IGF 2018 – Day 1 – Salle X

IGF 2018 – Day 1 – Salle X


>>MORNING. NO GLASSES, NO
BEVERAGE, NO FOOD IN THE ROOM, PLEASE.>>MARIKO KOBAYASHI: So, thank
you for coming to our workshop. I think now people are like
getting cold feet or get lost getting
here, so, we can just wait for five or ten minutes, then we
will start. Thank you.>>MODERATOR: So, we will start
after five more minutes. Waiting for some people. Thank
you. So, Hiro, are you ready for?
Moderator?>>HIROTAKA NAKAJIMA: No,
actually — no.>>MODERATOR: Still working?
>>HIROTAKA NAKAJIMA: Yes, we are not sure how do we connect the
remote participation, so, but, the
thing is, website is down, so, I think
it’s a little bit difficult to attend the, this meeting from
remote because they don’t have a link to attend this
meeting. So I think it’s okay to start the meeting.
>>Yes. So, good morning, everyone. Thank you for coming to
workshop. This is the workshop 324, The
Open, Free Internet is for every stakeholder. I’mer of this workshop, Mariko Kobayashi. So, yeah, let’s start. So, we
are still waiting for one more speaker but we’re going to
start. The background. Issue is the internet is one of the
best platforms to challenge new things and creating new business, idea
of any kind. Also, The Open, Free Internet is
important to accomplish the Sustainable Development Goals.
Oh, it’s coming. However, with a growing number
of the blocking or filtering and internet Shutdown, like interference on
the internet by some government’s
policy, now the freedom on the internet is now threatened. And also, Sai will talk about the
government. But when people here talk about
the intent contents blocking or filtering, the dialogue around
policy makers and our stakeholders can be a neglect
stiff discussion like criticizing each
other . Therefore, The Open, Free
Internet is for every stakeholder. We believe the
positive discussion will be an effective way to
build a multi-stakeholder dialogue between the stakeholder
and also our including governments. As a result, it will encourage
multi-stakeholder discussion on this subject. So, this is brief
introduction. Let’s move on to the first one. So, first one, the, we have four experts from multi-stakeholder. Then, the input from
stakeholder. But, before that, let me explain
the discussion facilitation. So, this is an interactive
expert session, so, if you have any
questions or opinion, you can use your mic at any time. It is kind of open mic style in
the technical committee, IGF, so if
you have any questions or any comments,
please raise your hand and we’ll git
you a mic. So, firstly, Sanja from Civil
Society will talk about the The Open, Free Internet and also,
what is the good impact on the Civil Society of
The Open, Free Internet.>>SANJA KELLY: Thank you very
much. It’s a pleasure to be here with you, and it’s a pleasure also to be
the first session in the morning because I think that shows your
dedication to this subject. As Mariko said my name is Sanja
Kelly and I’m director for internet at
Freedom Mouse. One of the things Freedom House
does each year is publishes an annual
report called Freedom on the Net. Each year, we publish a
compilation on reports of every single one of
those 65 countries. Another thing that Freedom House
does uniquely is we grade those countries based on their
internet policies so then we’re able to see how countries do in
comparison to one another and we’re also able to draw trends
to see whether internet freedom is improving or declining
globally. We’ve done this for eight years
now, and the latest findings are show casing that internet
freedom has declined for the eighth consecutive year. I
think particularly worrying is to know that only 20 percent of all
internet users live in countries with free internet. So, they live in countries where
the internet is not severely blocked, where there’s now
widespread undue surveillance on the citizens or where people are
not jailed for simply speaking out freely on political and
social issues. When we look at the whole range
of restrictions, whether that be
internet Shutdowns or blocking, what we’ve seen is they’re most
likely to happen around election time. That was certainly the
case over the past year as well. So, it seems like that in many
countries, particularly political players and political
parties that want to stay in power tend to increase the number of
blocked welcome websites and they tend to institute Shutdowns
and also promote this information online in order to
stay in power. So, I’m going to spend a few
minutes talking about the top three trends that we saw in the
latest edition of Freedom on the Net, and then during the Q&A, I will be happy to talk about some of the additional questions
about multi-stakeholder cooperation and other issues
that may be identified. So, the first trend that we
heavily focused on this year has to do
with online manipulation. Our research over the past several
years has documented that online manipulation, whether that be
through paid progovernment commentator
controls or whether that be through spread of this information by
default. So as a researcher when I started looking at this a
few years ago, it was mainly Russia and China and
Bahrain and a handful of countries but in
our survey, about half of them have employed some method of
this H. in some methods, this happens on a territorial level,
we’ve seen some examples of Russia in United States, for
example. In most cases, this actually happens within own
borders so it happens by political parties or leaders who
are trying to influence their own
citizens and depend their own policies online. So, in order
to address this issue of manipulation, over the past
year, we’ve seen proliferation of new laws addressing so-called fake news.
While this is an issue that all of us are dealing with,
particularly problematic for us was that we
saw in 17 out of 75 countries we’ve seen either proposed or
new laws that tackle this information in a way that it
actually suppressed free speech, particularly political and
social speech. And just to give you a few examples, in places like either I want, perspective, a
new law was passed under the context of
— information. Under this new law, social media
users with over 5,000 followers are now treated as regular
media. So for some of you in the audience, you might have
over 5,000 followers. That means now if you live in a
country like Egypt, you are legally obligated to follow the
same laws and on the same law legal obligations
as a media outlet such as the New York Times, of course
without having a legal team to actually domestic violence you
and to interpret the policies that that
entails. We’ve also seen reactions in
places like Cambodia, for example, where now websites are
required to register with the government.
And again, this is also under the pretext of fighting fake
news. So then giver you sense how these new laws really are displayed in practice, we’re
seeing people being arrested for their legitimate social activity
now under the pretense of these new laws and we’ve seen that in 13 out of 65
countries that we examined. I mentioned Egypt previously which passed a series of laws under
particular category. And we’ve then as a result of that seen a
number of people being arrested and tried for multiple years in
prison. So, for example, there was a
case of Lebanese tourist who was Cairo
and she published a social media video
where she angrily denounced on taxis and
so forth. She was prevented from coming
home. She was arrested. She received an eight-year prison
sentence simply for doing that. And her sentence was recently
commuted but only after her father and her attorney were able to
demonstrate that she was mentally unstable, again, just
for publishing this video. Or there was another case of an
activist in Egypt who received two-year
sentence in prison again, simply for
complaining about social harassment, or
sexual hooraysment on social media. I think as a woman, this
particularly strikes me in the age of Me Too
movement where in some countries people are actually being
arrested and women are being arrested simply for complaining
of sexual harassment on the internet, and this is being done
under the pretense of fake news. The second area that I wanted to
briefly touch upon has to do with personal data and data
protection. So, particularly aft Snowden revelations and then after the
last year with Cambridge and Facebook, I think a lot of
countries have been taking a deep look on how they can
protect their citizens’ data. And I think this is obviously
very positive and we’ve seen GDPR being a very good case study of positive
legislation. What but, what remain worries us
at Freedom House are examples of many countries now, particularly
authoritarian countries using this kind of very serious
concern to pass policies that would make it easier for
them to surveil their citizens. One of the tactics that we’ve
seen is then the passage of so-called data localization laws
where all data now in particular countries needs to be stored
within the borders of that country and we’ve seen that in
places ranging from China, Russia, Viet Nam, we’re
seeing proposals to this extent in places like India. And, again, what really concerns
us is that many of these places have such few checks and
balances and this is going to be abused doer political
reasons. And finally, the third area that
I wanted to draw attention to has to do with rise of China, particularly
in terms of internet governance and also in terms of new
controls imposed at home. So, we’ve seen just generally
internet censorship in China reaching new extremes over the
past year. More so than in the previous years, but also, particular interest is
China’s export of some of these policies
abroad. Starting with China at home, we’ve seen the new sleeping
cybersecurity law under which companies must register users
under their real names and they need to
immediately stop transmission of banned content. This new cybersecurity law is so
vast that there are about two regulations a day just kind of
clarifying how companies and how individuals need to better
comply with different provisions of it . In provinces like Xinxong
where humanitarians is quite dire, we’ve seen facial recognition used to
target the Muslim minority and we’ve seen situations where
individuals are being forced to download special tracking apps
which would then allow the authorities to track their all
movements and it would alert authorities if the individuals,
or if the suspects go within X number of meters away from their
house or their place of work. And we’ve also seen new steps
and implementation of this social credit system which will
be mandatory and government implemented by the year 2020. But, it’s currently being
implemented on a private basis and I think many of us in the western Europe and in
many other countries are well aware of the credit system where
people are essentially graded based on their financial
history. But what social system in China
is going to do is, they’re going to also assess people , not just based on their
financial transactions and this, quite frankly is very scary but
perhaps even carrier is also for us at Freedom House to
observe that China has been on so-called charm offensive and
they’re trying to essentially institute a new kind of alternative method of of
internet governance abroad. And the way how this is being
displayed is that we’re seeing Chinese officials organizing
workshops in many countries around the world . In fact, according to our
study, in 36 out of 65 countries that we
examined , Chinese officials organized
workshops for top officials of those countries and although we
don’t really know what transpired in those meetings,
what has been particularly of concern is that very soon after
these workshops, we’ve seen countries actually introduce new
laws that closely mimic what is found in China. And we saw that with Cambodian
Viet Nam, just for example. So, where do we go from here? I
think there’s certainly a number of steps that different
stakeholders can do to work for open and free
internet but I think the key will be that we work together
and I look forward to actually the next segment where we will
be able to explore some of those steps. Thank you very much.
>>MARIKO KOBAYASHI: Thank you, Sanja. So, this session is interactive
so you can speak any time. So, please, don’t hesitate to
use your mic and tell your opinion. So, if you do not have any
comments , we going to move on to the
Thomas. Yeah, Thomas on business sector
ISP.>>YESEUL KIM: Good morning,
everyone. My name is Thomas Grob. I work with — before that, I
was working with swiss regulator. When I was asked, I,
of course, checked the report and was glad to see that Germany is still considered
to be a free country as internet access is being concerned,
according to Freedom House, which, of course didn’t surprise
me. I mean, our business is to
transport data, not to not transport data. So, we make it a very strong
priority not be (thomas Grob speaking) put into the role
where we have to decide what content
is legal or not legal. Of course, that may happen. In
Germany, the hurdles are rather high until something gets
blocked. So, as German operators it’s
quite usual that you even contest some orders to block content in Court
until it’s implemented. We currently do not have any
blocking procedures but I’m sure the next procedures will come.
So, basically, what I’m saying is as a private company, we see
our responsibility with our customers in a competitive market, it’s definitely important to sell
access to the full internet. You couldn’t sell access to a
full internet and most certainly not according to what the ISP
would like to have. I mean, having said that, we do not have a policy to push certain contexts or certain
political ideas. We do not want to be the
incident that does any content. I think had the discussion today
and we’ve also heard that from the first speaker is when should
governments actually impose such orders and
I think it matters a lot what the general
feel of freedom in a country is but speaking as the IGF, I think we should also
tackle the more controversial issues. Now, for Europe, we do have a
Net Neutrality regulation that made it very clear blocking is a no go except
in very clearly defined scenarios such as security and
of course that is an important topic and a topic or
an area where we as internet
service provider have responsibility. For example, in Deutsche
Telecom, what we will do if we see one of our
users has been infected by malware and for example is
sending out spam in large quantities, we do a so-called
sandboxing which means that access is for a
time where disinfection is happening, restricted, but, of
course, we want that user to be back online as fast as possible
so what we do is we provide them with tools and with help to get
rid of the malware and be back fully
online with no restrictions as soon as possible. Independent the other .
The other thing that concerns me on a personal level is we had to
practice with several of our European
subsidiary, especially in mobile only countries where we had a
so-called black list that’s in place that is provided by the
Internet Watch Foundation, the target here being to prevent target
abuse, material to be distributed, and even words to be used for profit
online. We’ve had no formal decisions
but we have had indications when
talking with regulators that the implementation of this Internet Watch Foundation
list would be seen as a breach of net
neutral rei thraws so in at least one instance we took that down where in a
situation that I think content which is illegal and clearly very harmful is now
not be prevented from being accessed.
So, that could be a topic of discussion also in this round,
and I think I’ll leave it at that for the moment and will be
happy to answer your questions.>>MARIKO KOBAYASHI: Thank you. So, do you have any comments or
your opinion on this topic? So, please state your name and
–>>Yeah, hi, I’m Basilis, I’m
from grease and I’m a member of a community network. For those
who might do not know, community networks are networks that are built from the
citizens and maintained and operated and managed by the citizens and such
networks operate in place where Telecom operators do not reach. In grease, we have the internet,
and Deutsche Telecom has bought our
internet since some years now. Our difficulty and problem is that
now that it’s a private company, we cannot get access from our
local community network to internet black hole. Which means that we have to find
other ways to access internet for people who are
geographically isolated but also digitally isolated . So what I would like to ask,
does Deutsche Telecom have some policy to work with internet or
facility what we do to connect the unconnected?
Thank you.>>THOMAS GROB: Let’s say we
have a standing practice, which is not to enforce what is written in most
of Deutsche Telecom’s contracts that you should not share your
access with people that you don’t know. (laughter). And definitely not for
commercial reasons. Now, I see that community networks do not
have the commercial angle most of the time, and I was of the
opinion that we are not enforcing in any technical way,
we are not even monitoring if you are sharing your access. So, I haven’t heard of a case
where we actually terminated a business
relationship when we thought it was used for an uplink for a
community network. Now, having said that, I also don’t think
that we are actively facilitating. But, I’m sure if you reach out
and if there is technical problems, there will be
opportunities to get to people to solve them.
So, please reach out and tell us what you need.>>MARIKO KOBAYASHI: Well, thank
you for your comment. So, we’re going to move it on to the next. The next expert is Guy Berger
from the UNESCO. He’s from intergovernmental
organization. So, please.>>GUY BERGER: Thank you,
Mariko, and seeing that I work for UNESCO, I
welcome you all to this UNESCO. The title of this session, as
you know, is The Open, Free Internet
is for Every Today. Every in capital letters, so I would just tell you UNESCO’s
stakeholders are 195 states, the members of
UNESCO’s organization. When this was formed in 1945,
Constitution of UNESCO said the following, that the Member State
should collaborate in the work of advancing mutual knowledge and
understanding of peoples through all means of communication.
Of course, back in those days, the internet wasn’t even known. And to that end, the
organization should recommend international agreements as may
be necessary to promote free flow of ideas by word and image.
That didn’t say sound. I think one could say that sound
would include at least audio with
words, but, we know, also, audio includes music. So, anyway, so, that’s this
stakeholder in the internet, UNESCO with its interest in advancing mutual
knowledge through free flow of ideas by words and image. So, a few years ago, UNESCO
Member States were trying to figure out
how the internet plaques sense for them as stakeholders. They came up with a concept
called internet universality which was agreed by these 195
states. Internet universality may sound complex, but,
basically it means internet for everybody everywhere. And in order to have that
internet which the Member States also saw as
being extremely relevant to sustainable development, they
came up with four principles known as
ROAM principles. I think this is pretty interesting because R is rights, O is
openness, A is accessible, and M is
multi-stakeholders. So UNESCO when it speaks of free
internet refers to human rights. That’s the definition of freedom
here, not just the absence of
restraint or ill legitimate restraint. It’s also that rights are being respected,
right to privacy, and also economic rights. So the package is rights is what
is seen as important for the free internet. Openness is UNESCO as open
systems. Should be open for entry, not a closed system.
