Mira Fajri

PANDI (Indonesian Internet Domain Name Registry), Indonesia

Academic background:I have obtained a bachelor’s degree from Law School of University of Brawijaya, in 2016. I am currently holding a professional qualification as a Certified Legal Auditor as I pass the bar back in 2019.

As I am working for Indonesian Internet Domain Name Registry, I got engaged in legal research and ICT-related studies. I was sharing my perspective on Digital Economy in APrIGF 2019. I have also been presenting my legal interpretation on Domain Name dispute resolution procedure for ICANN69 ccTLD News Session.

It will always be my interest to join another fascinating learning environment related to Internet Governance.


Fellow Report:

Report on European Summer School of Internet Governance (EuroSSIG) 2022

I got this new sentient after August 23rd, 2022, that whenever I see a stone-paved road or leaf fragrance, it will remind me of the time I spent in Meissen for EuroSSIG. Meissen has this simple and beautiful vibe that impressed me. I am delighted to stay there for a week as a part of the EuroSSIG 2022.

I also love the evenings we spend in fancy restaurants, getting some energy roaming around, motivational quotes, big laughs, a few of my awkward moments, and exciting stories.

EuroSSIG has fed me with narratives and insights useful in my internet governance participation. It was a substantial experience for me to participate in this wonderful summer school. The schedule was packed and effective in elaborating on what, why, and how we run the internet governance together as a global community. 

EuroSSIG is a well-structured course that provides fellows with rich sources and helpful practice guided by competent and expert Faculty. It covers policy, technical, human rights, and business aspects. Also, it offers factual discourse on developmental/emerging issues of internet governance, such as Artificial Intelligent, Bandwidth Fair Share, and the digital economy’s new taxation model. This course also gives me an enrichment of perspective on how protocols of the internet were made and how to share and manage the resources of the internet, which are IP and domain name, along with this long list of problems we have in cybersecurity discourse, business and the utilization of AI. 

There are at least 5 points of the fundamental understanding that are being disentangled in EuroSSIG following my notes:

  1. Internet governance is our today’s running history. The Government, Private Sector, Civil Society, Technical Community, and Academia shape it.

    I have expressed my comprehension in one chat (EuroSSIG gives us many chatting times) that the internet governance context we have today can bloom because the public sphere advocated the internet’s broader utilization. As the internet is a research outcome „being put outside“ to unlimited public use and advancement, the adoption of the internet historically comes to a people’s space.

    “Ubi Societas Ibi Ius,” Socrates said to display the inherent nature of law to society. A set of understanding, values, and common conduct runs inside the society that takes the role of law, like liquidity, that keeps the order in its basic shape. In the digital ecosystem, the community that initiates and runs the utilization of the internet over the world has run the history of formulating a conceptual approach called „internet governance“.

    By saying „the community that initiates and runs the utilization of the internet over the world,“ I refer to every person and their collective cohesion engaging in digital features to enhance their life. Tunis Agenda lists them as government, private sector, and civil society; however, in practical internet governance discourse, the technical community and academia got involved in a very much significant fashion.

    EuroSSIG found its effort in bringing up alumnus that are firm believers and having faith; in the multistakeholder model of internet governance. 

    The current situation on internet utilization grew as geostrategy linkages after several milestones from the 1950s. Internet Governance challenges the existing political setting and its significance in people’s way of living. Is it a specific new function of collaborative measures, or will it become a tool for confrontation?

    The internet runs on its underlying technology/resources of IP and domain name, and the internet governance mechanism shall keep this work for everyone. There is also a developmental search for new tech models such as blockchain, and it has been; for now; considerably unfeasible as a replacement. I spent time reading the OCTO pages on my trip back to Jakarta, grateful that I received good references.

  2. There is a practical difference between regulation and regulatory function.

    Tunis Agenda formulated a working definition of Internet governance as the development and application by multiple stakeholders connected to their respective roles of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programs that shape the evolution and use of the internet. As a result of the contribution from each respective role, there are regulations on and of the internet. The multilateral and multistakeholder model become dynamic in the fruition over how the internet runs and expects to run.

    The code and protocol of the internet configure the functionality of the internet (to assure that it works as a technology); while the binding arrangement calls on the preferential model of internet functionality as in political scope, it may seem. But there shall be a gray area of „of and on“ the internet. In a practical setting, multistakeholder practices are a public-private communication model where multilateral interests occur. The law is now a table of a dynamic and complicated motive where the government, regulator bodies, user, and private regulators jointly put the norms on paper – and at the operative level.

