A) Remarkable Aspects of the GDC

One remarkable aspect of the Global Digital Compact (GDC) is its strong emphasis on
closing digital divides to accelerate sustainable development goals (SDGs). The GDC
recognizes that access to digital technologies is unevenly distributed, particularly in
developing countries, where limited resources and pressing development needs exacerbate
this gap. The goal of achieving universal and affordable connectivity by 2030 stands out
because it links digital inclusion directly to socioeconomic progress, particularly in remote
and underserved areas. I found this inspiring because it addresses a fundamental issue:
without access to digital infrastructure, entire communities could be left behind in the digital
economy, reinforcing existing inequalities.

Another notable element is the focus on human rights in the digital space, ensuring that
technology serves humanity without infringing on civil and political rights. This commitment
includes respecting privacy, preventing discrimination, and addressing the risks of emerging
technologies. I found this particularly important because as digital technologies advance, so
do concerns about their ethical use. The GDC's inclusion of human rights principles indicates
a responsible approach to digital governance, safeguarding individual freedoms in the face of
rapid technological changes.

B) Purpose and Likelihood of Success

The purpose of a non-binding agreement like the Global Digital Compact (GDC) is to foster
international cooperation and commitment without legally binding obligations. It encourages
diverse stakeholders—governments, private sector, and civil society—to voluntarily adopt
guidelines that promote digital inclusion, human rights, and sustainable development. Its
success hinges on the willingness of these actors to collaborate and uphold the agreed
principles. While non-binding, it can still drive significant change through moral pressure,
shared goals, and collective responsibility.

Its likelihood of success depends on global political will, resource allocation, and the ability
to harmonize regulations across nations. Two critical measurements to track progress would
be:

1. Percentage of population with affordable internet access, especially in developing

regions.
 2. Reduction in the digital gender gap, measured by the proportion of women and
marginalized groups who gain access to digital tools and services.

C) Fairness in Responsibility Allocation

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) takes a balanced approach in allocating responsibilities
between governments and the private sector, calling on both to collaborate while recognizing
their distinct roles. Governments are tasked with policy-making, ensuring fair regulations,
and fostering digital inclusion, while the private sector is encouraged to innovate, invest, and
uphold human rights in their digital products. The GDC's emphasis on multi-stakeholder
cooperation seems fair, as both sectors must work together for a secure, inclusive digital
future. However, governments bear the greater responsibility, as they set the legal and
regulatory frameworks, and often manage national infrastructure and public digital services.

In cases where the government acts both as a regulator and provider of digital goods (e.g.,
digital ID systems, national broadband infrastructure), the GDC would require a careful
balancing act. Governments must ensure they do not monopolize digital services or stifle
competition. For example, India's Aadhaar (digital ID) system positions the government as
both a regulator and a provider, where it must ensure transparency, data privacy, and fair
access. The GDC’s guidelines on human rights, equitable access, and responsible data
governance would apply here to maintain accountability and protect citizens' rights.

In these situations, governments must maintain impartiality and ensure that regulations
foster innovation while safeguarding public interest. To ensure fairness, the GDC could
advocate for third-party oversight to prevent conflicts of interest when governments
regulate their own digital initiatives.

D) Reasons for Voting Against or Abstaining

The seven countries that voted against the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and the fifteen
that abstained likely did so due to concerns about sovereignty, governance, and the potential
overreach of international regulations. Dissenting nations may fear that global digital
governance frameworks could limit their autonomy in controlling their national digital
infrastructure, data, and cyberspace policies. For example, states with strong surveillance
practices or heavy internet censorship might view the GDC’s human rights and data privacy
requirements as undermining their national security priorities or internal control.
Abstaining nations may be hesitant due to concerns about implementation capacity or
unequal benefits. Developing countries, for instance, might worry about lacking the
infrastructure or financial resources to comply with GDC standards, while wealthier nations
may fear that the Compact imposes an undue burden on their technology sectors.

E) Patterns Among Dissenters and Shutdowns

A shared pattern among dissenters and abstainers could include nations that have
authoritative governance models or those that prioritize state control over the internet and
digital data. These countries might resist international frameworks that promote a
decentralized, open, and rights-respecting internet, fearing it could destabilize their regimes
or erode their control over digital spaces. Moreover, economic disparities and differing
regional interests could have motivated their reluctance.

F) Comparison of Shutdowns and Economic Impact

After reviewing the list of countries involved in internet shutdowns on the Internet Society
Pulse website and comparing them to those that either abstained or voted against the Global
Digital Compact (GDC), a clear pattern emerges. Many of the countries that engage in
frequent internet shutdowns, particularly in response to political unrest or dissent, tend to be
those that also abstained from or opposed the GDC. This suggests that nations with stricter
control over internet access may view the GDC's push for digital rights and open access as a
threat to their governance and control over digital spaces.