That’s the beauty of the internet. If you have
centralized control, blocks, Monopolies, this is against the
idea of an open internet. At the same time, if you only have
proprietary facilities and services on the internet, that’s against
openness. So, one of the breaches of course of the
internet is that it runs on a mixed economy, I think you would
say, with a lot of open source software. Not particularly
there, but also open education resources and everything else. So, if you The Open, Free
Internet is for every stakeholder, forb UNESCO, it
means a rights-based internet and an open internet. It’s open
education resources, open software, and open markets as
well. Now, in the other part of this
equation, you also have the A and the M. And I think this is
important because the A is accessibility because
there’s not much point in having a free and open internet if it’s
not accessible to people. And actually, I do commend
Freedom House because when they assess freedom on the internet
they do look at the accessibility question which is
questions of affordability, for example. Questions of
infrastructure and so on. To what extent is the internet accessible . At UNESCO, we also refer to
media accessibility. Also in terms of the competence
people really need to use the internet, use it in a critical
way that’s going to advance the mutual knowledge and
understanding of all peoples and sustainable development. And
then multi-stakeholder, which is the M, is of course as everybody knows, we have the
Internet Governance Forum which is about the multi-stakeholder
participation in trying to make sure that you don’t have
unilateral decision making on the anybody because as soon as
you have the capture of the internet either by a company or
companies or by a government or governments, then you reduce
the internet. You certainly reduce the openness and you risk
the question of rights and accessibility for that matter. So, if you want to have rights,
openness, accessibility, you need to have a multi-stakeholder
practice. So, that, in a nutshell, is the interest of a stakeholder in
a free and open impact. Perhaps more about how that impacts
multi-stakeholder goals which Mariko said she also wants me to
address. By the way, we have some publications on this ROAM
universality model.>>MARIKO KOBAYASHI: So, if
anyone interested in this publication,
they can come to, yeah, here, after this
workshop. Okay. So we have one more expert from
the African Region technical
community, . So, I know that recent years
on African region has led to
controversial discussion on internet. I think she can input the
insights for how to build a dialogue between policy makers
and technical community. So, could you — okay.
>>Thank you, Mariko and apologies for coming in late, but, since I
didn’t miss much, I just fell into things. Hi, everyone. My name is Lillian Nalwoga. I’m from Uganda. Today I’m representing the
internet society. I’m president of the Subject
Society, Uganda. Just to give us a glimpse of
Africa, I think that’s where most of the fun is happening
when this comes to pushing internet for everyone or for
every stakeholder, as this session is looking at. And for those who are not
probably so much familiar . For those of you not familiar
with the situation in Africa, we’ve had the highest number of
Shutdowns. In 2015, for example, I think
there were 56 of these Shutdowns and
26 were from Africa. The technical community in Africa
has had a bit of push from
stakeholders, internet users to find a
solution to respond to governments. Just so you know,
Shutdowns, of course, always done by the governments. They
compare the private sector, the technical community to implement
this. And in 2017 I think at the Africa
internet summit there was a proposal that
was awarded to have take down IP
addresses of governments that, you know, implementing these
internet Shutdowns. Of course, as the internet
technical community, this was told that it
was a little bit far reached, the proposal that came from the
community. Some of the community members,
one was that even if we are saying no to internet shut
downs, we want everyone to connect. But, if we say that we
take down the IP addresses of governments that
are implementing this Shutdowns, then this would kind of either further
push away people who would be connecting, but of course, it will further lead to
inaccessibility of the internet because if you cut off the IP addresses
of the governments and these governments are the ones that
actually providing, they’re the ones that are buying the IP
addresses. They’re the ones that are providing certain services so you would be
cutting off certain accessibility. But, of course, another most recent trend is the
one that we are seeing around taxing social media users, and
this also kind of, you know, limits the issue of having
an open internet for everyone. And we know that in Africa,
majority of the users, of internet users
get to first experience internet social media platforms like
Facebook, WhatsApp, snap chat and all these other things. So,
when you cut that the accessibility, you are most
likely to prevent other people from getting on to the internet
or even for people to experience that internet to enjoy other. So, that’s once they connect to
the benefits the internet provides. From Uganda, where I come from,
for instance, just about this year,
this financial year which I think I
think begins July 1st, we had social
media . Introduced, I think five
cents to connect to it the internet and you have to pay
this particular tax for you to connect. If you don’t connect,
then you’re not off. So, when you put it in the
perspective that the majority of the internet users accessing internet through
social media, they first get that experience then they can
use other services then you’re most likely known to have people
connect, you know? One, the openness is cut off,
the freeness is cut off and then you
have these interesting thoughts and
what’s happening right now is there have been push backs. Of course, technical community
reacted saying if I go back to the issue
of the community, the technical
community say no, we cannot protect this but
from Uganda’s perspective, the
technical community. The taxation of internet users in
terms of social media that you have to first pay to access this
particular social media platform. One reason is because
there’s the issue of the policies that are
kind of repressive. If they do not implement this,
they are most likely to face hefty
fines. In terms of paying additional amounts of money or
having licenses terminate had had so probably they are also getting a bite in this because
they have to make the government. But also a trend from Uganda is
that we are seeing more and more countries within Africa adopting
the policy that was started in Uganda. Zambia, for example, also
introduced a daily tax on internet voice calls, around
three cents. And all this is, you know, to raise money and also Kenya as percentage or taxation on internet data services so all
these kind of pit service providers in tight positions how to negotiate with
the government. They want to help the government but also
raise revenue to remain in sustainable business so there’s
a bit of where do we draw a balance? Which side do we fall? Is it to the users or to the
governments who are providing us access into the markets so I’m
happy to take the discussion from there. Thanks.>>MARIKO KOBAYASHI: Thank you,
Lillian. So, from the audience, they have
any comments or opinions or question
on this internet Shutdown or like the dialogue between policy
makers, technical community and also ISVs, please
speak on your mic. Okay. Go ahead. Please turn on your mic. Thank
you.>>There we go. Okay. My name is Benita and I’m from
the DRC, Republic democratic of Congo and
recently we’ve been subject to internet Shutdown. With all the
political tension that is going on on the country right
now, it’s always internet Shutdown and we’ve tried to make
noise but we don’t see anything. So, I’m wondering, how can we
reach the internet technical community because it’s really a serious issuing
and we feel like we’ve been left alone.>>LILLIAN NALWOGA: Turks
Linette. I think, one, in Africa, the
technical community is actually listening. For example, if you speak to
Afrinic, they know what’s going on for automation that the
number of countries where internet Shutdowns has happened,
Uganda, all these other countries, but, like said, the challenge is we’ve
issued statements, for example, Afrinic
Internet Society has issued statements and there’s this sort
of dialogue. The internet Shutdowns, I think the way
they’re being calculated by the governments is national
security. Which, I had that as priority number 1, and of course happening around elections, I
think GRC, we know around elections which have not taken
place until now. But then there’s also this fear
for people to express themselves because where they’re happening,
we have this long history of, you know, people who have been governments forever
like say my president, your president,
all that sort of thing. The technical community may be a
little bit complicated to say that we are going to say no to the Shutdown. The
only success story I can put, for instance, in Uganda, was
sometime in 2011, government had ordered the Telecoms, the ISPs to shut down
internet because of course they had cited national security as a
caution. However, they say, no, we are
not going to take this because we don’t feel it’s something that is in the
interest of the users of our services. What has happened
between 2011 until now is we’ve seen a number of
legislations coming up and compelling these people to take
action where, if they do not take action, this
happens and I’m sure the same legislation that H for instance, is in my country
that is in your country. Right now, the technical
community is these kind of long term dialogues trying to see,
when we say no to this, how it’s going to affect our portability.
Mow is it going to affect our, you know, relationship with the
governments and that is where I think in my perspective where it
is at. However, also, we need to take
note that we look at the service
providers, who is providing internet access in majority of
African countries? One is, we have I’m sure in your country there’s Imchan, Uganda.
From India, from South Africa. When you look at that trend, I
think that when internet Shutdowns in India as well a
couple of times, I think this year. When you look at other service
providers like say Orange, which is, you
know, Orange is a French based
company. There are a kind of, they may
not implement certain measures. For instance, during the
internet Shutdown in 2016, people on
Afrisan, which is the version ever of Orange, did not
experience the block affect there were access in the
services so it also tells you where the service provider
coming from so if it’s within some of the countries, if it’s
within from the continent like say if we say Imchan, which is south African,
the legislation may be different and there may be much more
probably compelled to respond to the government request than a Telecom company that is not
based within Africa. But, as I can say, the technical
community, there’s that kind of dialogue where we draw a balance
between implementing this and implementing that. And of
course, in terms of, say, national security, governments
in their, at times we are thinking it is valid and we can
justify them, justify this reasoning to the Private Sector
but of course there are things that are currently being blocked
like child sex images, you know, that is being blocked. Right now in Uganda, you cannot
access pornography. It’s being blocked.
And it’s kind of, I don’t think so it’s a very complicated
situation in Africa. Yeah.>>MARIKO KOBAYASHI: T and also
comments from the audience. Hiro, do you have any comments
from the online moderator?>>HIROTAKA NAKAJIMA: Yes. Hi,
everyone. I’m the online moderator for this session, but, also, be part of
the technical community and I’ll just make some quick comments
about the technical community. So, that’s, we mentioned already before like Afrinic is one of
the contact points but also I believe that there is network operator groups, that
there should be like a regional operator groups and also
national operator groups will be available in your country or in
your region. So, they had like technical
expertise about how do they implement
those things? And they know what is, I mean,
working is not sometimes best but they
know that what is better way to do that. So, I think that they could be
one of the contact points. And also, I directly mention
that the Internet Society and, they’re
now working on the routing security. It’s like to ensure that routing
is on the internet should be secure
and ensure that no one can hi jack someone
else’s IP addresses, those things. So, I think that you
can take a look with those documents or can you
contact ISOC as well.>>MARIKO KOBAYASHI: Thank you,
Hiro. So, we still — Okay. Go ahead.
>>Thank you. My name is Partik. I’m a lawyer at Teler company,
Nordic, Baltic. I’m also at the global initiative GNI. I had a question to Freedom
House and one of the main conclusion themes of the latest
report was online manipulation and you said paid commentators
from states, for example. Could you put that in context of
the tool which is mentioned as an alternative for blocking which
is counternarratives where counternarratives should be as it is stated be an
alternative to terrorist propaganda, et cetera.
Can you put that in context of what you explained as a worry for online manipulators, state-paid
commentary, thank you.>>SANJA KELLY: Thank you very
much for that question. So, state propaganda, whether
that be through paid commentators or
through a spread of this information is a serious problem and I think it really is
going to require solutions of multiple
stakeholders and I think that’s one of the reasons it’s so fitting for
this panel. I think particularly in free societies, there is a push to
deal with this information with just, you know, posting
counternarrative that would then provide a more truthful
perspective of what is being said. You know, to which extent
that’s really effective , I think it’s still
questionable. I do think it has effect but
perhaps not as much effect as we would all hope that it would. I think there is an old saying
that by the time truth puts off her
pajamas in the morning, a lie will travel across half of the
world. I think that’s pretty much the state of the facts.
So, when we look at some of the fact-checking efforts, for
example, like we’ve seen numerous efforts where in order
to deal with this information, you know, there were a number of
NGOs and media organizations who are done fact checking what is
being said and then they’re posting block pieces or short
articles, kind of like, you know, disputing let’s say the
veer astir of something that is clearly, you know, this
information. But, what we have seen is that
people still like to click more on this explosive news even
though if there is a warning that it might not be truthful.
So, I think that’s a problem. So, for that reason, you know, I
do think countrer counternarratives as a concept
it’s going in the right direction but it’s not
sufficient. I think they really need to figure out what it is
that compels people to really consume this information. We
need to look into some of the psychological reasonings behind
that because even if we compare this information to nutrition labels, for example,
people have all the information that certain types of food are
bad for them. Like, nutrition labels say that
yet, you know, people choose to eat bad food. So, it’s kind of
similar to that. You know, right now, there are
many tools out there that are pointing out which information
is being false and you know, there are counternarratives
dealing with that. But yet, you know, it seems like those
efforts are having, you know, much more limited effect than we would
hope had and I think we need to figure out what the reason for
that is.>>MARIKO KOBAYASHI: Thank you
for your comment, and thank you, Sanja. So we have about more 30
minutes so we’re going to move on to the next. So, before we move on to the
part 2, I would like to ask the participants, so, what is your
stakeholder, where are you from, the stakeholder, like, so
if you are from the, is anyone from the government? A few. There it is, thank you.
So, the technical community? Not so much. Very few.
Business sector raise your hand oh, just thank you. So, on Civil Society. Oh, I think the math or the.
Thank you. So, yeah, regulator. I’m sorry
like the government is the same thing . Independent. Okay. Thank
you. So, the next part will be how to
build dialogue between the legacy and policy makers and we invited from the commission on the . So, I’d like to ask you, how
do policy makers recognize the freedom on
the open free internet. How do you think good impact on
this economy?
>>So, hello, everyone. My name is — from the European
commission. I’m in charge of internet policies and
development of the next generation internet commission
will have a workshop tomorrow so I allow myself to do the
publicity for this workshop. So, before explaining how we
take into account the views of the stakeholders, used like to
just remind everyone what is our stake, what is our position in
European commission on freedom of speech.
So, it’s a fundamental right. So, it is a part of the charter
of fundamental rights so this is something we take very seriously and it
has been our position in this forum but also in general in all internet policies
to support an open and free internet and this is, indeed,
very, very important to keep this openness of the internet.
So, the idea is that anyone can connect to the internet. Anyone can connect to anyone . For us, it is important to
ensure it continues in the future and brings the social
progress and positive impact that it should have. Free speech is also a very important. It’s the way the
internet has allowed to communicate across borders.
It’s a great tool for public and private debate and we are not
going to enter into elections time at the European level so
the internet is going to be one of the key platform to have this
political debate ahead of the elections. And it’s also a
great tool to have unforget unfett erred session to
knowledge so in a way, the internet is now a platform for people to get informed. So, we see openness as one of
the key characteristics of the internet together with trust and
inclusions. And we have a framework to make sure that this is implemented so
Thomas has already mentioned the Net
Neutrality rules. So, in Europe, end users can
have the right to access and distribute information, the
content application and services of their choice and there is no
possibility for internet access providers to ban or to
discriminate. So, that’s, at the level of the network, there
is this strong nondiscrimination provision. I would also mention at an upper
level, at service level, the electronic commerce directive which has put
in place the limited liability regime for platforms.
So, platforms in Europe are not expected to filter content, but they are
expected once they get to know that there is illegal content,
that they host illegal content to remove it quickly.
And this was important and I know there are equivalent rules
in other parts of the world to promote the development of user generated content and the hopes. I will also mention, the other
important instrument we have implemented is free flow of
data. In Europe, we have free flow of data and GDPR which
foresees free flow of personal data so the data can flow freely and I think this is also
a very important basic content to allow freedom of information and freedom of
speech. At the same time, we need to
protect this free and open internet and we cannot allow that illegal and
harmful content spreads on the internet
or online disinformation spreads because this would completely
ruin the type of debate we can have.
So, certain safe guards are feeded and we have put in place
a number of these safe guards. I would mention two thing has. One is, recommendation on the
removal of illegal contents. So, we ask operators on the
internet to quickly remove illegal
content, have in place clear notice and
takedown measures. But also, we foresee and it is
important precisely to preserve freedom of speech appropriate
safe guards in the form of redress mechanism. In case, for
example, the content is removed by mistake. We also foresee
that governments should put in place effective judicial
remedies as Thomas was mentioning in case an operator does not agree
with the request to remove certain content. And of course, there is always
human oversight of automated tools. A lot of the removal is
taking place with automated tools but we need
to have human oversight. Another interesting instrument
is what you have done in terms of removing online information.
