations, the demands for action and human rights are intrinsically different. Can this gap in mindset be bridged? If so, how? 

Another possible point of contention in the internet governance is definition-making. The two-phased summit, WSIS, worked to define internet governance, identify relevant stakeholders, and identify what their roles should be. In WSIS II, using the wording of “in their respective roles” gives stakeholders leniency [read: constructive ambiguity] in order to reach compromises on the shared principles and rules that shape the internet. The IGF brings people together to participate with these shared norms and the ITF meets to create a rough consensus and operational code for the internet, both allowing space for voices to be heard. Although these institutions may be slow and bureaucratic, they do provide a multi-stakeholder platform for discussion and rule-making, and due to the ever-increasing influence the ICTs have on development, regulation through compromise will be crucial. 

https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/

https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2019

A “grand challenge” is exactly what it sounds like: a complex problem that has a stubbornly defined solution (Branscomb). Tom Kahlil of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy defined grand challenges as “ambitious yet achievable goals that capture the public’s imagination and that require innovation and breakthroughs in science and technology to achieve.” One of the most well-known and inspiring historical examples of addressing a grand challenge is Robert F. Kennedy and his promise of the moon landing: “We choose to go to the moon in this decade.” Kennedy’s mindset of believing in the achievement of something nearly impossible, setting a timeframe, and planting the seeds of action is referred to as “moonshot thinking.” Proposing radical solutions to overwhelming problems through the use of research and science, technology, and innovation.  The Medium lays out a five step framework for the methodology of ‘moonshot thinking:’ (1) reset our ‘operating system’ and start thinking exponentially, (2) launching the moonshot, (3) landing the moonshot through trial and error, (4) transform yourself, (5) transform your company. 

This method can be utilized by any kind of actor in the pursuit of overarching problems, specifically the challenge of international development. The USAID addresses grand challenges for development through programs that mobilize governments, companies, and foundations, source new solutions, and test new ideas. Some of these programs include saving lives at birth, having all children reading, making all voices count, securing water for food, and many more. Even though this list only shows a small percentage of all of the challenges of development, it is easy to see how these issues span across all aspects of people’s lives. The Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) were the first commitment of its magnitude to consolidate the efforts of meeting the needs of the worlds’ poorest people.  Building off of the MDGs, the UNGA created the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.  The 2030 Agenda is an action plan for “people, planet, and prosperity.” The SDGs are comprised of 17 lofty goals addressing the grand challenge that development poses, each goal accompanied by several targets and indicators in a time-bound fashion to measure the progress towards achieving the goal. Why is ‘moonshot thinking’ relevant for sustainable development? Even though landing on the moon seemed impossible to most, comparable with ending world hunger or poverty, or achieving all of the SDGs, with committed investment in research, innovation and technology, we can achieve truly extraordinary things.

The term ‘intersectionality’ is tossed around from politics to academia- but what does it truly mean? And can ‘intersectionality’ be a useful concept for inclusive sustainable development? Intersectionality originated from the lived experiences of African-American women facing the dual oppressions and combined effects of racism and sexism; and the term was officially coined by Kimberly Crenshaw in 1989. Since intersectionality’s inception, the working definition has grown to encompass all intersections of identity including gender, race, class, disability, religion, sexual orientation, citizenship status and more. It is also important to point out that these differentiated oppressions are structural rather than individual. All of these social identities must be viewed together, as each one combines to create a person’s experience in society. For example, women who are indigenous may experience gender equality differently than non-indigenous women; the movement for indigenous rights is often prioritizes the group identity, whereas the fight for gender equality tends to focus on the individual rights of women. Intersectionality can be a way to bridge these identities together so as not to fragment varied parts of identities and to understand that inequalities intersect with other oppressions to form people’s lived experiences. Can this concept be used in not only conceptualizing inclusive development but putting it into practice? 

The Gender and Development Network, a network of United Kingdom-based NGOs, is working to promote and prioritize women’s rights in international development. Their website states that, “addressing patriarchy, gender inequality and the abuse of women’s rights remains the primary focus of GADN’s political agenda… But we recognise that gender inequality cannot be understood and effectively confronted in isolation from the myriad of other discriminations and forms of oppression that women face.” Along with this, its pointed out that an individual’s personal experience of intersecting oppressions is unique and their identities can not simply be ‘added up.’ GADN seeks to influence international institutions like the United Nations to propose solutions and shape the gender equality discourse, and GADN also partners with many organizations in the Global South. Along with this, GADN advocates for better gender equality policies and practice in the international development field through providing technical expertise, accessible and well-respected resources, and building a consensus on alternative economic practices. This is a fascinating example of implementing the concept of intersectionality from a feminist lens in both the policy and discourse side of development, as well as actual development practice. 