    Also, it still makes me smile again when I recall the breakfast where I receive a kind consolation of „I know it is hard to discuss philosophy at breakfast“ as I try to share my excitement over Hans Kelsen’s theory of law. I got involved in the meaningful shares from an expert friend from the Netherlands, who put me in the context of how regulatory bodies work in their country.

  3. Digital sovereignty and its splinternet are bad, whilst individual rights are core values.

    This contextual theme around human rights is an inseparable outcome of the challenges internet governance gives in the face of the current jurisdiction setting. Authority shall put the human rights most of the decisions made. Far as this is not fulfilled, it possibly becomes considerably invalid, and internet governance shall take the lead to show the neutral format. I like listening to the session delivered by RIPE NCC when she tells us the story and reason for every stand they take concerning the Russian-Ukraine war.

    Having this kind of leadership and morals is good for the world, ikr. Yet I do have this inquiry on internet governance as a call to a locked universal value and preferences. A call to a locked universal value and standard is a threat greater than digital sovereignty in some sort, I assume. In global politics, a specific human rights universalism format was infused in many ways, overlooking other valuable sources of morals. This preferential campaign, then, turns out to be the key significant mover on sovereignty. People were trying to use politics to win the land, after all.

    I remember this one session on internet governance and national jurisdiction, elaborating on how the Westphalian paradigm deals with today’s global governance crisis. We are in search of a new model as we need more incentive to a new type of collaboration, the speaker said, as I recall. By running on a further development of political constellation as it is presented in multistakeholder models, we need to consider the impact of universalism as a challenge. 

    It is a mentality to expect things to be on a kind of straight rail that is harmful and tiring for people who are burdened with it. And it is clear that a call to total universalism is not a good way to live in harmony because it is natural to leave some issues untouched in regard to its substantial collision of values. It will then create this kind of situation where it feels neutral when it is somewhere on the sides – or even makes the sides initially.

  4. There are problems in today’s internet utilization.

    It was a thrill to discuss the many challenges we face, from DNS Abuse, surveillance practices, deep/dark web, the intricacy-embedded-characteristic of regulation making and implementation, internet control in the war context to the different stands between Telecommunication/ISP and Over The Top (OTT) service provider on „Fair Share“.

    Everyone will find a problem as stress ignitors from whatever passion they have; they will get a share in internet governance.

  5. “The how” is what we need to put our minds onto.

    On our Global Digital Compact (GDC) practicum, we learn to make ideas into acceptable action to do. We work as a team to deepen our understanding and formulate relevant concepts of principle and commitment over specific areas. Mine consists of 6 members on internet fragmentation discourse. Discussing things intensively and participating in a factual setting was a fantastic experience.

    Today’s internet has bits to be preserved and improved, the challenge to adapt and hitch to get through. The work is to fulfill and perfect all these items together in an open and committed advancement. There shall be leadership, for sure, but broader participation is the core energy to make it run; a fruitful one will be best.

Some fellows aspire for a more technical session along with some other suggestions, while I have yet to have a strong opinion concerning the summer school effectuation. Everything is a pleasant experience, and I love the fruit salad in our breakfast; the second is the warm herbal tea from the coffee break.

Suppose there is any concern to be made; I think it is only the fact that I was drowned in my own thinking in considering the philosophical aspect of accepting the contextual approach of internet governance as a way or as a call to a locked universal value and preferences in the sense of human rights as I mentioned above.

However, I also concluded that it is a very great work that in this world that we live in, we already have this historical and substantive advance in the development of the internet both in the sense of technology and its regulatory means. I realize my responsibility for the future of the internet and its inherent obligation to collaborate in crafting this one world and one underlying internet technology of ours. 

I am deeply thankful to the committee and Faculty, Sandra, Wolfgang, Carsten, Reiner, and all teams that arranged this school in an applaudable efforts and hopefully a good outcome that you expect us; fellow to become. I am grateful to have new friends from around the world, and I hope we can still be in contact with each other. Everyone is sweet and lovely, and to have good friends is one big victory in life. I hope to give back the benefit I receive in more extensive forms of goodness to others.