Digital Infrastructures

Description

Mishra, V., Bell, J. et al. :

"Digital infrastructure encompasses not only physical elements like broadband networks, data centers, and cloud services but also the laws, standards, and protocols that govern transparency, access and control of data. By developing comprehensive, long-term strategies for the design, scope and governance of digital infrastructure, governments can influence the social, economic and civic impact of new technologies, as they emerge rather than after the fact."

(https://www.projectliberty.io/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Project_Liberty_Institute_Digital_Infrastructure_Solutions_Policymakers_Toolkit.pdf)

Examples

1. From open to closed, a spectrum:

• Government-Led Systems => Cuba’s state-owned telecom, ETECSA.

Fully controlled and operated by the state, with centralized decision-making and oversight.

• Closed-Access Systems => Starlink: vertically integrated, no external access or servicelayer integration.

Infrastructure is controlled by a single entity with no third-party participation. Typically streamlined but not open to external input.

• Private Consortium-Led Systems => mVodafone & Orange’s Open RAN project in Europe.

Managed by a few private actors who share infrastructure governance. Participation is limited to members of the consortium.

• Permissioned Networks => Some government cloud systems or health data exchanges.

Access is limited to approved actors.

• Open Standards- Based Infrastructure => Estonia’s X-Road.

Built on transparent, publicly available standards enabling interoperability and modular development.

• Multistakeholder Systems => Brazil’s Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br).

Shared governance among the government, the private sector, and civil society with shared responsibilities in design and oversight.

• Permissionless Open Networks => Guifi.net in Spain.

Participation and contribution are open to any actor with varying degrees of prior approval.

• Decentralized Autonomous Networks => Emerging Web3 and blockchain-based infrastructures.

No central authority; governance and operation are distributed.

2. Spectrum of standardization

• Local Standards => Early Aadhaar, national health records

Local standards are developed and implemented independently to reflect a country’s specific needs, legal frameworks, technical capacity, and cultural values.

• Layered Standardization => ISO standards adapted regionally

This model uses international standards as a base but allows for tailored national or sector specific adaptations.

• Hybrid Standardization => OpenCRVS, national ID systems based on MOSIP

Hybrid approaches give equal emphasis to global and local priorities. Standards are co-designed, often through inclusive, multi-actor engagements, to maximize both interoperability and contextual relevance.

• Global Standards => SWIFT, TCP/IP, W3C

standards

Complete adherence to international frameworks, ensuring interoperability and consistency but limiting local customization."

(https://www.projectliberty.io/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Project_Liberty_Institute_Digital_Infrastructure_Solutions_Policymakers_Toolkit.pdf)

Discussion

Bell J. at al. :

"The most promising systems combine open standards, modular design, and multistakeholder governance without defaulting to either fully open or fully closed extremes.

The India Stack is a case in point: while the first wave of digital infrastructure solutions heavily relies on government-mandated identity and payments infrastructure, it has inspired a second generation of more open and distributed services with open API and open protocols like Beckn. Today, this hybrid model has enabled 8.6 billion mobile payments per month for 1.2 billion people – at minimal cost and maximum scale. However, the model is not without risks. The concentration of sensitive personal data within core systems means that breaches, when they occur, can have outsized consequences. Building openness must go hand in hand with strong data protection, redress mechanisms, and continuous security reinforcement.

Importantly, openness does not mean insecurity. Having multiple actors participating in a system actually enhances resilience and reduces the risks associated with centralized blind spots or single points of failure. Additionally, with the right protocols, transparency can enhance trust and resilience. Properly implemented, open standards and protocols can strengthen system resilience and public trust. Estonia’s X-Road shows how open-by-design systems can scale securely. As digital infrastructure becomes the backbone of economies and, designing for openness, where appropriate, is not just a technical choice, but a state imperative. Finally, policymakers do not need to choose between strictly open or closed infrastructure – these are false binaries. Instead, they must ask: Where do we need control, and where can openness enhance legitimacy, innovation, or trust? A modular, hybrid design, rooted in open standards and strong governance, offers the best of both worlds."

(https://www.projectliberty.io/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Project_Liberty_Institute_Digital_Infrastructure_Solutions_Policymakers_Toolkit.pdf)

More information

• Report: Nicole, S., Mishra, V., Bell, J., Kastrop, C., Rodriguez, M. (2025, May). Digital Infrastructure Solutions to Empower Citizens: A Toolkit for Policymakers. Project Liberty Institute & Global Solutions Initiative.

URL = https://www.projectliberty.io/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Project_Liberty_Institute_Digital_Infrastructure_Solutions_Policymakers_Toolkit.pdf