First, the digital divide refers to the unequal distribution of information and communication technologies (ICTs) across and within societies. This includes not only access to but also usage of computers and the internet. This divide can be on a larger scale, between developed and developing nations, or on a smaller scale, between various socio-economic and socially stratified groups within one country. The term digital divide became more regularly used in the later-1990s, with its beginnings found in news articles and political speeches, most notably in a speech by President Bill Clinton. It’s also important to note that differences in technology and their social implications have been recognized before the term digital divide came about, but the term represents a useful label in the discourse surrounding this topic. 

Second, through understanding the origins and definitional basis of the digital divide, the implications and effects of the digital divide on inclusive sustainable development can be examined. According to an article by the World Economic Forum (WEF), four billion people, as of 2016, do not have access to the internet. The WEF lays out four main reasons why the digital divide persists: (1) lack of infrastructure, (2) high cost of devices and connectivity, (3) education and cultural issues, and (4) language barriers. Due to the complex and multidimensional nature of addressing the digital divide, governments, companies, local and international organizations and civil society members are working on increasing peoples’ access to ICTs. What does this all mean for the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)? Many leaders in the Economic and Social Council of the UN discussed how closing the digital gap is vital to attaining sustainable development in a Forum on Science, Technology and Innovation in May 2019.  Many leaders in this Forum discuss the UN Technology Facilitation Mechanism and its effectiveness. According to Liu Zhenmin, in the wake of the 2030 Agenda, the United Nations must help people, especially youth, harness technology, in order to implement the SDGs. Romain Murenzi, the Executive Director of the World Academy of Sciences, stresses that focuses on technology and innovation can and will ensure inclusivity and close the gaps between “haves” and “have nots.” The international cooperation and multilateral action to address and tackle the digital divide is promising. Closing the gap in digital access and usage will push the world closer to achieving the SDGs and minimizing inequality.

There are several multilateral organizations aiming to address the unequal destruction that is caused from things like earthquakes or floods.  According to the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, there is no such thing as a natural disaster, only natural hazards. As such, Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) aims to decrease damage done by natural hazards.  “DRR can preserve lives and increase the resilience of communities by strengthening their capacity to anticipate, absorb and recover from these shocks.” Through systematic efforts to analyze and reduce the factors behind disasters, the UN and other organizations specifically for DRR and DRM aim to lessen vulnerabilities, promote wise management of land and environment, and improve preparedness and early detection. 

Climate Risk and Early Warning Systems (CREWS) discusses how, at the UN Climate Action Summit 2019 countries pledged to many actions regarding detection. They point out that investments in early warning systems not only save lives but also significant assets. The Global Climate Action Summit 2019 committed to protect 1 billion more people from disasters through investing millions in early warning systems. In order to be effective and sustainable, warning systems must actively involve the communities at risk. With the recognition of benefits by local people, the impact of hazards can be significantly reduced if not avoided. One early warning system, Practical Action, has been working in DRR in Nepal since 2001, and their early warning system for the regular flooding of the Koshi River was built for long-term sustainability and community involvement. Can the technical aspects of reducing risks of disaster be effective without addressing inequality and inclusion? 

Along with the technical aspects of DRR and DRM like warning systems and management of land and environment, its level of inclusivity will no doubt have implications for the resilience of communities to natural hazards. Earthquakes, floods, forest fires, etc affect different people in unequal ways, particularly regarding their level of vulnerability. Vulnerability is complex; it is not just about poverty, but includes physical, social, economic, and environmental factors. Also, vulnerability is shaped by historical, political, and institutional processes. Persons with disabilities are disproportionately vulnerable to disasters and disability inclusion is key to inclusive DRR and humanitarian action. “Achieving disability-inclusive DRM can empower persons with disabilities to take their rightful place as agents of change, and as active contributors to the development and effective implementation of DRM policies, plans and standards.” Being disability-inclusive is necessary in DRR and DRM not only for the resilience of communities but also for society as a whole.