The deepening process of fragmentation has become a new challenge for the unity, security, and stable development of the global Internet. That is, it can be said that the Internet is in danger of disintegrating into separate fragments that are weakly connected. Several disturbing trends related to the technological development of the Internet, the Internet policies and commercial activities of individual countries, as well as the current international situation, are called the causes of fragmentation. The process of fragmentation has put the global Internet space in front of a new threat, which is also related to the establishment of total control over it by individual autocratic governments, global ethno-conflicts, and hostilities, as well as increased cybercrimes. All this violates the unity and stability of the Internet and threatens its stable and safe development process. This process also contradicts the Tunisian Agenda adopted by the United Nations Assembly in 2005. Internet fragmentation is a new process and it is a subject of extensive research. This paper briefly reviews the technical, commercial, and governmental forms of Internet fragmentation, and at the same time, focuses on the political aspect of fragmentation. It is the Internet policies and approaches of individual countries that are considered the political part of fragmentation, and in many cases, political fragmentation has an impact on the other three forms of fragmentation. The fact that such global organizations as ICANN and RIPE NCC still manage to maintain an independent position and not turn the issue into a political one deserves attention here because the politicization of the technical management of the Internet represents the danger that may follow the irreversible process of Internet fragmentation. The paper also offers the mathematical model of internet fragmentation. The model can be modified based on the geopolitical landscape and the responses of nations over time.
The positive process of rapid development of the Internet and Internet technologies is accompanied by certain risks, which threaten the unity and security of the global Internet network, its stability, and stable development [1–3].
When we talk about the unity, security, and
stability of the global Internet network, we
must mention the Internet Governance Forum,
convened by the Secretary General of the
United Nations, whose work involves all
interested parties—public and private sectors,
civil society, and representatives of academic
circles [4]. It is the best platform where the
exchange of ideas, discussion, and sharing of
experiences about the processes taking place
in the Internet space takes place among
interested parties at the global, national, and
regional levels [
In particular, in the Tunisian agenda for the information society, we read that Internet governance is the development and application by governments, the private sector, and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decisionmaking procedures, and programs that shape the evolution and use of the Internet (Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, 2005). It should be noted here that paragraph 72 of the Tunisian agenda establishes the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum, the first paragraph of which is formulated as follows: a) “Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability, and development of the Internet…………”
The United Nations General Assembly recognizes the importance of the Forum in promoting the sustainability of the Internet, its unity, resilience, security, stability, and development. The purpose of the study is to discuss the newly recognized fourth political form of fragmentation, which is related to the Internet policies of individual countries, current military operations, and, in general, the current unstable global and regional situation, which harms the global Internet, its unity, security, and stability. Research shows that the political aspect of Internet fragmentation is a determinant of other forms of fragmentation and is the main form of fragmentation.
The goal of the paper is also to offer the mathematical model of internet fragmentation, which can be modified based on the geopolitical landscape and the responses of nations over time.
It is the active use of the Internet and Internet
technologies that has further increased its
importance and dependence on it. In addition,
the Internet and cyberspace in general have
faced new threats related to the imposition of
total control over it by individual autocratic
governments, global ethno-conflicts and
hostilities, and increased cybercrimes. All this
violates the unity and stability of the Internet
and threatens its stable and safe development
process. This process also contradicts the
Tunisian agenda adopted by the United
Nations Assembly at the time [
In recent years, there has been growing
concern that the Internet is in danger of
disintegrating into loosely connected
fragments. Several worrying trends are related
to technological development, internet
policies, and commercial activities of states, as
well as the current international situation. This
process extends to the Internet network, and
its separate layers, and affects the process, and
this is called Internet fragmentation. However,
it should be noted that there is still no
widespread understanding of what
“fragmentation” is and is not, or what risks it
poses to the integrity, stability, and security of
the Internet, aka cyberspace [
This begs the question of what is “Internet fragmentation” and how can this term or practice be defined.