In there, we have not followed the regulatory approach, we have
followed the self-regulatory approach. So, we have agreed
last month a self-regulatory practice on this information for online platforms
and the advertising sector. So, within five months, we have
managed to put on the table different stakeholders and they
have agreed on a number of principles to make sure that we keep the internet free from
online disinformation. Now, we need to see how it
works. We need to see that it is properly implemented but it shows that we
can have a self-realtory approach. We can arrive at the free and
open internet but collaborating with the stakeholders. And
that’s, so, that’s one way to do it and of course when we do
legislation, we do it together with the
stakeholders. We organize public consultation workshops
and there is debates, we tried to have debate a different stage
of the policy making process to make sure that the view of all
the stakeholders are fully taken obviously you cannot impose rules which is
have important impact without properly involving the
stakeholders, without properly taking into account their views and how to protect fir fundamental rights including
freedom of speech.>>MARIKO KOBAYASHI: T. so, I think in this rooming we
have several governments and also the
regulator. I’d like to ask several of you. So, when you
discuss, so, for instance, the contents blocking. Like, sometimes, you have ways
that Civil Society or also technical community or like, if you were
to remove the contents or block some
contents by DNS or by IP address, even
applied to stakeholders so, what do you feel the barrier for doing the dialogue
between the policy makers and also other stakeholders, if you have any experience about it. Thank you. Go ahead. Yeah.>>Actually, forgive me. I’m
not answering your question because I have another thing
which is, I think it’s important. Concerning freedom of internet
in the EU, and this concerns the voting
of article 13 in the directive for the single digital market. There has been a lot of
discussion about this. This is, for those
who don’t know, it’s a provision in the EU law that every single
content that is uploaded from every single user in the EU
will be censored to scan for copy right
infringement, which H I think it is a major
setback in internet freedom and I would
like its opinion of Mr. Oliver on that.>>MARIKO KOBAYASHI: Oliver, do
you have any comments on this?>>Yeah. So, first of all, it’s not law
yet. So, the commission has made a
proposal. This proposal has been presented
to the parliament, what we call the Keio legislators so the
European parliament and the council of Member States and
they have made a number of amendments and the parliament has recently
back in September voted on the text which includes a number of
amendments. But, then, the next stage will
be that the three institutions get together and discuss and agree on the final
law. I think the, in a way, I would
reply to the two questions so to your questions and to the question of
Maricosa, right? When use the term censored, I
think it is excessive. I mean, the purpose is not that the platform censor user generated
content . What the provision says is
that the online platforms are responsible and should make sure
they put in place the measures to remove, to take down contents it that infringe copy
right. This is not censorship. This is making sure that
intellectual property is being respected. And again, there are and there
will be a number of safe guards to make sure that
this is not done fully automatically . So, I will say that not
censorship but removing content that is illegal that infringes copy right. And
I think this is, to reply to your question, Mariko, I would
say if we want to discuss these issues and arrive at balanced
solution, I think we need to have, it’s difficult, but I
think we need to have a discussion or debate. We need to really be einfect
you’ll and that’s the best way to arrive at solutions which
take into account the different requirements and the
different constraints of the stakeholders.
So, I would say this is quite important when we discuss such a
heated issue to try to put everyone around the table and try to have as dispassionate
debate as possible.>>MARIKO KOBAYASHI: Thank you.
So, you have a comment?>>Thank you. Yes, on the same theme of privatized enforcement and the
strong need for rule of law where what is illegal or not
should not be decided by private entities, I wanted to pick up
on, of course, there is, everyone in the room, I guess, I
hope agrees that there’s a need for action against terror
propaganda everywhere in the world. But, you talk about human
oversight on what is removed and I wonder
how that fits together for the
request, in practice, requests for automated takedown. A
one-hour deadline for takedown. How does that go together? Human oversight and one-hour
takedown limit and auto that he is mization.
Thanks.>>MARIKO KOBAYASHI: Thank you. So , we were, we can replay. Yep.>>I don’t know the details of
how this is going to be implemented but the idea is that terrorist content is
most harmful in the first hours where
it is posted on the internet. This is where it spreads the
most quickly so the idea is to act at
this crucial moment and what the, so, we are speaking here of proposal for
regulation by the commission, still needs
to be addressed to remove very quickly
terrorist content. The idea is that the request
will come from a public authority. It’s not a notice in takedown
coming from anywhere. There’s a notice of public authority,
particularly the police, so I think there is already a sense
of trust about the request and then, indeed H the purpose is to
have it removed within one hour . I don’t want to be too
specific because I’m not — but I guess
it’s a request from police it’s being handled by people on the
side of the operator so I don’t think it would be fully
automated. I think there is a huge human dimension in this removal
process.>>MARIKO KOBAYASHI: Thank you,
Oliver. So, I’d like to ask the experts. So, do you feel some barriers
for, to dialogue , building dialogue with like
the policy makers of governments from your stakeholder. And how
do you want to the improve? If you have, if you feel any
barriers? Yeah>>SANJA KELLY: So, from the
perspective of Civil Society, we have a human problem in some parts of the
world where we’ve seen this trend of closing civic spaces.
Which means that Civil Society is being squeezed out of
conversations not just about internet policy but just
generally, we’ve seen governments in much of the world, you know,
more authoritarian governments
suppressing freedom of government and information and
assembly, which means that Civil Society is not only that they’re
not brought to the table , but they are actively being
arrested for stating their views.
So, in this environment when it’s happening, I think when we
talk to activists in some of these
countries they almost kind of laugh at you us highway where he
say moiled collaboration. They say, there’s no way for me to
have access to my government at all. In fact, I’m lucky if they
don’t arrest me if I say something critical of government
policies so I think that’s just a reality that is, that
many in Civil Society currently face.
I think the second point I wanted to make is that very often
different stakeholder groups are being kind of like grouped all together but there is a huge
difficulty of interests in each stakeholder groups. So, we see the issue of Net
Neutrality, when you talk about private sector, you have ISPs
having different interests from media content companies and I think the similar thing is
in Civil Society. So, I do think that it’s very important to think about each stakeholder
group being diverse in its own in order to effectively bring everyone on
the table. With that said, I do want to
mention that we have seen some very
encouraging examples of multi-stakeholder cooperation
for good. So we’ve seen that in places like Nigeria with their
digital rights bill. For those of you not familiar,
this is a piece of legislation that was pass bid the Senate in Niger Yay that
guarantees users some basic rights to the internet. This
was something initiated by Civil Society but obviously needed
support by the government and eventually received support of
the private sector so it is something that is a concrete
piece of legislation that can be used as a good example. We’ve
seen that in some other countries like for example, the
country of Georgia, when the government decided to institute
access to the internet as a part of their new Constitution. And
again, this came as an initiative by Civil Society that
worked together with government and then they were able to get support by the technical
community. So, again, I do think that there are some really good examples but
the bottom line is that most of those
countries are, have such political environments where
such multi-stakeholderrism is possible and, you know, and unfortunately, that’s not the
case in much of the world .
>>MARIKO KOBAYASHI: T Sanja. So, I would like to ask . So, we need input from the
audience. Like, is from the stakeholders
so, how about business sector in the audiences? How do you think
about this problem? Or technical community? No. Or
also Civil Society. Okay. So please, Guy.
>>GUY BERGER: So, I think this question of policy discussions,
you can approach it directly through internet
related discussions and I think what’s important then is to have this perspective
because if it’s one issue you start talking about like copy rights, it
implications for these other issues. If it’s security,
implications. Fingerprint it’s accessibility, any discussions
needs to be not just focused on one issue but put in the
ecosystem of the internet because this is an integrated,
interdependent entity and I think that’s where this ROAM
model is useful. So, that’s one approach. The other approach is to come to
these internet policy discussions
through the SDGs, Sustainable Development Goals, because all
governments have signed on to these goals and so all
governments should be engaged and be open to
dialogue around the Sustainable Development Goals. And these goals are not just for
the developing world. These are universal goals like combating
climate change and gender equality or so. People here may
not know that there is a goal 16-ten, which is public
access to information and fundamental freedoms. Now, like
some other goals, for example, goal on gender equality, goal on
education, these goal that’s can really impact on the achievement
of all other goals because if you don’t
have gender equality, you don’t have education, it’s very hard
to see how you’re going to have cities or life under the
ocean and so on. So, I think that the sustainable
goal 1610, public access to information and fundamental freedoms as part of
the SDG pack an and a real enabler of
achieving those other SDGs, this really gives a lever to engage
government on internet issue has because how can you have public
access to information and fundamental freedoms with the
arts, an internet that is respecting rights of open and
multi-stakeholder. I think if anybody hasn’t tried
this, it’s a very important dialogue,
not just for the sake of internet but for the humanity because if we don’t
have sustainable development
achieved, we’re just going to see continuing strife, warfare, conflicts and
environmental degradation to the point of no return.
>>MARIKO KOBAYASHI: Thank you for your comment, Guy. So, I’m from Japan and in our
environment, the governments and also business sector, like, set a
goal to accomplish SDGs. As Guy said,
it can be some common sense for different stakeholders, I think>>Oh, actually it’s not in
response to you, but I was going to say, considering that we have
Patrick from GNI here and GNI is such a great multi-stakeholder
initiative with the private sector and Civil Society, I
guess two stakeholders there in some academia, I wonder whether
there are any lessons learned from GNI model that we can apply
elsewhere.>>I agree, GNI become a great
initiative. We work hard with many
challenges issues. I think a GNI has a huge
potential but it’s also difficult to work with
50 plus strong organizations. So, we need to continue to do
good work. I don’t really know what the more exact question was so if you could repeat that to
me, I could be more helpful.>>I was just wondering if there
are any GNI models on multi-stakeholder policy
discussions on how to best reach that agreement among different
stakeholders and contentious issues whether
that be countering vital extremism or copy right. All of
these are obviously very heated debates where people have
divergent point of views.>>Thank you. So, yes, what GNI definitely
provides is a safe space for more open discussions on, as you
say, sometimes very challenging issues where very often, we see that we have
joint interests, joint goals, and when
we meet and learn each other, that we have these
same aims, we can get more hand on to the problems and discuss more
constructively . I think that’s a big win and
something that the GNI provides within the GNI community.
Thanks.>>MARIKO KOBAYASHI: Okay. My — wanted to highlight the
issue of multi-stakeholder discussions. On a personal level (lillian
speaking) what I’ve observed in our region, say, in Africa, is
that most of the times, conversations around the private
sector would be between private sector or technical community
and government, un why, the Civil Society voice or
other stakeholders’ voices are usually not represented. Like in terms of, say, what GNI is
doing, I find that most of the times that
we have kind of at the global level and
we need to reach out more to the regional levels where there are more threats to
the internet. First, I say, in Africa, I’m not
so sure how many representatives say from the private sector from the GNI network are from Africa
because if we could have more of these voices then we would be
able to, I know from Civil Society there are a couple
representatives from Africa but from the business and private sector , how do we get more voices to
come and engage with the government. Sorry to put you on
the spot.>>Yes, if I could answer that,
of course, GNI an open organization, open
membership for applications but GNI membership also goes with quite some commitments
on there is assurance, we are open
with, for other companies to join but
it comes with commitments. Companies operators, outside of
the GNI need to answer for
themselves if there are ready to take
commitments , which contains all of the four
constituencies of GNI. To see if the company is
eligible for membership. But, a strong idea, of course, with
the GNI as such which you imply with your question is that the
more members, both Civil Society, academics, investors,
NGOs, companies, the more we are, the more leverage, of
course, there is to address the issues of thanks.>>MARIKO KOBAYASHI: Thank you,
Ian Lillian, so, I think we have just four minutes left so I want
to move on to the wrap-up this workshop. So, as I wrap up, I like to ask
the one person from antistakeholder,
I would like to ask, so what is the
positive effect, positive impact of the
free internet in your stakeholder and
I appreciate if somebody from the audience can speak about this, but if
there’s no — I would ask the speakers
here. Anyone want to appeal the positive effect from your
stakeholder? So this needs speakers.
>>Right. I can say it. I mean, for me, right now,
representing technical community, of course, when the internet is
open, I’m not so sure about the free aspects, free to what
level. But, if it’s open and accessible
for everyone, the more profit, the
more operations will go on, the more people connected. The more
people connected, the more benefits. But, also wanted to mention that
there’s this global campaign of keeping it on that is current, ongoing
from the internet associates, part of this campaign. So, I
will just appreciate everyone to go to the hashtag and continue
pushing again, against internet
Shutdowns of the actually, right now in Uganda this week, we
have, there was a case on the internet Shutdown until 2016 and
there’s a Keio chair this week. And so, if we can push more and
push our government to keep it on, probably at a government, if we in this
case.>>MARIKO KOBAYASHI: Sanja, one
minute.>>SANJA KELLY: Well, for Civil
Society, internet has been essential in the ability to push for greater
rights and we’ve seen this in some of the most challenge, most
repressive environments. So even places like Saudi Arabia
was of online campaigns we’ve seen the right to drive to flourish, for
example, or we’ve seen some of the public authorities being
brought to justice in places like Russia because of
citizens going on to YouTube to talk about corruption, we, for
the first time, would see it actual reaction from the
authority it’s. So, we’ve seen internet really
brunging rights and realization of those rights to the next
level. But, as a result of that, we’ve,
unfortunately, also seen suppression. But, I think I remain an
optimist so I do think that internet will be essential for
our human rights.>>MARIKO KOBAYASHI: Thank you,
Thomas?>>THOMAS GROB: I’m rather
optimistic as well. I think the internet is simply
the greatest tool for everybody to share and to publish,
actually. Anybody can be a publisher and I’m personally hopeful actually that this AI
symmetry we see is very important because I think it’s
important that not just Blockbuster content being
consumed by millions which are identical content. I think
there’s a huge facilitate for more diversity and I’m hoping
the development is going in that direction.>>MARIKO KOBAYASHI: Thank you.
So, Guy?>>GUY BERGER: Well, I share the
optimism of colleagues here and I think that if we see that the
internet is this most marvelous instrument for free flow
communication and that should be the default setting it means
that any limitations should be, according to national standard,
they must be absolute necessary P proportionate to the purposes
and the purposes must be legitimate so I
think it’s important to keep making that call that any
limitation should be the exception and should have to be
justified. We cannot have a free flow of ideas and understanding and knowledge,
free journalism. If you don’t, put some
limitations on any limitations so any
regulators or governments wanting to regulate need to look
at this value of international standard, necessity,
proportionality, legitimate purpose.
>>MARIKO KOBAYASHI: Thank you, so Oliver?>>So, I would also agree
colleagues on the fact that the internet is really a great platform for open debate
and organization and we need it. I think there are times for
limitation and I agree with Guy here that it needs to be
necessary and it needs to be proportionate. And when we go
into such safe guard measures, we should not go as government
in the topdown manner but we should really involve the
multi-stakeholder community and its different constituencies to
make sure that we address their worries and we
produce better rules or better cause of practices and I think
this is really a joint responsibility. This is
something we should do together and it doesn’t rest on the
government.>>MARIKO KOBAYASHI: Sorry, from
the organizer, I also represent the youths and so I think . So, I would like to continue
how to include business stake and business tech community and
how to equity connect those stakeholders and policy makers. It can be great
to connect each stakeholder so that’s why I organized this
workshop here. Finally, I want to thank you for
all of the participants in this room. I’m very glad to include
all of you here so if you have any comments
or opinion, please let me share after this workshop. Thank you.
That’s all. (applause) (Session was concluded at 3:36
AM CT) ***
This text, document, or file is based on live transcription.
Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART), captioning,
and/or live transcription are provided in order to facilitate
communication accessibility and may not be a
totally verbatim record of the proceedings. This text,
document, or file is not to be distributed or used in any way
that may violate copyright law. *** Captioning on this screen
_ The past, the present and the
future for multi-stakholderism 10:40 AM>>MODERATOR: Okay. Good
morning, everyone. I think it’s the right time to start our session because we’re
already ten minutes past the designated time. So, this session will be about
history of the multi-stakeholder model and we also want to talk
about how the multi-stakeholder model is practiced in the united governance world and
we also want to talk about how this
multi-stakeholder model can be developed in the future or how can can be
directed toward some other ways than it was taken, it has been taken so far. So I’m going to introduce you to
today’s panelists one by one, from my
left side. So, Marcus Kummer is an internet
policy expert with — especially the United Nations internet institution
like ICANN. He also used to work account
Internet Society and from 2004 to 2011 he
worked for the United Nations as the executive coordinator for
the working group on internet governance and subsequently, the secretary on purchasing the
Internet Governance Forum. So, he was there even before IGF
came into the. Marcus is now based in the
Netherlandss. Netherlandss Sandra became
involved in the united governance in 2006 by
chair which can the European summer Google on internet
governance and participating in ICANN’s at large advisory
committee. Sandra’s contribution both to
the ICANN community and access are
dedicated to deliver a dedicated ground for different stakeholder
groups and to develop her different stakeholder processes
that are transparent. In 2,017 she was reporting to,
since 2019, advice chair of the directors of EuroDIG, the registry for the.EU
domain. and next, a top facilitator with
the Modelo foundation where he is researching the ongoing
development and harmonization of global privacy standardization
laws. And right next to Ayden is
professor Kuo Wu. Kuo Wu has extensive knowledge in the
united policy measures. Between 1,980 rearing and 1987,
Kuo Wu worked for Cray research and this was the time for him to
use the internet. Between 1987 and 1988 he worked
for multicomputer flow organization. Between 1988 and 1990, he went
back to work for Cray research again and
between 1990 and 1998, he ape operated
one of the first super computing
centers in the AP region and began to deal with
the internet and operate computing poms back then and he
also used to serve as a member in ICANN as well and he also
used to work for Telecom
international and he also used to work to implement
IP policies policies as well.