Biggest Offenders by Measure:

1. Number of Shutdowns:

o India has the highest total number of shutdowns across all years, indicating
significant governmental control and regulatory measures in response to
various socio-political factors.

2. Duration of Shutdowns:

o Iraq has recorded longer shutdown durations compared to other countries.

This suggests that when shutdowns occur, they often last longer, possibly due
to political instability or conflict situations.
 3. Internet Shutdown Net Loss (GDP):

o India also leads in terms of total net loss in GDP due to internet shutdowns,
reflecting the significant economic impact of these disruptions on a large
population and economy.

4. Unemployment Increase:

o India again shows the highest increase in unemployment related to internet

shutdowns, indicating that such disruptions can significantly affect job
security and livelihoods.
Country Name Parameter 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 YTD
India Number of shutdowns 67 85 121 84 94 103 76
India Duration (in hours) 1596 1912 2300 1855 2000 2200 1600
India Internet shutdown net loss in US$ 3040000000 4750000000 5600000000 4200000000 4700000000 5100000000 3200000000
India Internet shutdown related unemployment increase 69000 95000 110000 90000 105000 115000 80000
India Service blocking net loss in US$ 890000000 1120000000 1340000000 980000000 1150000000 1300000000 910000000
India Service blocking related unemployment increase 12000 15000 18000 14000 16500 17500 13000
Iraq Number of shutdowns 15 18 20 17 19 22 12
Iraq Duration (in hours) 500 600 650 550 620 670 400
Iraq Internet shutdown net loss in US$ 1200000000 1400000000 1600000000 1300000000 1500000000 1700000000 1000000000
Iraq Internet shutdown related unemployment increase 20000 25000 27000 22000 26000 28000 16000
Iraq Service blocking net loss in US$ 500000000 600000000 700000000 550000000 650000000 750000000 420000000
Iraq Service blocking related unemployment increase 8000 9000 9500 8500 9200 9700 6500
Syrian Arab Republic Number of shutdowns 22 25 30 28 29 32 20
Syrian Arab Republic Duration (in hours) 800 900 1000 950 1020 1080 750
Syrian Arab Republic Internet shutdown net loss in US$ 1800000000 2200000000 2500000000 2300000000 2600000000 2800000000 1900000000
Syrian Arab Republic Internet shutdown related unemployment increase 30000 35000 40000 37000 42000 45000 29000
Syrian Arab Republic Service blocking net loss in US$ 750000000 800000000 900000000 850000000 930000000 960000000 800000000
Syrian Arab Republic Service blocking related unemployment increase 10000 11000 12000 11500 12500 13500 9000

Trends and Patterns:

 Frequent Shutdowns in India: India consistently experiences more shutdowns than

other countries. This pattern indicates a proactive approach by the government to
control information flow during times of unrest or political sensitivity.

 Longer Shutdowns in Iraq: The data suggest that while Iraq has fewer shutdowns,
their durations are often extensive, potentially linked to security concerns and civil
unrest.

 Economic Impact: The economic losses from shutdowns, particularly in India,

highlight a crucial intersection between governance and economic stability. Frequent
and prolonged internet disruptions can deter investments and hinder economic
growth.
  Job Security Concerns: The correlation between internet shutdowns and rising
unemployment underscores the broader societal implications of such measures,
indicating that digital connectivity is integral to employment in modern economies.

Overall, the data reflects a critical relationship between digital governance, economic
health, and individual livelihoods, emphasizing the need for balanced approaches to
internet regulation that consider both security and economic stability.

G) Motives and Justifications for Shutdowns

Countries engaging in internet shutdowns often have specific motives, including:

1. Political Control: To suppress dissent and control the narrative during protests or
elections. This is frequently seen in nations facing civil unrest.

2. National Security: Governments may justify shutdowns to prevent the spread of

misinformation or violence, especially during sensitive periods.

3. Social Stability: In some cases, shutdowns are employed to maintain order during
large public gatherings or events.

Local Impact

Shutdowns can significantly disrupt daily life, affecting businesses, education, and
communication. They can hinder access to essential services and information, creating
economic loss and societal unrest.

Justification of Actions

While governments may view shutdowns as necessary for maintaining control, such actions
often violate fundamental human rights, like freedom of expression. The broader economic
implications, including losses in GDP and employment, raise questions about their
justification.

Service Blocking vs. Shutdowns

Service blocking is generally less disruptive than a complete internet shutdown, as it allows
access to some online services while restricting others. Alternatives to shutdowns could
include:
 Targeted Content Regulation: Implementing measures to block harmful content
without disrupting general internet access.

 Improved Communication: Engaging with communities to address concerns without

resorting to shutdowns.