Regulatory fragmentation.

This sounds like those complicated films in which someone (usually the bad guy) explains his malign plan and actions at the end of the film, just in case the distracted audience got lost in the plot. In a nutshell: developing countries, do business with us, not China :)

Again, how does it fit with TikTiok's potential ban?

Nice recognition of the facts, albeit being about 10 years late.

Interesting use of the expression. Although the US has supported DFFT, the notion of DFFT itself has been a compromise between a very liberal approach (US) and more sovereign and/or digital industralization approaches. Now the US itself seems to have moved to the center.

I wonder if the US gov would be so at ease in referring to private companies as a resource to be mobilised by the State some years ago.

The lesson learned the hard way with the 'New IP' case, for example.

The carrot to developing countries.

Again, data governance framed as a strategic/security issue

I am not sure I am reading this correctly, but this sounds like strong presence from the State (at least at the level of strategic thinking) across all Internet layers and in sectors that have been private sector-led or technical. The US WSIS 2005 position has radically changed. This is very interesting as we move into WSIS+20 ||JovanK|| ||sorina||

Securitization of data. ||MariliaM||

This does not sound consistent with an imposed ban on TikTok.

Some elements of this list give room to very subjective reasoning.

Does it mean to counter the presence of non-like-minded countries as main providers in layers of the stack? What does it mean in terms of value chains, technological interoperability? With regards to China, does it confirm continued move towards de-coupling despite the change in rhetoric?

The State of the Union is deep rooted in the context of American elections. References to domestic and foreign policy seek to highlight the difference between Biden and Trump, on issues such as women's reproductive rights, and NATO and Ukraine. Domestic policy is the core, and Biden speaks to sectors of American society - middle class, workers, women, transgender. The references to technology are few. Importance of CHIPS Act for R&D and jobs, two sentences on AI (harness the promise, protect from peril, ban impersonation). Protecting advanced technologies from China.

||AndrijanaG|| not sure that there is enough 'digital' meat to analyse for DW. Pinging you just so you know that we screened the digital issues in it ;) ||JovanK|| No big focus on foreign policy. Most attention in this area given to Israel-Gaza, which is a topic that also speaks to domestic audience. Highligthing as well that Trump's victory is a security threat to Europe.

Importance of Chips Act for R&D and jobs.

Foreign policy-China. Brief and light. The point of the speech is really domestic policy.

Two sentences on AI.

Protecting critical and emerging technologies.

Foreign policy -Iran

Foreign policy. Gaza. Hamas is to blame, Israel should do a better job protecting civilians. Cease-fire.

Another "emergency". The US is now governed under emergency situations and executive orders. Not so democratic...

Taxation of large companies.

Workers vs. capital. Indirectly also tech companies?

White collar vs. blur collar again. Quite strong in his speech.

Technology does not only create white collar jobs - speaks to American workers

Comparison between the present moment and the Nazi advances in Europe leading to WW2. Message to the Europeans. Further down below, it is clearly stated that if the US walks aways (following Trump's victory) Europe is at risk.

Very interesting example mentioned by a course participant ||JovanK|| and ||sorina||

Continuation of block-thinking, divides and paralysis.

This says it all about partnerships. Either you are like-minded and democratic, or, partnerships will be limited.

More participation and capacity building. BUT, for like-minded.

Although the layout masks it a bit, much more attention and space were given to resilience than to sustainability.

Friendshoring

EU Global Gateways?

I though standards were a technical-only area! Just being ironic...

Securitization of data flows. ||MariliaM||

This creates the link to coordinate with EU Economic security strategy, and with EU and German China strategies.

A very lucid interview. He highlights the importance of open source AI, the danger of regulating LLM as opposed to applications, the negative lobby of most big tech, and the need to focus on good regulation targeting the problems of today, not speculating about extinction, etc. ||JovanK|| and ||sorina||

Broken link.

Link does not lead where it was supposed to

This is the best part of this document. Very good explanation and reasoning.

This is very interesting. For example, the CoE suspended Russia. However, the difference is that what russia is doing goes against the core mandate of CoE. I wonder how a discussion on suspending Russia/Russia sanctioned personel from the ITU or ISO would go. ||sorina||

What is open is not necessarily participatory as we know well.

Sounds like a very exclusive club :)

Not hooked to the UN?

Which society? The society under attack? The society of humankind (in a Kantian sense) which does not exist yet? The society of states? The society composed by the actors that are part of this so called "Internet commuinity'?

Is this a message to ICANN?

Facilitate or make decisions? Is it the role of the Internet community to also decide that a crisis characterises a humanitarian crisis? Would they have the capacity to act ad hoc, or when provoked by other actors with the capacity to acknowledge a crisis as humanitarian?

Who or what is this?

Let's name one multistakeholder decision-making process in a global scale. Net Mundial? ICANN (privately controled) multistakeholder model? If we do not have one active process to decide on simpler things in a MS way, how can we expect to create one to deal with such controversial and politically sensitive issues?

I could contest the narrative of this transition. It seems to me that Internet governance is making its way back. The first IG norms were not created by states. States adopted a hands-off approach. After years of enthusiam with multistakeholderism, there is a view that the state needs to play a much bigger role, not only on regulation (ex. platforms) but also asserting its sovereignty.

Would the mechanism faciliatte (in the sense of providing advice) or actually decide?

It really bothers me to associate 'multistakeholder' and 'sanctions'. I know that the word has been used largely lately, but originally sanctions imply authority. What is the source of authority? I am not yet even going on the mine field of asking what the legitimacy is...

It would be interesting to know if an organization sponsored this initiative, bringing this actors together. Who had the convening power? Is this a spin-off from the GCSC? Certainly, the signatures would indicate so.

Information we mostly know, but good to tackle stress and address issues such as gender. Useful to corroborate some of our practices (breaks, "relaxed" networking opportunities).

||JovanK||, ||Katarina_An|| ||ArvinKamberi||

Rules for the governance of data is a key motivation of the Chinese government crackdown on companies. While proposals to nationalise companies' datasets have met criticism, an idea that is gaining traction is the possibility to establish a trading system for data between companies. ||JovanK||