And thank you for coming. Because this session will be
more about the round table, we really anticipate you to
participate a lot just coming to and asking questions about
multi-stakeholder model, even between the panelists huer
talking about what he they are saying. And you can also tell
about what’s happening in your region considering the
multi-stakeholder model and we’ll expect a lot from your
participation. Thank you. So to begin this session, we just wanted to listen to more about how IGF
came to be and how multi-stakeholder model was
dependented considering this IGF. So, we just want to listen to Marcus Kumer’s history lesson a
bit.>>Thank you, it’s a great
measure for me to be here this morning. I said when we
compared the session I’m not going to gave long speech and
I’m definitely not going to prepare a big presentation, as many of you
are longstanding participants in the
IGF. Let me just make a few points and I hope if you have
questions or if you think I’m off the track, keep shouting and
I hope to be as interactive as possible. But, let me just explore a few areas, first of
all, the use of the term multi-stakeholder, look back a
little bit at the history but then also look at function of
the different Os and lastsly maybe
also have a few thoughts on the role of governance. Now, multi-stakeholder has
become a very popular term and by now,
absolutely everybody claims fob multi-stakeholder. We have from ICANN, IGF to start
with. ICANN, ITU, the world economic
forum, they all say they are multistakeholder organizations and it obviously
has different meaning to different people but somehow I
feel the inflation Harry use of the term, it’s like inflation
and money, the more inflation you have, the less value you have of the mand
that also may be inflationary use of
the term diminishes the value because we don’t know what we’re
talking about. That’s why it may be useful to look back a bit
at the history. Words, they come and go in their fashions.
I do remember back in the 1,990 recks, the absolute faction was PPPs,
public private partnerships. That was then seen as the silver bullet to solve all the problems especially in a development
corporation and multi-stakeholder was not
that much in use. Although it was practiced. The summit opened up greatly
nongovernment actors in Civil Society and a business and that
inclusive character was very much part of the concept of sustainable
development, but they did not use the term multi-stakeholder. In 98, a pivotal year for ICANN
and ICANN was set up as an
organization to administer the domain name system. The term
was nod used multi-stakeholder, it was then used the private sector . ICANN was a private sector
led organization as opposed to government led organizations, such as
UNESCO, in whose building we are using today. And the part in mine yap list
started the WSIS program and the general
assessmently resolution calling for a world summit on the
information society. Again, they did not use the term
multi-stakeholder. They used governments that
should also include private sector and Civil Society.
>>So, I have a question. So, back then, it was more about
like multiled, what the government was expecting from the internet.
>>It was set up as a classical summit where governments sit on
the top of the pyramid or in the front of the room and the other
actors sit behind and that was very much the discussions we had . I do remember the very first
visits in 2002, it was a painful
exercise in establishing rules of procedure.
Some governments wanted to make sure that there was not too much
room given to nongovernmental actors and they clearly were sitting in the back at the room. They
were given maybe five minutes at the lunch break when delegates
started packing up then sometimes allotted to Civil
Society or business speakers. They organized themselves very
well . They had their own bureau so
there was one speaker speaking on behalf of Civil Society.
They only interfered at the end. Then during the WSIS process,
there was some minor improvements, some innovations.
One innovation was actually discussed in this very building in July
2003 that maybe they should be an opening
for nongovernmental speaker at the end of each item. Instead
of just coming at the end of the morning session that the
share should open discussion to allow nongovernmental speakers
to come in at the end of each agenda item and then at the next
agenda item, again, governments first. The end of the first phase of
WSIS in 2003, that was then a mandate given to inspector general of the UN . Books like a working group to
internet governance and that clearly said should include all
stakeholders. This, that working group was
able to be all participants of the
working group, members of the internet governance represented
stakeholders and there, they participanted as
leaders. We also had the open meetings where they interacted
with the broader community and there again there was no hierarchy . Everybody was allowed to
intervene. They wanted without having to
wait for governments first and this had an influence, then, on
the second phase of WSIS with a which was much more open and the
IGF came out of that and adopted exactly the same methodology.
>>So, you mean that like from 1990, there were a growing
influence from the Private Sectors and they used to , started to play bigger roles
compared to previous years and each atmosphere was there but it was only
substance 2003, the multi-stakeholder process
officially started to be adopted in the —
>>Yes, it’s also, the rules of procedure for WSIS we had
adopted, the state of the art rules of procedure but there are
still very classical government-heavy with this
working group on internet governance, we managed to
breakup this pattern and that influence to second phase of
WSIS and that was also much more open to nongovernmental stakeholders . When negotiating the first
outcome document of WSIS in 2003, I
happened to chair the negotiating group on
internet governance and that was then a government only group. There was the CEO of ICANN in
the room but I had to send him out at the request of some
governments. He was not allowed in. That change completely in the
second phase of WSI S and the mandate given to the
secretary general was a forum to discuss public policy issues. That based itself on the model
of WCIG. The working group on internet governance. If you
look at the outcome document of Geneva 2003 mentions
multi-stakeholders two or three times, but in rather obscure
contexts. Whereas in the Tunis outcome
document, the Tunis agenda has multi-stakeholder all over the
place and that was taken from the report of the working group
on internet governance. And when then the IGF was set up,
the model clearly was a multi-stakeholder model where all stakeholders
participate as equals but again, a group
that is known as MAG now, multi-stakeholder advisory group
to begin with was just called advisory group. And then the
term was not used. And then by 2008, we used the term
multi-stakeholder advisory group as informally it had been used by especially Civil Society from 2008 onwashed also the UN
regioned in all official press releases. But, that is maybe a good segue
to also look at his function. The IGF, a function is not an
operational function. The IGF is here to discuss
policy issues and the multi-stakeholder format was amazingly well accepted by
all stakeholders, including governments. We were slightly apprehensive
ahead of the first meeting but you did see a member, there was one workshop
who a representative was sitting on the floor because the chairs
left, which is unthinkable in the traditional UN context but that was accepted
and most participants felt this open
format led to open and vibrant discussions and that is, in essence, the success
of the IGF that it allows stakeholders to come together as equals but again, IGF has no direct responsibility, no operational responsibility. The internet, they have
operational procedures. But clearly, no procedure in place.
>>So, definitely younger generation because I came into the internet governance in 2016 so somehow it’s quite
surprising to hear there was no room for
private sectors to talk in very lengthy
manners back in like 2000 or even before that. So, it was
only after the multi-stakeholder model has been somehow like
officially adopted by the U.S. and that the private sectors
could somehow come into the Internet
Governance Forums and talk, was given the equal with the
government access as well. That’s what I got, too.>>Well, this is maybe slight exaggeration of the
sector as it is, but it’s just, the private sector was always
involved that the rights given to the nongovernmental
actors were more limited in the IGF, so to speak. But
the point I’m trying to make it it’s possible to be so open and
loose in many ways as the IGF has no
responsibility. Whereas, organizations that have a direct
operational responsibility such as ICANN, for instance, you need
to have more procedure in place. And again, of the internet organizations,
iStarters known as ICANN, regional internet registries.
Their question is, they say they’re multi-stakeholder, but
are they truly multi-stakeholder in the sense of, what is the
role of governments? . ICANN is a very sophisticated
model that governments participate but do they
participate as equals? There’s some who don’t like their role
in ICANN because they are there in an advisory capacity. They
feel we come in at the end of the process. Now, other people
think that governments have too much say in ICANN because they
have vitae rote? No, they don’t but they have a
way to influence the board. But, that’s another discussion.
But, if there’s a question, you may well ask. It’s not like the
IGF where everybody participates as equals in ICANN. The roles are very clearly
distributed and there is Monopoly for policy development
and that is with the generic names supporting organization
and the GNSO is also very jails of their
role. But, clearly, ICANN is not
government-led. That, again, brings us back to
the origin of ICANN which was set up
as a private sector-led organization.
>>Okay. Because you have mentioned GNSO,
and I know that — is active. She has been very active in GNSO
as well. So I just want to press the mic to Ayden so he can
somehow talk about how you think about — how they
operate. In general.
>>AYDEN FERDELINE: Sure. Hi, everyone. My name is Ayden and I’m a
fellow within the foundation and I’m also a counselor on the GMSO
for the noncommercial stakeholders group so I’m very
cynical about multi-stakholderism in general.
I don’t think it is particularly representative. I don’t think
it’s particularly accountable. I’m not sure it necessarily
leads to good policy being developed. I think it can
somehow lead to policy being voluntaried through exhaustion rather than through a reliance
on evidence or a reliance on trying to reach the best
possible outcome. And I think later when I speak,
I would prefer to speak a bit more
broadly than ICANN to speak about internet governance in
general because I’m very cynical about the multi-stakeholderism
that is practiced within ICANN itself because I think there are
certain stakeholders that have more muscle than others. The governments have muscle by
virtue of state power. The private sector has musted by
virtue and Civil Society is essentially brushed aside and ignored and
I’m not sure that the institutional set-up is really
designed to allow all perspectives to filter through versus perspectives to filter
through where there may be some kind of benefit to what I would call the not
impartial organization that is responsible for ultimately
implementing the policy that this multi-stakeholder community
developed. So, I’m sorry for that healthy
dose of realism that I’ve just added there because, would you like me now
to speak just about multi-stakeholder and internet
governance? Because that’s something that I it would sort
of say that I think is something that is desirable and it’s
something to be protected. For so many reasons. It’s just
unfortunate that I think a lot of the case studies of where
it is applied aren’t really great. Whether that is because
of the lack of accountability, whether that is
because of many issues, and
increasingly, I’m wondering, is it evenness? And that’s a
really provocative statement that I’ve just made there as
well but I think we’ve seen in recent years that many of the
reasons behind resorting to the model simply
haven’t proven to be true. So, I guess there were two classical
explanations for multi-stakeholderism. Firstly that it was this natural extension of the enlightenment
and Jeffersonian principles. This idea that particular power without
representative of the government is illegitimate. Other
interested parties could participate in the policy
deliberations that would impact them alongside governments.
That’s good. And so, that’s how institutions
like ICANN gained their legitimacy to govern, I would argue, they gained their legitimacy in direct proportion
to which they facility the participation of the
stakeholders impacted by the decisions that they make. I guess the second explanation
for why multi-stakholderism came to be
was that one can’t have a global infrastructure who’s interoperability is
dependent upon dozens overlapping rules,
overlapping frameworks, it just wouldn’t work. So, to ensure that the internet continued to operate at this
global comment, these frameworks and
policies had to be developed in a in way that would allow
forints operability. There was a traditional solution here, a
historical solution that was avoided which was global treaty
organizations. We could have, their regulatory
approach would have provided for an overall commonality of
frameworks but they would not have provided for open,
equitable, nongovernmental participation and they certainly
would not have provided for open, equitable Social Security
participation. And so, for those reasons we
sort of avoided the historical solution. And when I say we, here, I
really mean nonstate actors and in particular, Civil Society.
So , we encourage ghostses not to
regulate unilaterally, we encourage them
to discuss on a basis of shared
values and mutual interest. And for the long time that seemed to
be the best approach but I was thinking about this earlier this
year when enforcement of the European union’s general data
protection regulation came into effect. What this really validated was
states taking extra territorial regulatory measures and it
working and enforcement actually happening. And I’m not saying
this would work for every state, but every state is going to have
the power, but I think that we’ve now, be it because of
circumstance or intentional strategy that we missed two
decades ago, we now improved state interest can actually be
maintained for some of the regulations that have an
internet-wide effect. And that is something that I
think is really interesting and worth watching over the coming
years because I think we’re going to see a variety of new regulations emerging from states
with extra territorial effect and
serge as someone who researches the development of data
regulations, I’m not expecting to see any regulations
emerge that are radically different from the GDPR. I
think we’ve also seen this outsider’s need for stakeholders
to comply with the first law that comes to market, so to speak, will
effectively preclude other frameworks be they stronger or
weaker from getting due consideration. So, I think that
is also something really interesting. So, I’m going to
leave my remarks here. I think I made a few provocative
statements. Feel free to approach me to
discuss further but I guess what I sort
of insinuated here is that the
European union kind of displays the multi-stakeholder model with
the multilateral model online. And it seems to be working. And suddenly, a very shrewd
approach, if it was intentional. But certainly a valuable lesson
for all involved.>>Yeah, thank you, Ayden for
that, that is actually quite help. I mean, I said I was not
cynical, but said you were cynical. But I also question whether
ICANN is truly multi-stakeholder in the same sense the IGF is and
there are reasons for that. I mean, the IGF is really
something with no direct responsibility. My next point
would have been exactly that. Was going to say who remembers John Perry Barlow. He used to be the literal cyst
of the Grateful Dead but he also
declared the independence of cyber space in the 1990s and
with strong belief we don’t need governments anymore but now we
clearly see governments are back and the GDPR is a very good
example. And in many ways, in the past
few years, many have said multilateralism
versus multi-stakholderism and I would
also question whether that is not a false dicot my in a sense. The IGOs have clearly opened up to nongovernmental actors.
They recognize the real expertise is clearly outside of
governments and that was also clearly what led to the
formation of ICANN as the U.S. government felt an IGO would not be well equipped to deal with a
fast moving technology. But, governments are back but we have
not yet quite found the right balance on how to work with governments . They want to work on the
train, that’s for sure. But they can’t be sure. With that,
I conclude and happy to answer questions.>>MODERATOR: Okay. So I just
want to pass my mic so Sandra because she has been also
working in like European IGF as well. So, I certainly believe that she
has a lot more to talk about all these processes and
multi-stakeholder model as well. So, how do you think it’s
actually like being practiced within the
European continents?>>SANDRA HOFERICHTER: Well, I
can speak, first of all, before I get critical here, I want to
make sure that I really whole heartedly support the
multi-stakeholder model. I think that’s the best model to
move forward with. It’s not perfect as democracy is also not perfect and not even reality
in our countries in the world but it’s probably the form of state that and I think for regulation.