Internet fragmentation, also known as Splinternet, is the opposite of the Internet and means that the open, secure, and stable globally unified Internet that we enjoy is divided into separate, isolated networks controlled by governments and corporations. In addition, to the similar definition of “internet fragmentation”, taking into account the recent global events, we can also add hostilities and ethno-conflicts, which already physically damage the unity of cyberspace.
There are the following three forms of Internet fragmentation: 1. Technical Fragmentation: conditions in the underlying infrastructure that impede the ability of systems to fully interoperate and exchange data packets and of the Internet to function consistently at all endpoints.
Government policies and actions that constrain or prevent certain uses of the Internet to create, distribute, or access information resources.
practices that constrain or prevent certain uses of the Internet to create, distribute, or access information resources.
Each type of Internet fragmentation can be
very different along several dimensions [
Here, as a fourth type of Internet fragmentation, we can add—Internet fragmentation, which we got as a result of the internal and external Internet policies of one or another government, the current hostilities, and in general, the unstable situation globally or regionally, which harms the unity, security, and stability of the global Internet.
This fourth type is called Political Fragmentation, which some refer to as Governmental Fragmentation.
While discussing each form of Internet fragmentation, different types of problematic categories and types of fragmentation arising from them are considered, however, in this paper, the fourth alleged form of Internet fragmentation, which is related to national or global security, and shows the influence of domestic and foreign Internet policies carried out by individual governments, is discussed more broadly. Consequences for the unity, stability, security, and stability of the Internet itself, cyberspace.
When we talk about this kind of
fragmentation, the discussion starts with the
Ukraine-Russia war, which has a great impact
on cyberspace. There was a threat that Russia
would be isolated from the global Internet,
which has not happened, but we may be
witnessing the beginning of a more
fundamental fragmentation of the global
Internet [
The government of the Russian Federation
has ordered Russian website operators to
become independent from the global network
by March 11, 2022. After Russia has indeed
taken effective steps. In particular, the Russian
authorities blocked many news sites, banned
popular Western Internet services and social
platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, and
Twitter, and introduced a new law e.g. year
“fake news” and disinformation—about
spreading propaganda [
Despite such repressive actions, Russia has
not cut off its connection to the global Internet,
although Russia’s 2019 law on “Internet
Sovereignty” has given all this a peculiar legal
basis. This law requires Internet service
providers to route traffic through exchange
points approved by the federal agency
Roskomnadzor. In addition, the law gives
Roskomnadzor the right to force Internet
service providers to route traffic through
special blocking systems, which the authorities
can use to filter traffic and route it the way they
want. Moreover, from 2021, Russian Internet
service companies should be able to process
requests to domain name systems, and servers
located inside the country, and in case of
disconnection from the global Internet
network, it will be possible to use Internet
resources [
It is difficult to say how these systems will
work in a real situation, although the fact is
that an autonomous segment that replicates a
large part of the functions of the global Internet
is more difficult to realize from a technical
point of view than from a political point of
view. In any case, Russia’s ability to stop data
transmission is not an impossible process, and
it will not lead to a deterioration in the quality
of service. Therefore, such a radical step is
unlikely unless the Kremlin deems it necessary
to regain control over information or to
prevent cyber incidents [
Ukraine has attempted to cut off Russia’s connections to the global Internet and limited its ability to address domestic demands. To this end, Ukraine sent a letter to ICANN, which coordinates domain name systems, and requested to cancel the top-level domains issued in the Russian Federation (eg, “.ru”, “.рф” and “.su”) and to withdraw from Russia the factors such as autonomous systems, domain control, and filtering mechanisms.
LM(t) represents the legal measures in place at time t, including parameters for content censorship, information control laws, and legal restrictions.
GC(t) denotes the level of global cooperation at time t. It gives the opportunity to measure adherence to international standards, cooperation in Internet governance, and participation in global initiatives.
