Earlier quoted context omitted.
While the David's won this round, it was against an opponent (or group of) which made several tactical errors. We need to build a more lasting institution to prepare in advance for future papers, have lists of people it can reach out to, and manage the hidden minutiae required to combat these issues. Because Next time it may not be Facebook, it may be the GoI itself, or reliance.
How do we focus instead on changes required for a better internet? The internet was originally designed (imagined?) to route around bad actors, congestion, censorship. If it no longer does that (and there's some truth to say it never has) then we've failed to build in the necessary incentives for that to happen.
At best I can point out that theres 2 parts to this - the internet infrastructure and the regulatory frameworks.
Till now, we've worked without having to explicitly state the philosophical underpinnings of the web, nor convert that into a law/legal framework.
The slow lumbering leviathans have finally caught up to the nimble minnows of the 2000s. Telecom operators and other incumbents, including governments now know how the web works, and how to make it work for them (to the detriment of the commons).
We can limit the damage of the second, by help build and maintain transparent regulatory frameworks, and in particular - be able to mobilize rebuttals or examples to future papers released by TRAI, or other GoI institutions.
Whats learned here and other countries over the next 5 years, can be used to push for a stronger global framework.