Internet and also for regulation of other sectors like energy or
climate, multi-stakeholder model should be the model that should be aimed at,
but, as I said, it’s not perfect. For markers,
intervention, I understood the big achievement
from the WSIS project was that Civil Society for the first time
was not standing out of the door, outside protest egg but
had no right to speak when groups came together and started
to discuss the digital future. But now we see that Civil
Society is the biggest stakeholder group at least in
the IGF and this has also some backlash because we are missing
other stakeholders, we are missing to a great extent a
technical community and we are missing the private sector and
here it is the same as if we miss
Civil Society in the past. You miss one stakeholder group and
weaken the group. Therefore we have to strengthen our efforts
to include all stakeholders equally. As an organizer, I’m
asking myself how to achieve this. Just inviting them? They
are not coming. It has cost implications, time implications
so they decide, am I going there or not? And therefore, this
call for a more tangible outcome is on the
table. Personally, I think if we would have an IGF every year,
negotiate a declaration or something at the end, we would
really lose the openness of the debate. Just imagine big
companies are attending the IGF because they want to have their
little piece in the declaration, same applies for government. I
think this works on the other hand, push back and I’ll Civil Society again. So, I
don’t think that’s a solution. At EuroDIG, sorry if I do a
little bit of promote, but EuroDIG, we prevent those
message has. Messages is a rather neutral term. It is a
recommendation. It is something that comes out but not something
what was negotiated in a way. And IGF last year started also
to produce messages and I hope they will continue this year
because I really think this is a term, a type of outcome that you can put forward, that
you can revisit one or two years after and see what happened in
the past. I think there are still a lot of
space for improvement. Then, something I also realized
when we are trying to reach out to new communities, for
instance, insurance sector. Banking sector. Healthcare
sector, pharmacy. They are all affected by what we
call Internet Governance but if you go to them and say, you
should participate in the Internet Governance Forum and
discuss the regulation of the internet, they just don’t
understand. They, it’s really difficult, and
just imagine, this term, Internet
Governance, translated into multiple languages. It is
really confusing. Sometimes it’s totally misunderstood just by the way it is
translated, and sometimes as Markus said
already, people have different understanding about
multi-stakholderism and about Internet Governance. So, I personally started to find
new words, easier words, that make it easier for those we want to actually
reach out to understand. So, what I am using at the moment,
and I can’t really tell you if I will be successful, but I’m saying, we
are discussing to shape our digital future. It’s a bit broader than just
concentrating on the inter, on the network, on the connected
computers. It implies also that we are talking about societal questions, about
ethical questions and this is much broader than just discussing the governance,
the regulation of a network. So, this is, one of the efforts
I’m trying to do, and then on the
issue of multi-stakeholder versus multilateralism, there’s
a difference. Multilateralism is between one,
two, or more states. Multi-stakeholder involves all
the stakeholders that are concerned. I think both models are
justified and they both have to exist. Sometimes states will,
and they will not stop doing so sometimes
state whether negotiate, find a
treaty, do a contract whatsoever, and this is
multilateralism and this is okay but some questions you have to
address in a more broader sense in the multi-stakeholder model, and Ayden, you just said it’s
exhausting sometimes. We receive results by
exhaustment. I know what you mean. I am also involved in
ICANN and involved in this lengthy debate and process but I did see positive
examples. For example, this was truly a shining example of how
the multi-stakeholder model could and shod work. So, I’m deeply convinced that it
is the best model to move forward . Results that come out of
multi-stakeholder discussions definitely be more sustainable
but they take time and time is money and this is the big issue
and this is where we have to probably convince others to
participate and to sigh the need to move forward and not just wait for an outcome or for
something to negotiate. It is a societal debate that we have to
do and I used to compare that with the right to vote for
women. I mean, not in every country
women can already vote but for instance, Switzerland was one of
the last countries in Europe where women were allowed to
vote. It took three votes before they
were allowed to vote. But, the societal debate that
took place beforehand, that was actually important part and this
is what we are doing here. We are having a debate and the
results, the outcomes, they will not necessarily be directly
connected to our debate because we want to bring that one to one
in connection with each other, but actually, the results are
based on the discussion that we are
having here at floor forums like this and I
think that’s such an important thing that we should not stop
moving forward, but improving and including, or
improving by including all stakeholders equally.>>MODERATOR: Thank you, Sandra.
And we definitely can say that multi-stakeholder, I mean, the
term itself has come into the world
only maybe 20 years ago. Or even like ten years ago, and we have also like written a thing
that still a lot of debates are going on within side the
academic sphere as well about how we can define the
multi-stakeholder model as well. And I definitely can, I
definitely think that this model or this term itself is somehow like ongoing
like discussion topic and I want to
pass the mic to Kuo Wu professor because
she used to be working in the technical sector and yeah. It’s going to have a lot of
words.>>KUO WU: Thank you. Yeah, actually, I start from the
technical side. In the very beginning, actually, it was supercomputing and
supercomputing actually was networking also. And so, I was participating in
the networking since the 1980s. And I think the Americas gave a
very good explanation how
multi-stakeholder mechanism inside the UN system
and also some of the ICANN stuff. Let me back to see what is the
core issue of the multi-stakeholder mechanism now
we are looking for. I think it’s a very important is
what we are looking for, the multi-stakeholder mechanism is open and
transparent. Open and transparency are critical and
very important. The reason is, the open and transparent
actually is a, the whole idea actually came from the very
early day of the IETF meeting. There is an idea
of the internet standard developing meetings and this
idea actually tried to find out what is internet standard and to
be global acceptance and so, this is the
idea they’re always running in the open and transparency.
Although, at the time, they are not talking about also called a
multi-stakholderism but I think the core of the multi-stakholderism is
built from the idea of the beginning. And then, you are looking around
the, ICANN. Basically, ICANN is only in
charge of three major things. The IP address, domain name, and
then loose server managements or coordinations. But, if you look at IR, the
regional internet registry in charge of
the IPV4 policy stuff, basically, there are regional internet registry, IR,
in the five different continents. They’re actually
running in the membership base, no. You have to get a
membership, but, so when they are talking about
policy, it’s open. Anybody can make a comment into the, you know, the IP address policy.
It’s open. You don’t need to be a member. You can participate
in this policy. So, in that case, you can see
there from the IEF go to the I , they’re always open
transparency. Let me put a little bit more
information into Mar co s’ talk. Actually P
multi-stakeholder, this idea is coming into 1998 because at a time, the many governments
actually arguing how the INI is okay and how the INI should be
operations. And somehow in the United States, the U.S. government in the very
beginning, they agreed to go to it the new corporation and particularly outsourcing to
the Harvard law school to developing b kind of
Constitution today we call is the bylaws of the ICANN. And at the time, they begin to put
the multi-stakeholderism into the bilaw. I remember the famous — is in
charge to developing in by law and two
of his students is involving into
developing the by law. And the by law of ICANN actually developing what
we see today, the so-called multi-stakeholder mechanism, if
you look at the stakeholder in ICANN you talk
about GNSO, at the time, also
political supporting order to show cause. You know, and then
they begin to developing so-called, and their
position into the ICANN mechanisms. And so, this is
kind of coming back to some kind of the ICANN and I
don’t need to go on regarding for the IGF,
Markus has already commented but only one thing I want to add in
here. If I remember in the second WSIS meeting in Tunis, actually, in
the government, they are looking for the potential possibility, how to
locate ICANN. They even propose four or five
different models how the ICANN should be belonging. You know, inside UN system or
related, strong related to the UN system. But, by the end of the WSIS
meeting in Tunis, there’s actually no conclusion regarding for the ICANN located. So, began to b generate so the
IGF right now. And the 2005, I think Markus
already commented how the multi-stakeholder mechanism came
into the IGF. And I think it’s an important
thing, the multi-stakeholder mechanism
is particularly today particularly today. We all know
we have a problem in the real world, just to take one example, you might be, everybody has
experiment. For example, like Aruba. Aruba kind of tried to
run the global operation, but in many countries, they have trouble with local taxi
regulation or policy. So, you can see some of the
country allowed the Uber to run their operation of business but
some of the countries or cities, they say no. And what is the
problem? The major problem is because
Uber the platform is running globally. So, it’s very important some of
the, one of the penalties talking about
GDPR, I think political, particularly if you remember
once upon a time talking about intellectual property issue in
the U.S. , the Congress, arguing about
how to protect the intellectual property. Also in the EU system, talking
about , you know? The similar problem is because
the technology and its platform actually running global. But, what you’re doing with the
issue might be only in the, is a
domestic , but how you can balance the
technology global, technology to the domestic issues. So, this
is, I think H is a lot of things we need to learn and
actually, I think there’s one of the major, you know, the issue is how we can allow the
multi-stakeholder to come into their voices before the
government sets up policy or sets up regulation, I think
there’s one of the reasons. And the main purpose of the
multi-stakeholder mechanism for me, actually, is open transparency because
most of the government sometimes is like a bread box, of course. Of course, not all, but some of
the government is like a bread box. You don’t know what is a
regulation, how you the policy is developing and the technical
people and business people, they only can have a very slight
understanding how the policy developments. And for looking for a better,
you know, the card nation into these
technology and those, the real world has
happened. For example, we see many things that happen
This state. The origin and many different
kinds of the e-commerce operations. You are getting
more complicated or sophisticated system in our business or delivered
occupation is not leaving along living in
your hometown. You even are living in a small city or small
town but if this global technology is moving into your
living room. You know? So, how we can walk it out to
come up with a much better policy to fulfill or to resolve this issue and I
think this might be the value of the multi-stakeholder mechanism.
It might be the people say, they deserve some of the back drop of
the multi-stakeholder mechanism. I always tried to say that, you
know, the people, we don’t have,
usually, we don’t have a really the perfect solution. But, what we can do, we actually
tried to have a optimized solution to
resolve the issue then we go into
enhance or improvement And I think there is a reason we
are sitting here talking about the multi-stakeholder mechanism
today. Thank you.>>MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you
for your comments on how technologies have somehow
overcome the world and how it became like a
levelized and how the government sectors
and other Private Sectors just began to come in to regulate
like all these Private Sectors and technologies. So, what I
actually got to understand about multi-stakeholderism is
that it can be actually thought of as some kind of revolution,
evolution of like social structure. Just like we got to have some
kind of evolution of technologies such as internet,
to adapt to this kind of new technologies, social, like,
structure, also some kind of new firms or new structure and new
organization to deal with all this kind of new technologies which . This item, say is also very
critical because you mentioned that actually the government
started to play a large role, maybe a larger role. So, what
do you think about this? Do you think that the role of the
government will just grow bigger and bigger? Or do you think that it can just
maybe rival with other private sector or other stakeholders
>>AYDEN FERDELINE: I think, this is Ayden, for the record.
I think there’s a potential for that. I think if we do not fix the
multi-stakeholder model ourselves, if we do not look at
it critically and explore why it doesn’t work or how we can
actually improve it, and actually improve T. and when I say we here, I mean
those who are mon state actors. If we don’t
improve it, I think it’s very possible that what will happen
is the multilateral model will take over. Now, if you ask me
whack are some concrete steps we take to improve the model I have
a few suggestions to take it forward. As I mentioned before, I am on
the GNSO council and the GNSO
council within ICANN managed the polings process over the past
few years for a working Group that failed over the past few
years. It was simply disbanded after hundreds of meetings, no
outcomes which is not great. But we did do something of a
post mortem afterwards to understand why this working group the registration
policies development working group failed and there were a
few causes we identified. One, that there wasn’t an independent conflict resolution process in
place. So, everyone, I shouldn’t say
everyone, but some stakeholders weren’t
were preparedded to die over certain requests that they
wanted and others were prepared to die over the same issue so we
certainly couldn’t move forward. There was gridlock so perhaps
when we look at ways we reform the multi-stakeholder model, we
need to make sure that there is a way to have some b kind of
independent conflict recess s Louise and also to be able to
have some kind of independent actor say , make some kind of subjective
as to whether someone is being. Maybe we need to become better
at breaking pieces into bite size chunks. How can we do
that? We also thought about, how do you review working group
leadership. If you have a working group going on for
several years and there’s no system in place to review the
leadership to make sure it’s functioning, can we fix that?
And just to be clear, I’m not insinuating at all that the
leadership that that particular working group had was deficient in any way. I
don’t think they have they had good leadership but just as an
ongoing mechanism as the model matures, we do need to make sure
that in environments where we’re applying a model and
they’re perhaps in a working group setting, something has not been making
progress. Maybe there isn’t the right leadership structure in
place. And then the final thought that
we had in our post mortem which is,
might seem at odds with the multi-stakeholder model was also to consider
alternatives to the open bottom up participatory
model that we had. So, in that working group where you had
hundreds of people on every call once a week, for a 19-minute
call, it doesn’t really allow time for anyone to speak or to
make things substandard. It also allows for filibustering
to happen. Maybe there’s some flexibility to consider that maybe
one-size-fits-all model isn’t going to work. There needs to
be different models explored depending on the issue and maybe
you don’t need every stakeholder to be participating in every
discussion. Maybe you need to make sure you have the relevant
voices. How you determine who the relevant voices are, how you
ensure representation, there’s another discussion. There are
no easy answers here but simply at a high level if I was to say, if we think about how can we
improve the model moving forward, that’s something we
might want to consider because multi-stakeholderism I think is
not working at the moment as well as it should but I agree that it is important
and has to be.>>MODERATOR: Okay. Thanks. And I think Sandra might have
something to — okay.>>KUO WU: I’d like to make a
comment B you know, you are talking about a
multi-stakeholder mechanism using that word. I don’t think so. You know, first of all, in the
day when you were thinking about the government of the
organization when they were setting up the policy P. usually, it’s only government
and then there might be some business sector trying to talk
to the got government, try to understand that. Or might be
talking with NGO, you know, the academic or some of the
community. But one thing is usually being noted, it’s
technical communities. The point is that right now in
the world, right now we are running almost everything on the
internet. So, it’s critical that the
internet, if you don’t know what you’re going to break, then we had to be very
careful about what is internet structure is running in here. So if you look at no matter is
our domestic, national, government, or international
organization. I think at least right now, they are beginning to
recognize that the technical community is the
information is important to get, for
example, you are talking about GDPR is one of the issues. So, of course, I’m not saying
the multi-stakeholder mechanism going to solve everything but I
think at least it’s generally kind of two things is important in this whole, the
domestic policy, international policy to developments. First of all is a now and more P
you know, the government recognized open and transparency
would make a bad policy. I think that’s the first point. I
think there is how the model stakeholder delivers the core
value to the policy developments. The
second thing I’m saying is now when the government is
developing a regulation policy. For example, might be, many of
you know that many people expect the
5G and now the people have to come back to figure out how you
can implement the technical solution for the 5G is
not like in the early days, make an
open bid and resolve the, shhs. Many of the things might not be
really, you know, talking about the policy developing everything
based on the multi-stakeholder mechanism. But, it’s core, its value is a
begin gradually to accept it by the week later to, you know,
working on the policy. I think there’s my point. Thanks.
>>MODERATOR: Okay. So I heard that there’s your
question from –>>Yes, I have one. It’s from Wakiberry. From University, PG in cyber
norms and media. The question is, it’s a question and a
comment. Hello, Okay. Hello, cyber norm, making cyber
rules verification prima facie stakeholder in more democratic
trains parent fair internet governance model. Otherwise, how can we trust
American internet? This is framed only under UN
framework and the greatest enemy of
internet is digital unilateralism and
digital terrorism with this approach clearly addressed in
U.S. nationalist cyber strategy,
2019, how can other — counter internet
and what’s the meaning of not making U.S. unilateral and nationalist
policy. With that fragmentation, what
must be done?>>Maybe we need to listen to
the question again? Did anyone catch the question?
Okay.>>This is the sort of question
we heard right at the beginning of the
Internet Governance discussions which was essentially about the
role of one government, and that was seen as
not the appropriate way of dealing with a global resource. We had long discussions during
visits and since then a lot has
happened as well. With the translation, the U.S. government
has withdrawn from its oversight roll over ICANN in a
function, but obviously ICANN is still
located in the U.S. and this is still, I think, at
the heart of the comment that was also very much at the
beginning of the debate. Many governments felt then that
the internet should be dealt with as a global resource like
most other global resource by an intergovernmental organization,
preferably under a UN umbrella and that is essentially what we
are talking about here. It’s not so much multi-stakeholder
versus multilateral. It is government-led versus
non-government-led and clearly, the internet is dealt with in a nongovernment led way by the
community and decentralized organizations
and they are adapted to the distributed structure of the
underlying technology, the internet is also distributed
technology. And one single organization
would be at odds with the underlying
technology. ICANN has gained more prominence
than the, more emotional than the numbers, but the same
applies to the numbers and I think one very good argument
to defend the existing system is it actually works. That’s how I think the main
legitimacy of the organizations that are actually running the internet have it
from the fact that the internet works.
>>MODERATOR: Okay. Thanks. And I heard that there is another
question from the floor. So, okay.>>Thank you very much. I present myself, I am Nassir,
professor of University in direct communications, ICT and
the economy. And I’ve been the president of
the conference of 2002 Moraccas when this time, as
general secretary. I have formed communications in
ICT in Morocco. So, it’s just a question and a comment in the question. You know that ITUU the
international intelligence unit is the more
international organization in the world. It was created in 1860 and at
this time, it was international
telegraph union, then it became communications then to ITU and it comes something depending on the
United Nations when the United Nations was created for first other in 1918 to then 1945. My question is that , a lot of problems in the
governance of internet. There are technical problems,
standardization and all that. That was in ITU for
telecommunications. You have also medical problems.