CP(t) reflects the cybersecurity practices implemented at time t, considering parameters such as the robustness of cybersecurity infrastructure and the effectiveness of measures against cyber threats.
P(t) captures the geopolitical context at time t, Including indicators for ongoing conflicts, diplomatic tensions, and geopolitical events.
The factors can be combined using weighted coefficients:
I(t)=wTCTC(t)+wLMLM(t)+wGCGC(t)+
+wCPCP(t)+wPP(t)
We must ensure that the weights satisfy the
following formula for the normalization:
Located DNS root servers. Ukrainian
authorities also asked RIPE NCC, the regional
Internet registry for parts of Europe, the
Middle East, and Central Asia, to cancel Russian
IP addresses. However, both organizations,
ICANN and RIPE NCC, rejected Ukraine’s
request and, to maintain a global and
compatible Internet, emphasized the
importance of their neutrality in the technical
management of the Internet [
Ukraine’s request would set a precedent for the fusion of foreign policy and technical administration, which in turn undermines the role of these institutions as universally legitimate governing bodies. If the global consensus on the technical governance of the Internet disappears, the emergence of competing institutions will be a new challenge and a serious risk to the unity of the Internet.
Although governing institutions have resisted political orders, increasing control over digital infrastructure will further intensify the process of internet fragmentation. On the other hand, the current process in Ukraine may give a greater impetus to the fundamental fragmentation of the global digital connection, one of the main aspects of which is the politicization of the technical management of the Internet.
A year after the beginning of the war, the country has yet to be disconnected from the global Internet. However, it should be noted that the war highlights the great temptation for states to use their technical control over the Internet and the entire Internet infrastructure as a weapon. Although there were attempts to use total control of cyberspace as a weapon, these attempts were foiled in time. The broader geopolitical controversy surrounding the war is exacerbating the deep fragmentation of global digital connectivity and making it more fundamental [27].
Let I(t) represent the Internet Fragmentation Index at time t.
I(t)=f(TC(t),LM(t),GC(t),CP(t), P(t)) (1)
TC(t) represents the technical control exerted by a government at time t. Considering (2) (3) (4) wTC+wLM+wGC+wCP+wP=1
It is also very important to consider the model incorporating dynamics over time:
I(t+1)=αI(t)+βΔI(t)
Where α represents a decay factor, and β represents the impact of recent changes (ΔI(t)) on the overall index.
This dynamic model allows for an evolving representation of Internet fragmentation. The changes must be considered based on the geopolitical landscape and the responses of nations over time [28–30].
On the example of the Ukraine-Russia war and the Internet policy of Russia, the paper discussed the political aspect of Internet fragmentation, which is one of the main forms of fragmentation, which, determines other forms of fragmentation [31, 32].
Taking into account the current reality, which is related to the Internet policies and approaches of individual countries, it can be assumed that Internet fragmentation is an irreversible process. However, at the same time, it should be noted the need for the efforts of the global community, which is related to the public welfare, the unity, security, and stability of the Internet.
As part of the work on the Global Digital [4] Treaty, which should be agreed upon in September 2024, the global and inclusive process of developing common principles for the digital space continues. This is an opportunity to recognize the global Internet as an important tool for solving common problems. In general, it should be noted that stopping the process of fragmentation of the Internet is a difficult task, but it can be done through high-level meetings between states, focused dialogues and efforts on the main fragmenting factors, such as cyber espionage, attempts to impose control over Internet infrastructure, and the use of the Internet and Internet technologies as weapons against countries and people.
Finally, according to ICANN president Sally Costerton, “The Internet is a single network with a flexible infrastructure, and its fragmentation or attempt to regulate it will lead to its collapse, and this danger is inevitable and real.” This warning was directed at the United Nations. It was at the initiative of this organization that the Internet Governance Forum, created at the time, laid the foundation for the sustainability of the Internet, its unity, durability, security, stability, and development. [9]