Internet Freedom or Sovereignty?

- The article explores a long-standing tension in global internet policy: the "multistakeholder" model (loosely coordinated by bodies like ICANN, with heavy US tech and civil society influence) vs. "multilateral" or "cyber sovereignty" models (pushed by Russia, China, and others, where states control their national segments of the internet). - "Internet freedom" advocates argue for minimal state interference, open access, and rights-based governance. "Digital sovereignty" advocates argue that states have a right to control their digital borders, enforce local laws, and protect against foreign surveillance or cultural disruption — which often translates to censorship and surveillance in practice. - This debate has intensified as authoritarian governments build out national firewalls and as democracies like the EU also assert digital sovereignty via data localization laws and platform regulation. - The piece reflects on how these two positions are evolving under the current US administration's shifting foreign policy, which has weakened the traditional US-led push for an open internet and opened space for sovereignty models to gain ground at venues like the UN.