Privacy, lot of things like. You have technical issues, like
the fins and all that. You have economic issue has. You have social and political
cultural issues. And you are just at the beginning of this
resolution. I follow the resolution of the
communications and internet and it was very fast and at the
beginning, because a lot of questions merging now. So, my question is how to have
an efficient model. The intergovernmental model was
the ITU. Works for something when there
are telecommunications Monopolies. Then after, there was private
sector. Then internet. And big actors of this private
sector. What we tried in Marakashan which was,
Mr. Veins was president of ICANN, is
how to find something working efficiently. This international global forum
is very interesting, but it’s innovate working on an
operational way. It’s just beating a forum and
the question that we have is how to
make different stakeholders or different persons government organizations
private society work together for this new sources you are
creating and building. So, it’s a huge question, and
there is no perfect model that what we can do is to improve the models and
adjust. And thus was this story of
telecommunings from the 17th century. Thank you very much.>>Let me try. It’s a big
question. Okay. Let me try to too, from my point of view. I
think basically the difference in ITU and also regarding — I
think a lot of people might be a little bit,
I tried to say — I can roar. Actually, ICANN only do z3 things. The IP — loose server
coordination managements. Regarding enforcement e-commerce
or something like that, on top of the application is not really
into the ICANN schema okay? But the point is the developing
structure of the ITU and also we see today in the internet, the
major difference is in the ITU is a
much larger international organization structure. So, if we are looking at how the telephone system is
developing to really go into the worldwide population, we took almost 1,500 years, the internet
is not developing in that way. The internet actually developing
is a kind of not centralized, not
centralized. So, for the people, if you want
to get into connect to the internet is getting easier, you
don’t need to have kind of the national carrier in the past, in
the old days. Today’s telephone company to provide you the
service. Any people, if you can get on
the internet through whatever channel, then you are part of
the internet population so you can see why the internet
population goes so fast. So, I think the two different approaches from
the telephone and also the internet that generate different
issues and different questions. So, I think, yeah, I agree. It is, there is maybe we can
talk about, you know, particularly in
the ICANN that people continue talking about accountability
issues. You know, and the accountability
issue in the ICANN is more than just
the accountable to the supporting organization,
particularly you want to talk about is how they can
accountable to the global user. You know, I think there is a
kind of differences and in the ITU. You
know, we always go through the government and to understand how
the private sector or the individual. So, I think there
is two major differences in the past.
>>MODERATOR: Okay. Thanks. And there was a question from the
floor, so. Okay. Claudio.
>>I’m sorry, it’s not clear to me whether you’re calling on me
or someone else?>>Yeah, no, no, no. Yeah,
Claudio can go first.>>All right. Thank you very
much. This is Claudio Pasena, I am at
the state University in Brazil for science and information.
I’m also community of ICANN involved in internet governance
regional forums and schools and internet governance also. And I was listening to my fellow professor, he had stated the
existence of the international organization that is there for not more than 150
years. And this multilateralism, this
model, we have been patient enough with it for over 150 years, and yet it
doesn’t all the problems it was designed to address from start.
And we have been patient enough with thatle model. Now, multi-stakeholderism as we
know it in this space here ray couple
of decades old, maybe two decades and the way we know it.
The internet governance forum hasn’t been there for that long
and regional movements of Internet Governance
forums are just starting. So, I do acknowledge that we
need to have more concrete outputs and results and I congratulate EuroDIG on
the massive exercise we had this year. I do understand that our
financial constraints in that, there is
money that finances this model in the way we want to build it : but the fact of
having the voices, even if they are not the most adequate and
the most relevant ones a the this moment, it’s
different from the models that we had in the past. Even if you’re talking about
ICANN because it’s interesting, I
share with Ayden the same concerns but I do
not share the same skepticism or sin six about the model itself and the
outputs because I do not see many more other international
corporations or organizations whose board sits
in front of the community and answers direct questions several times a year.
Does that solve all the organizational problems? Far
from doing that, but this is something different and we
experience something different for a couple of years only so my
call here is even acknowledging the difficulty that we face,
even acknowledging the financial constraints on putting that
model to work, let’s not lose the patience with the
multi-stakeholder model when it’s just starting to produce
its first results. Thank you.>>MODERATOR: Okay. Thanks. And
Sandra — (applause)>>SANJA KELLY: I can just echo
what you’re saying and to give clarity, the IGF, for instance, we are now
under 13th additional — with 13, you are a teenager. So if you look at the IGF, a
parent that gives its teenager. I really can only echo what you
say. ICANN is a little bit older but the ICANN model is
slightly different and for me, that’s actually one of the best
functioning multi-stakeholder models I know and I must say I
don’t know any others and I’m interested if any one of you
knows another model where the decision making capacity is in a
multi-stakeholder because this is the big difference. The
decision making capacity. At IGF level, we are discussing.
We are talk shop. Whatwhat I said earlier, why I
consider a talk shop to be so important
if anyone has other models of
multi-stakeholderism, I would be really interested to learn
about. I’m not aware of any. As for the IGF, think B we are a
teenager.>>MODERATOR: Thank you and
there was another comment from the floor. Could you — Okay. Okay.
>>I’m Ted Hardy. I’m the chair of the internet architecture
board which is part of the internet engineering task force
and an advisory board to the Internet Society. I wanted to make two replays.
One of which was to the gentleman who was concerned
about the mechanisms of the IGF and how that would relate to the ITU and I wanted to say that
there are volunteer technical organizations which are kesh
concerned with advancing the internet which do come here to
the IGF to hear what other parts of the Ministry say. As it happens, my colleague,
Alyssa Cooper who is the chair of the IGF is on a particular different panel for
this particular thing but she would
be here otherwise and I believe the cooperation between the
technical community and IGF communities is an important part
of why this is a community and multi-stakeholder effort works
because different people are willing to come together and
listen to each other in ways that might be more difficult if
we went and tried to participate in ITU processes. The second
thing is, I will let the gentleman know that the IGF sits
its leaders in front of itself three times a year and we sit in front of our
colleagues to listen to whatever concerns they might have and to
make changes. And I believe that one of the critical things about the longterm
success of the ITF is a technical body is its radical
openness. It has no membership. It has
participation. Anyone may any effort that’s
part of the ITF and you can do that by being part of a mail being list or
part of some other technical effort like
a GitHub repo. But, in all of those cases, there is absolutely
no barrier to entry beyond that which is imposed by
understanding the technical topic and unfortunately,
understanding it in English. I think that there are methods
that the history of the ITF suggests
might eventually come into the IGF. In particular, making more
of the efforts based in internet technologies rather than meetings. That
radically lowers the cost and it makes possible to sustain long
term efforts throughout a year and I believe that those are available to us
as we try and improve the multi-stakeholder process that
we see before us. Thank you for your attention.
>>Hi there, my name is Colin curry. I wanted to just briefly
respond that there are quite a lot of multi-stakeholder
initiatives in other sectors so everything from disaster response to environmental
management to world health or even airline slot management is
an example of multi-stakeholder decision making processes. So,
I think that it’s really important that within internet
governance pace spaces we don’t consider ourselves too unique
because we might lose are the opportunity to take lessons
learned from other sectors and apply them here. Thanks.
>>MODERATOR: Okay. Thanks and I think that’s really an important
point because we’re actually like, the panelists, just trying
to find out whether what kind of other multi-stakeholder models
can exist outside the Internet Governance and I think that’s
really important know there is some kind of other —
multi-stakeholder model to exist and function very well. And I also thank for the chair
of IAB as well and I really agree that
this IGF just started to function. I mean and because we all agree
that like IGF somehow lacks the
possibility of decision making but we also know that this kind
of conversation is really important.
Like, this is an actually very critical process because all
different stakeholders can actually understand what kind of like problems are
going on outside their own interests and
I think concerning that, this IGF is really an important place
to talk about all those issues to make the internet open and transparent and if any, is there
any other comments or? Where a?>>I’d like to echo the
previous, the, you know, the floor talking
about it. If I remember in 2003 and 2005WSIS meeting, I
go to WSIS meeting and I think many — you actually know that.
The session run in the morning, 9:00 AM to the 5:00 PM, and there is
only the delegate that most of the time can talk. And if I remember in the morning
session and afternoon session is only 50 minutes for the rest of
the peoples. Preponderance so, that means many of you are sitting here in the old way of the WSIS meeting,
actually, you cannot get a microphone to talk. I think
that’s one of the key values of the IGF multi-stakeholder model
to allow the people in the equal
businesses talking about your point of view, no matter what the issue is.
And of course we understand that the issues in the internet right
now are so many and so complicated and
every is an emitter — but at least it
varies and gets into getting your
policy . I think four of the
multi-stakeholder is in place.>>Okay. Thank you and I think
it’s the right time to wrap up this session. Thank you all for
your comments and thank you all for coming here to talk about
your opinions and I just want to echo what Sandra has just said
that like IGF is just coming, just begin
to experience its teenage period. I know that a
lot of similar sessions are going on in IGF this year and I
also know that NRI session which is also going to be about
multi-stakeholder model and I really wish that be
there is some kind of more talks about how multi-stakeholder
model can be developed and can be further implemented in the
IGF. Okay. Thank you all for coming.
(applause) (Session was concluded at 5:04
AM CT) ***
This text, document, or file is based on live transcription.
Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART), captioning,
and/or live transcription are provided in order to facilitate
communication accessibility and may not be a
totally verbatim record of the proceedings. This text,
document, or file is not to be distributed or used in any way
that may violate copyright law. *** High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation Open Forum High Level Panel on Digital
High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation Open Forum High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation Open Forum High Level Panel on Digital
Cooperation Open Forum High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation Open Forum ladies and gentlemen, guests and
co-leagues. welcome you to the open panel or
open digital transformation,
high-level panel on digital cooperation. I’m the Secretariat of the panel
and executive director. honored today to be accompanied
with Cathy Mulligan, members of the
panel. We have connecting from Kenya. the panel activities, to answer
most of your questions. sure there will be new questions
that discussion to increase the
understanding to achieve and to hear your
inputs how activities. Now I will start by
recapitulating about the panel and then I will
pass the brief us about various aspects
about panel discussions. panel was established by 4th of
July by an tonia Guterres. is chaired by jack Ma and
Melinda Gates. Some of them you know and some
of them you don’t know. the new reality we’re facing in
digital transformation space. We have new members dealing with
block chain like Cathy. have new members from AI
community, from where digital issues are
addressed these days. the underlying message that in
addition is Internet Governance Forum we
have policy spaces. If I can just rephrase the
famous saying bycooperation is what is
happening while cooperation. And digital cooperation is
happening places, in international
organizations, associations and one of the main
aims of connect various dots to overcome
policy understanding about digital
policy. to act in a humble way, to
listen, to world-wide and to avoid the
creation of mechanism when it comes to
digital cooperation. We have to see how to make
existing more efficient. The first meeting of the panel
was the headquarters. And the report with the
recommendation issued in mid-May 2019. One of the unique feature of the introduction with that is we’re
trying implementation champions, people
who deliberations, who can propose
various on recommend implementation on
those recommendations. open for all communities
world-wide.panel members. And it is probably the best minister of development of
Norway, taking a knew issues which he
would like implemented by Norway and other
development agencies.please.>>NIKOLAI ASTRUP: Thank you,
Jovan for the introduction.I’m really honored to be part of
this panel. international development, my
starting sustainable development goals by
2030. And I believe that digital in order to achieve the SDGs and
also in development toward SDGs and
helping us 2030 and make it possible of
fulfilling no one behind. Closing the digital gap is going
to be important. working on inclusive development
with my with a na. I’ll use my intro to see where I
see potential for more collaboration
and When I look at the landscape, some of initiatives
that stand out in terms of built around digital public
goods. By digital public goods I mean can easily be scaled and adapted
across licensing, design, and
relevance. Norway’s involved in funding and digital public goods together
with digital partners. important is the assistant
program with DSI2 software. software is being used in more
than 100 footprint of 2.3 billion people. The core
element behind the success information system program is a
governed where there are relative simple
software building and community building. been using DGSI2 and PhD
students have health information system program. scaleable and relevant
interventions resources and soon weather data.
in is a tip of the iceberg. During my international travels
I of digital public goods. to improve Internet connectivity
for schools globally. working to scale digital
identity identification platform mow sip. built and driven by
nonstakeholders such foundation and Mozilla
foundation. Such as Google and Facebook. We are, for instance benefitting early grade reading resources. of digital public goods. others exist and how to link
them to I imagine this is also the case
for organizations and individuals in
low and that could benefit the most from these digital
resources. I therefore initiated this ensure that digital public goods
can be discovered, and used. individuals in low and middle
income countries. The aim is initially to develop a discover and engage with digital
public goods. uniself-ventures to lead on the The longer term aim is not only
to identify the digital public good One
important reason why more than still not online is a lack of
perceived trust in the Internet. ggs and in languages that users
know and adaptation and commercial reuse
can help agency. In defining digital public goods principles for collaboration
built heavily by work by the
high-level panel.you to join us. Let the panel and me know if
you’re in taking part in the digital
public and we’ll connect you with the
team. Thank you, Jovan. >> JOVAN KURBALIJA: Thank you. highlighting the various aspects
of the public goods and the importance
of stories that exist world-wide in
this the interplay that this
discussion will work building around principles
and public goods. Our next speaker is Cathy
Mulligan is I correct, from block chain
community or >>NIKOLAI ASTRUP: That’s a
better definition. >>CATHY MULLIGAN: Hi, everyone. to be here and serve on the
panel. I’m looking at data. everyone here is aware, the is
becoming part of our economy and raises
serious used. Some of the questions we’re anyone here who would like to
join with or myself is what sort of
social, legal, pertaining to data require
improved coordination? successful coordination look
like? elements of successful
coordination and to deliver on some of these
initiatives. Secondly, we’re also looking at
how and other public interests be
ensured development of data driven
technologies. we ensure the predictivesy and
security ensuring we continue to enjoy
digital economic growth that those bring. Some of the
subquestions we’ll be the best practices in breaking
down silos. involved in government
previously have the best practices for helping
breaking But also how we can balance the
the need to provide security, for continuously emerging digital
world. frameworks and rerchb points
that we have that we can use. One particular piece I think is the reduction in the hypoISOC
around technology.appropriate to use it? And when is it actually just
really with toys if I may say so. Yeah. Thank you. >>
JOVAN KURBALIJA: Thank you, Cathy. Nanjira, panel member. connect remotely. Can we hear from Nanjira>> Nanjira: Wonderful. rights in the digital age. but something that is embedded
in all having on the panel and on the
topic of digital cooperation. As has been noted, really it is
an panel to bring a fresh
perspective to problem of human rights and
human agency are actually respected. We are looking specifically at
how their developers align their
work with rights and human agency and the versus public goods and
assessing the well being. I’m very keen on making sure
that considered an after thought nor
just a by actors in the digital domain. How human rights and human
agency something we’re considering in
how to the design to the implementation
and technologies. The importance of accountability
by designing technologies is
paramount and the civil society actors of a
high-level cooperation cannot be code for
avoiding inevitable conflict of interest
between to uphold human rights in the
digital The challenge and opportunity here, human rights law in digital
context, is political issue and how we
stimulate and political will to actually implementation rights law across the domain and
how greatly appreciated. Thank you very much. >>JOVAN
KURBALIJA: Thank you, Nanjira. before I open the floor for your like to invite to tell us a few
words IGF and panel. The IGF is very kind to host
today’s open forum.And there will be quite a few be involving the IGF members
into >> Thank you very much Jovan. think we’ve had a longstanding
since the cooperation since both our
offices are least half the office is based
in Geneva. Secretariat. Also we’ve been using our
existing IGF public size and help the
high-level stakeholders. This includes the national, regional
initiatives for the country level contact and also the regional
IGF age specific meeting that we’ve
had contact. you also spoke to the African
IGF, correct? was held at the African IGF. And at this IGF 2018 meeting for do have a section from the
reports are supposed to report back to
the IGF Secretariat. IGF meeting we have asked a
number of issue areas covered during the
session cybersecurity, AI, to provide
input on cooperation, for example, what are the cooperation should aspire to?
digital cooperation should follow? And we’ll continue to
collaborate. initiative is also very useful
to see And we’re looking forward to the
outcome of the report. >> JOVAN KURBALIJA: Thank you. today to have with us Mr. statistical division who has
been supportive of the issues. Thank you for joining us. I
think now we will open the floor comments. This is the best way that we
develop understanding of the panel’s activities your expectations and your
inputs about the panel. open for both participants here
in the participants. Let’s see who is going to be the first.you
introduce yourself, please?>>AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you,
chairman. with the African union
commission. welcome this initiative. given the time, the timeline and
this is difficulties in terms of
achieving some inclusive document. So in that context, I would like
to being done in terms of
consultation with Africa? ready at the Africa commission
to host get some engagement from African
member states. Thank you. >>JOVAN KURBALIJA: Thank you. questions and then we will
answer them in batches of three. Another question or comment? comments, let me answer this
question. your meeting, African IGF last
week which was held in car tomb. Thank you for your invitation. That was just one signal about
the consultations that we need on
the involvement of African
stakeholders. In addition to general
activities which are the online
consultations and plan to hold the event in beneon
on the different stakeholders from
African continent. There are also some discussions Africa and what you just said is
that is panel, that there is a need for
special African stakeholders in
discussions on digital policy in general. Stakeholders from definitely business community, local
communities. and we’ll be having a meeting
with the and other stakeholders during
this IGF additional activities, in
addition to 15th of January and online
consultation Africa.>>NIKOLAI ASTRUP: Just a quick
comment from me on this.I think it’s very important that we have which is what the panel
Secretariat has facilitating that kind of
consultation, engaging in today. At least from my perspective, I believe that the developing countries and
especially crucial if these countries are
to potential that lies in better
digital So any input that the commission on how we can make sure that we
have a process to give us the best
possible result.>>JOVAN KURBALIJA: Thank you
Nikolai. have any comment on involving
the process?>> Nanjira: As has been
mentioned these callouts for input need to
be networks while factoring a
majority of citizens may not even be online. sure that their perspectives are
also brought on board. therefore, just reemphasizing
that we’re be pointed in the right
direction to project. >> JOVAN KURBALIJA: Thank you,
Nanjira. Switzerland, Thomas. >>
Thank you and hello everybody. for coming here. I think it is very important
that this that is far away from some
people in to the gi is engaging in a
discussion present at the IGF to convey the
views what the panel is supposed to
achieve of the people here present in
order to expectations are. on the work of the panel. With regard to our government,
we support the panel. have always supported it since
the that it is important that we
progress to next level of cooperation on
digital issues. lot of cooperation going on
between different stakeholders. It’s not always visible, and
many things could be replicated or at least
others that are ongoing, but people
just don’t know. meetings and so many different
tracks on by so many institutions that
it’s this. With regard to our expectation
or panel could achieve, for us it
is less the substantive issues where
cooperation is taking place. we hope, because this is being
— the in hundreds and probably even by working on several areas in
various we hope to achieve is to help us
all to structured, more visible, more
inclusive that the panel may foster and
help to So in our view it’s, given the resources that this panel has,
which is a report containing some
recommendations if I get this right, what we
would like on is focusing on principles and modalities of cooperation based
on the and thousands of cooperation
activities are there, that the panel would
try to success factors or factors of
failure as that may also help, but in the
end will better shape modalities of
cooperation cooperation that is ongoing can
be efficient so that everybody
profits from there in various institutions
and that no one is left behind. So in our view it is really key
to develop some nymphs, methodologies, factors
that or a blueprint or whatever you
call it cooperation on digital issues. because the opportunities and
challenges bigger every year with AI and
all the beside. With regard to our principles
and experienced friendships,
consensus take everybody onboard,
everybody activity. Inclusiveness that all those
that are could cease an opportunitied or
affect don’t know they’re affected will
be brought to the table.have a system of cooperation that gets everybody at the table in an
inclusive way. action on a consensus oriented
basis, for some diversity because not
one size But that means you would need to
allow according to regional
difference, and so forth while keeping
activities elements we would hope to see in You outlined quite a few ideas. adopted at the first meeting to
focus on cooperation should aspire to. cooperation should follow, and
mechanism cooperation should use. inclusion, diversity, consensus
building among00s it not thousands of
examples in digital public good civil
society. aims to collect what exists,
what is the wisdom and to move forward with
this broad support and inclusiveness. We have a question. Sandra,
please.>>AUDIENCE MEMBER: Okay. I’m from the European IGF.just
learned the outcomes will be ready May or so. And in this
respect I’m wondering how evaluate your recommendation? one year, after two years? private sector by the community
et cetera? I could think that the national and global IGFs are a great forum to
look at revisit them if the
recommendations that are followed. If not, why not?
What works? What works not? would actually invited to the
Eurodig first opportunity to publish
these or a about, get input on your
recommendations.the time to evaluate them at the moment. two years later and probably
will help track on a certain process and
revisit to the other in terms of
intercessional that are in development. I would just like to emphasize
it be a first attempt to represent
your recommendations.>>JOVAN KURBALIJA: Sandra, both inspiration of some of the Eurodig developed quite unique and inclusion of different
factors and the recommendation could be
tested or implementationed. going to submit it to the
Secretary-General.requirement. But what we’ve been hearing from
the Mr. and other officials involving
this probably offer this
recommendation for different stakeholders. contributed to the building of
the consultation process. Eurodig is definitely one forum
in IGF and other regional and
national IGF recommendation could be tested
and policy making. This is one of
the approaches of the we would also like to promote
our drive can test some solutions, get the
processes further. Thank you.>>AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi, I’m a you for the organizing this
session but commitment to outreach that you
have And I have a few comments to
make just deliberations or other
discussions that civil society organizations and
academic research institutions concluded
or were discussing how we might
contribute deliberations. So we would like to take this following values we believe
should guide those are transparency,
accountability, equality, responsiveness, and
security. principles that should guide
digital emphasize, fair process,
collaborative approach, includesivity and commitment with One thing that came up in our urge the panel to consider refer
to and relevant initiatives that I have
already and principles. It’s encouraging that that’s a you’ve
already made. society, the United Nations
guiding principleser among others.We’ll be referring to
those in our contributions.would like to say that we would values and principles should not
only deliberation. For example,
it would be is intending to ensure
transparency and the process is implemented in
the final recommendations. Thank you. process going forward.>>JOVAN KURBALIJA: Thank you
for society and the research
institutions. concrete suggestions on values
and principles. We will pass this comment to the from our consultation session. submit your official
contribution by the of November, which is the
deadline, the submission of official
contributions, first synthesis report. panel members for the January
discussion important for shaping the first
draft of the report. When it comes to transparency
and approached by default except the
events itself, which is among the panel
members. panel meeting, we had a briefing
three panel meeting where we provided during the panel
session. Transparency will be supported
by collection of the contribution
that will website. If the contributor agrees, it
will be made public. We also plan to comment and
provide the feedback. These days, as you know, there
are communities and individuals to
have their say. sometimes frustrating not to
have some sort of feedback. Therefore, we’ll put quite
reasonable feedback to the — for all
contribution this process. When it comes to transparency we
meetings. I just returned from China where
we hall meetings in Beijing, sue
drew and han Jew. a town hall meetings at
world-wide communities.to invite you to be part of this are
process. Digital changes are affecting
most move beyond our usual circles
and to communities, what do they think
about cooperation? This is sort of a summary of
aspect of your question, which I will in addition to your excellent
principles. Please. Nanjira, would you like to
comment on question also, Nikolai, and
Cathy, please? >>NIKOLAI ASTRUP: A quick comment from my
side. the values and principles that
you line with the thinking of the
panel. about those issues at the
outset. the general approach to the
panel’s work. that the submission that you
just made the whole panel’s thinking on. As for the previous
intervention, I although the panel’s formal work
will be April or May. This is, of
course, for all of us, not the end.It’s just the beginning.>>JOVAN KURBALIJA: We have a
question from — please.>>AUDIENCE MEMBER: Me. I’m a MAG member from the IGF. would like to thank HLPDC for
accepting and participate on the main
session, youth tomorrow, I don’t know if
she’s here. Hey, hi.be speaking at the main session. this arranged, but it’s
important that these dialogues. activities, the BPF gender could
also others, the DC gender as well
sessions which I’m mostly involved in. But, yeah, I
would like to thank that. way to go. Creating dialogues
should be not only on the on site events, but on
the online which is all year long, such as
the online for a period of time.
Thank you.>>JOVAN KURBALIJA: Thank you. difficult with remote
participants. room, but please join us with
your comments. >> Nanjira: Sure. are some remote comments that I
can see into plenary. I think the point that was raised principles, modalities and all
that, if the what, the question is the
how. trying to bring in a new
perspective. What has worked, for instance, in transparency (?) what has worked
in trying to enforce principles and values, I think we’re insights as we call them
illustrated they can be translated to the
space of digital? I think many in the room will agree we’re not keen for yet another
said. Particularly when it comes to human agency. I personally am very interested
in stories from all sectors around
how mainstreamed and how enforcement
can, has or could be done. >>JOVAN KURBALIJA: Thank you, the how aspect. Kraeth? Nanjira, since I don’t know who
the room. Do we have a remote moderator in the room? great to get the comments.
>>ONLINE MODERATOR: That’s a good point.where she is. I can
ask the question. mocha berry. Possible at an international
level.digital cooperation and Internet of unilateralism and digital
protectionism. there is clearly reflected in
U.S. countries can trust us U.S. meeting of norm making? U.S. unilateralism and nationalistic
policy to Internet fragmentation and
what must be done. >>JOVAN KURBALIJA: Thank you. trust is one of the underlying
issues digital cooperation.
Secretary-General highlighted a deficit of trust in his speech
at the having today, engagement with There is no magic in building
trust. fair, open, engaging relations, inputs following on the inputs,
as I could be contra productive if we
don’t say. Those are small building blocks in order to build trust in our
modus to building wider trust in
digital different communities and
stakeholders. Nikolai or Cathy?>>CATHY MULLIGAN: Yeah, maybe
I about the — going back to
Nanjira’s trust. There is — so the principles that you
excellent and one of the issues that I issue we have potentially very
good things have worked. across a lot of the digital
community. developers or large scale
companies, oblivious to the human rights
declaration. Working out ways of how we can inclusion from them as well in
those extremely useful. And then in regards to trust,
yes, important point. And I think that Jovan, you made
an point, it’s more about people than it is about the technology.>>JOVAN KURBALIJA: Good to
hear from block chain expert. >>CATHY MULLIGAN: We can talk
about that another time.don’t think it creates trust as such.
people. >>JOVAN KURBALIJA: Nanjira, any comment from your
side?>> Nanjira: Again, the reality
is technological realities against
very complex political contexts. I’ve always asked are their
technical hacks to political will?And I think the answer is
not. Really these are the questions. going to try and postulate we’ll
have posing these questions because
we want at local levels where there are
promises and hope and promise and having
these articulated but being enforced.
>>JOVAN KURBALIJA: Any other seems that we explained quite
well when panel and how we’re going to
move forward. forward to your inputs, your
comments, your questions.pass the floor for concluding remarks with that, I would like to
invite you to Madelleine here, Claire, our
colleague to find ways and means to
involve your universities, government
departments, organizations in this discussion. Nikolai,
please. >>NIKOLAI ASTRUP: Well, thank you, Jovan. my original topic that I
mentioned in my really like your inputs on the
digital please do reach out if you have
ideas I believe that can be truly a
huge transformational change that is
needed sustainable development goals by
2030. And in terms of the input we
have it’s the values and principles
that we to be important and we value the
input those things today. Also, I would like to say that
the we’re doing now is also an
important reaching something that can
truly be useful on the other end. There is, as Jovan mentioned,
there’s a the month to — on the 30th of
November and please do so. Because it
will definitely be an part of our work going forward. So
thank you so much. >>JOVAN KURBALIJA: Thank you. Cathy,
please? >>CATHY MULLIGAN: Sure. Yep. be welcoming of any input from
digital cooperation. Personally I would be very interested
examples where you think it has failed. as much from failure as we can
from success. And those of you who have input of more human aspects in today,
I would taking some of those discussions
as well. >>JOVAN KURBALIJA: Nanjira. Thank you, Cathy.>> Nanjira: Just emphasizing
again and Cathy have said. joining in virtually and come to
see been coming up in the heart of
Africa and tech communities. There’s a lot of entrepreneurs
and here and getting the
perspectives of creating these technologies is
something I’m seeking. encourage others to help with
that kind of outreach. part of the panel’s mandate
going beyond much help as possible in going
into would not naturally align with. Thank you. >>JOVAN
KURBALIJA: Nanjira, while topics in the different sessions
and the next three days, please try to
reflect on these three questions.What would be the
values we should example, artificial
intelligence, ethics in the agenda and whether the
practical for digital cooperation. organizers and included into the
input And what we can ensure that they
will be utmost dedication and utmost care with Thank you very much for finding
time to join us today. looking to hearing from you and
seeing you soon. All the best. Thank you. (Conclusion of open forum
session) EU Delegation to the IGF & Youth IGF Movement EU Delegation to the IGF & Youth IGF Movement EU Delegation to the IGF & Youth
IGF Movement deaf Lillia EU
Delegation to the IGF & Youth IGF MovementEU Delegation to the
IGF & Youth IGF Good, afternoon. we should start in the coming
two minutes. Yes, good afternoon. two minutes. The proposal was actually for us
being even if the room is really huge,
so we have face-to-face debate. Good
afternoon, once again. is Yuliya Morenets. Against Cybercrime international
who has called uth IGF. And we are here
with the young people countries today to discuss a
number of topics. like first of all to thank the
European for coming and accepting this exchange. So as you know, maybe I should is the youth IGF movement about
and what then present the young people
that are close to me. So, as you know the youth IGF created in 2011 in France with
the idea we had at the Multistakeholder
Advisory IGF in 2011 that it should be
more people and the voice of the
young people here at the IGF. So from there we organized the the young people to discuss
Internet topics they made the choice off
and we IGF 2011. From there it has been
developed. have — we managed to have 35
countries When I say we managed to have 35 have leaders in these 35
countries debates on Internet governance
and we of them from five different
continents today. The following is not only to raise Internet governance is about in
these transfer the knowledge to them and Internet governance and other
topics they have chosen. From the debates last year four atomics that they would
like to the gatherings which is
cybersecurity the awareness of the young on
Internet safety. general main Internet governance
topic. of fake medicine online and
gender digital strategy in a different
countries all over the world. Actually they’re organizing the
effects. I would like to present them briefly and then
maybe start.We have Maria from Ukraine. yourself. We have June orfrom highty
present here. Michelle from Lebanon. Agy ta from Indonesia. I have seen Abdullah from Chad
as well room and probably we have other young debate that are not part of the
movement be part of the debate. So I don’t know if maybe the parliament that will be joined
by the in like to introduce as well the
delegation exchange. >> Thank you very much. during this IGF we have an
opportunity youth IGF. Is there any of you
who have been there before? No? Among us, I know some of us are
veterans, two three times maybe. It’s a very good initiative and
a good each other. We only represent one continent
and continent in the European Union
and European parliament. elected members from different
countries.parliament here. My name is meia and a fin from
Finland. representing socialists and
Democrats group. Ward from Great Britain who is
political group. On left of her we have ger na
from represents the European peoples
party. Then we have (?) sorry. Here I have advisors who are
represented as staff. So I go through the members of
parliament. from UK as well representing the
EFDD political group. is Yuliya from Estonia and she’s And then Julia or Yuliya from
Germany the greens in the par limitary
group. European Parliament and have an
you. Also, we do or should have iCANN
president already.>>YULIYA MORENETS: He’s
coming. >> We’ll probably see him coming word. So we do have at the same time
when European Parliament session in
extrasberg. stay here for a day or two out
of these three days.very important and nice that we can
start with youth. I’m very much wait for your
representation.worked? And I had a hint that you have a
few discuss and debating tonight in
this one hour session we have. From our side it has been
prepared us, we want dedicate for the globally and then also support
strongly we do have governance that gives
us the European Union is based on. the democraticic structures for
societies. a lot on the European values
that we can times for the digitalization and
digital Sometimes it’s for the politician difficult but we’ve been working
a lot proposals that have been carried
on in Europe. it’s self-evident that European
union issues, but we can make
legislation for then our internal markets and
the rules when we work on the European
union. But at the same time we see the is global.
Technology solutions are global. time we are here and elsewhere
also important that even this new
technology, along can support some values as
human rights. to underline also the human
right that the privacy is important
human value as well. been carried on in a legislative
that we European Union, for example, the
GDPR regulation. Sometimes we do have a global inside the European Union. have to respect this one. global fingerprint on the
technical followed by the many giant
technological platforms as well. But then let this be very short
introduction from our side. But we are very eager to have
your say after you maybe present what you
have prepared. Thank you.>>YULIYA MORENETS: Thank you. country introduction, maybe we
need to a number of figures, I think the these 35 countries where the
youth Internet governance and present
the are around 5,000 plus and active
on social media. country they have the social
accounts and networks per country. Another thing that
might be of activities that organize at
the inspired by the European Union
policies For example, that is why the
three chosen for example
cybersecurity. ruffle 20 countries have
organized they will be presenting them
shortly. distribution of fake medicines
online. inspired by the European Union
policies equality and promotion for hur
strategy. by saying we would like to
organize would like to organize the
digital for to Wim in order to empower them. I would like to invite you to achievements in your country per information to the delegation as
well.to start. >> Maria: Thank you. I’m Maria from Ukraine. a few events, for example, for
European namely two events. And one of
them particularly was a privacy issues connected to event was — it was mainly about
the because in Ukraine it’s a serious cybersecurity experts that’s
been growing for a few years now. And also, as you’ve mentioned
like distributed the information
about this we had a lot of Wim in there too
because the network in Ukraine. Thank you. We serve people about
cybersecurity. the first youth — the first IGF
NAT with ISOC. very important for AT because
people social networks. Mercy.
Thanks. >> Bonjour. Michelle from Lebanon. IGF in Lebanon last year. NGOs. We had several seminars about
cybersecurity mainly. need to achieve — we are
talking about cybersecurity. And we’re trying to affect all
the and their parents also and the young leaders. Thank you.>> Good afternoon. first of November, so just a
couple of IGF Indonesia together with IGF minister of communications and
IT of Indonesia. Our focus within the cybersecurity about cyberbullying. As we know there are more than
112 users in Indonesia. Half of that population are young which is from 13 to 17 years
old. The issue is they are the
biggest community when using the Internet but they understand
parents. So we focus on the cyberbullying
by mental health awareness starting
from body shaming. We had to face IGF youth
Indonesia. young people, university
students to identify what exactly
cyberbullying is whether this has been having the
policy to tell them the most important
to go the cyberbullying is
togetherness universities, schools, and the
whole cyberbullying. Thank you.>> Good afternoon. My name is Bernardo.Portugal. Last month October 15th we
organized in Portugal. It was a debate on security
privacy governance to measuring what was
the knowledge of the majority?It was a meeting with mostly
university students. developing together with some
members cyberdetective with the intent
of and giving solutions to people
around cybersecurity issues. This was for example for
students to the area with less knowledge. Thank you.>>YULIYA MORENETS: I think it
was the achievements. The delegation, did you have
questions would you like to know more about these particular
countries? We are an African constant tent
due to unable to bring one of them. meeting in Haiti and the young
people.for the delegation where you would like table and then
they prepared the think. Thank you, very much. pressure for me to engage in
youth IGF. I’m on thepolicy, the future for
young people, the are going to inherit is really
important have — that you feel that you
can shape that, that own it. I think what I’ve been really
impressed about with IGF. It’s not just something — youth
IGF, I mean.something that happens once a year. operating and reaching out to
one whole year. I have many opportunities to meet IGF previously. But when I am
on mission in other I’m reaching out. And I think it would be
interesting colleagues to know more about
the you have together and also why
that’s just doing it online, okay. come together in realtime. flesh meetings. But when the Internet first about, can we have flash
meetings. It’s not something awful. It’s just the real meetings that
we have. I think that would be really
useful.something else. We are from many different
countries. represent many different
committees. That’s really important. But we also are on various
delegations countries. So, for example, I met the
Haitian on mission as part of the
African and Caribbean delegation. I think there
are many more connect with European Parliament
areaens missions to other countries. We
have that responsibility. think MEPs could be made aware
of this. country, get in touch with
Yuliya and with the IGF group that’s in
that country. I think maybe just address that value, if you like, the benefits
of you also the value of you not just
being value of you coming together in
realtime in person.>> Thank you, Julia. interesting and maybe the first
question young people in the community of
this countries can also be useful or
bring youth communities in different
countries you represent the European
Parliament you said, you’re visiting. information from this youth
communities on a particular topic that
you’re working on this country. So I think it’s maybe the first
question we can ask.>> Right. So first of all, I
think it’s very try to make connections also
with the Parliament. It’s always a struggle to get
young opinions heard in policy discussions.exception. I think
the average age is over 50 years old. it can be difficult because
youth is electoral group. But I think we
all have to recognize the end of the day, the policies
that we the next coming decades and the
way that to develop. And I think it is always useful
to statements on the big
discussions of the protection, neutrality, cyber
bullying Because I think that all of the
parties will have to confront that that we make today are not just
for ourselves. when I talk to colleagues, when
they attention to a topic that is
important they hear about it outside of
their work. theirny knew or niece comes to
them and concerned about something that
is going think that can have a big
impact. But I think it’s important also
to we are no longer up to date with
all the being useded to. Each myself I’m a bit over 30. level stopped at 2014 when I was
elected since then I have had less time
to keep really know what is — what
developments people today. So I found it very interesting
to body shaming is kind of a
particular that a lot of young people have
to do deal with. So for us these kinds of important and I think it’s
useful that policy subjects where you would
like to makers. >> Thank you. discussion with the young. like to comment on this question
as well.>> Mr. Goran thank you. (Laughter) >>YULIYA
MORENETS: We just made the introduction. We have the young people that —
it for them to make it here and to
be continents due to the iCANN
support as well.you. We have Maria from uian, junior Lebanon, Indonesia and Bernardo
from Portugal. a little bit what was the youth
IGF created in 2011. We’re
presenting the achievements. Maybe it will be interesting if
the burning issues that you have during the national event that
you cybersecurity months event that
you organized. And maybe you can — in this
sense answer the question to Mr. Marby
through the delegation. ready from you?>> During the event we
organized for last October. thing that was very — was the
lack of and security issues. For example, present students
none cookies were for example or they
had the appears that is now mandatory to
appear tracked and stored by providers. They had no idea
what it was.reading all the time. And also they had no idea what have and what it could be used
for beings for example. It was also the main issue that
is every day for almost everything
in their lives. have a conscious on what
cybersecurity arise from it. >>YULIYA MORENETS: Do we have
another country? Igita, bring your concerns in
your country.>> Yes, in Indonesia, the most the right balance between human
right because we speak about the human
right, to speech, freedom to speech.
But at the same time there’s content control. Speaking about the technical community, that would technology infrastructure and
focusing filtering the content. But
in terms of the government, which is Indonesia, we currently
lack of used as a cyberlaw or even right
now make our own data privacy
policy, our own GDPR. So the main concern, I guess, is
have different (? multistakeholders in Indonesia
to come Internet multistakeholders, per
se. >>YULIYA MORENETS: Thank you. who asked for the floor. been brought to the European
Union delegation. Mr. you would like to make the
introduction what they’re doing in other
countries.>> Goran Marby: I feel like I side because I feel a little bit
older than you, slightly. There are no sides on a round
table, you’re right. sitting so far away from each
other by the way. Hi gun ter, hi other ones.be
here. Could I pick on some of the things which I think is important?
I’ll put that away. people didn’t even know what
cookies was. In my speeches over the last couple speeches by saying, you should
clean cache at least every week. their mobile web browser over
the last Before I joined iCANN, I was a
an experiment. We looked at cookies lifetime. that had a life spine of 2,500
years. During the experiment, go to an
IP usually use and you make
searches for instance for barbed wire. Then you go to another country’s
story language ads for that kind of
equipment. Because that will follow you around.else. The way it’s built it gives the
end responsibilities. Because you can improve you’re
own quite much by cleaning your
cache and the right way and middleman VPN
that measures you can do. Make sure
your system is updated. That increases the security of
yourself tremendously. we don’t talk about that, which
I agree with you. ICANN was a technical organization. user point, but err starting to
talk a big part of those problems. talk about infected computers.
The responsibility of the infected computer lies with you. If you upgrade your operating
systems, computer, it will not be
infected and in DDOS taxes. Because they’re
all infect the. We have a small part in that. supplies the world with a domain
system. there’s a link and you see that
link and like you’re going to get a million dollars or
something.Therefore, you get something downloaded virus.
That virus is used in an attack. One of the things we’re working make sure that there aren’t too
many bad domainers out there. Actually for recents or selling
for bad things because it’s the domain
you actually see. That’s the first thing. it comes to your own
responsibility. and I say, maybe that’s
something we can We teach kids how to walk across
the street.should teach them how to use secure When I want to learn something,
I teaches me. The second thing that is sort of I’ve seen
this more and more. Let me talk about Internet. We talk
about two different things. Internet. One Internet is one
we use all the time. everybody sitting here is doing
chats ones or making arrangements for
dinner tonight, whatever. use Internet as a methodology
for our own good. And then you have the other bad things that we don’t like or is
using it for bapd thingsthat people don’t
like. We’re representing the technical domain system and the functions. The problem is it’s the same
system. gives you the ability to go
online and good. It’s the same system that
someone is with. What we’ve seen over the last elected politicians around the
world is now looking at it. You talk about bad content,
whatever that is.there are things that we can agree upon. But some of the legislative wants to take that away actually
ends up cannot connect to the Internet
and between each other. We also see in the — sometimes
in specifications and new equipment about 5G, that they want to take
away what we call the Internet. They want to have something else
because things there. Internet has been — the domain
successful. We’ve grown it from no one to 3.4 or 4. remember, billion users around
the world no hiccups. I think it’s fair to discuss many
of those things.it’s important for elected officials look because Internet has social
impact. We are not a political organization. we have to make sure that it
doesn’t and work for, the
interconnectivity of Internet itself.this and my team does
this because we on the Internet, something
magical happens. So this means that our work and your
work is not done. was — so iCANN celebrated it’s
20th anniversary. that when I was 35 years old
when iCANN was formed. I’m old. And in a very short time period
this has happened. done everything with Internet. couple of billion users we have not made all the decisions and
policies going forward. We still have an enormous amount
of ask ourselves. Legislation now has an impact on
how we can do things.That’s why it’s important for iCANN for younger people, whatever the
definition is.being young, by the way? Is there an age. My kids think I’m very old.
>> I think we have the definition right? 35.>> You’re young under 35? daughter. She thinks she’s old.
Just to give you a practical example. technical infrastructure of
Internet is transparency and accountability because in this setup that if anyone
acts on the this, you should know who it is.
The reason for that is you want to actors. We see in thousands of databases
we Internet so you can always know
who to on. Here comes GDPR. And we don’t have an opinion
about legislation. GDPR has helped at least me in my talk
more about privacy. But it’s also the fact that inside for instance, in policies set by
IGF, there are names.Everybody wants to know who writes the not
a bad intent. We store this information for a very long
time. We have another one who is
called a not all the users over the world
but a Right now, I think, we have to sure that we don’t break what is
and accountability. And no one can say we have all
the answers.methodology is to bring people in from the community, young, old,
different backgrounds, different ways of
looking consensus going forward. legislation. I picked on
both of your things. No one has the answers.Walk in and have
those opinions because this. Help us to shape not only the
existing 4. whatever it is, but the next
billion many challenges to go. Thank you.>>YULIYA MORENETS: Thank you,
Mr. Marby. things that you put on the table
very Actually about the voice of the
young, I advertise your T shift shirts which is every voice
counts.sure you have one. I think Bernardo from Portugal
was when you raise the question of
cookies. burning question and we wanted
to Parliament as well. This tool,
I think it’s a good momentum.>> Bernardo: I referred to my
presentation now to (?are developing with some students
from Portugal a game called
cyberdetective educating people on these
matters. prototype presents a fishing
case. It shows what happened, how it person try to discover where to
go to, how to get the person to get his
phone which encrypts the device with
ransom the authorities. How to recover data. Beyond the masses with this kind
of enforcement which many times
they don’t these cases. We’re also looking for political the solution of this because we
think start teaching cybersecurity.
We believe that it might be,for so.>>YULIYA MORENETS: I don’t
know delegation, Marby would like to
wrap on questions to the young people
who are born already. signs on this side willingness
to that EU we have issues of
cookies on the legislative table.Julia?>>YULIYA MORENETS: We have
first and then Julia.okay, three in a row.>>AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you,
I’m conversation. Now, I have mother she’s 86
years old.real active on Facebook. and said, I’ve broken my
Facebook. like (? ) and my youngest son who is 12
years explain what was going on. But I have a feeling that we
have on the Internet. I would not exclude this old
ladies mom. I understand we’re speaking with young
people. there are those who are eager to
believe this. But it was speaking about, I was this, several of you mentioned
we have to teach it at school. I believe in December the open initiative but still report (? digital era. This is exactly
about the thing Union, we have several problems. knows that if you graduate from
school, have — you’re supposed to have certain in languages, in history, but
not in IT. There is just no description. digital skills? Another thing is that we don’t
have description of what is IT
teacher? people who are doing programming
somewhere. school. They teach something
and they go away. The result is even, you Loretta, gets elected to the Parliament. social media which happened in
four years.you as an example. But the main point is that we
have how to learn for all their life.
This is not a toy.tool. But we have lack of teachers who and to understand how to do it. which we have to address in
European Union and whatever. On the other hand, we all know
that of most conservative things ever
where I remember properly, in French
schools, enter a lesson with your mobile
phone. I’m not going to criticize this if it is right or if it is
wrong, but it work. And if our children are sleeping teach them how to do it in the
proper way. I believe that maybe this
support kind of first step, but the
problem is thatdeveloping really fast. every day. Another thing is that your young about these meetings. The decision makers and Julia
was we’re kind of a little bit older than you. We had this
big discussion about other things. I had a feeling that this
discussion in parallel. We are old fashioned paper,
newspaper readers. Internet. There’s a lack of link between
generations. It’s really sad to see that,
yes, people on the other side of this
big circle table.politicians kind
of. Please, be more active and write people and children. This is
really important. Thank you. Yunchts thank you so much for
this comment.another member of the European floor. >>
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you very much. from Sweden. I’m reflecting
about the way we are the Internet. I think a huge
problem lies in the to think about Internet as a
special magic, or mysterious or
something very understanding this is in the main core of our
society today. This is how we train. This is how we learn.
we follow media. This is how we socialize, et cetera. And I
think a lot of the problems that are raised everywhere about cyber securitysecurity is to
understand The rules we have in society
needs to applied on the Internet as well. Instead, we’re very open to
everything around. regulate the Internet in order
to be the firsthand problem. else, we need to enforce the
rules we have in society. Fake medicine, the same thing. fake medicine on the Internet
and fake close to the harbor somewhere
where fake medicine, et cetera, et
cetera. I think the main progressive step understand that this is the core
and main part of our society. Also meaning that of course
education safeguard yourself on net
regarding the other things about not only
washing emptying the cache, et cetera. So I think in some way a lot of this. So this thing about
generations — I more about how close we are to
the Internet. And a problematic thing is far
too believe that the Internet is a
very, of understanding that this is
the way we socialize. At the same time
we’re not the Internet makes everything
much more sfaster and you can distribute
things much more. distribute, so to say. order to safeguard in that the
normal enforced on the net. I think a lot of the problem
that solved in an undramatic way.>>YULIYA MORENETS: Thank you
once again. >> I wanted to come back on the colleague from Indonesia about
the and protecting people on line. discussion that we are also
having on a daily basis. I think it’s important not to look solutions, because sometimes we
come up up hurting the people that we
are trying to protect. So, for example, in Germany where discussion about a real name
policy. on Facebook, whether people have
to use they communicate online. And the theory was that if you their identity, then they will
behave properly.what we are seeing is that a lot of comfortable to post racist
comments and their real name because they know it
consequences. But the victims actually are
very example, social media under
their real of stalking, for example. look at it from these both
sides. filtering in particular. I
have a very strong opinion which does not work. We are — I
think putting too much technology to make very
difficult So just to give you a few
examples. about terrorist content online,
we have platforms automatically removing violations in Syria because
there was a that made it look like terrorist
was the exact opt zit. crimes. Another example was
that recently of complaints from Twitter users
in Bulgaria. Now Bulgaria is a regular country in the EU.
things that is different from other the sir illic alphabet so they
don’t alphabet that is used in most
European The automatic algorithms
identified because they were use the ser
illic mentioning some popular
accounts. I think it’s also important to are not created in a vacuum. software engineers who have
their own biases.rich, white, and male. perspectives as everybody else.
So I’m very skeptical towards problems with technology which
is a bit made if we have a social problem
such as and we don’t have the social
norms in actually want to protect the are find a technological fix for it
is not going to work. >> YULIYA MORENETS: Thank you so
much for this statement.I don’t know if the other members of the
would like to make comments. to follow what you just said
about the victims. It’s one of the issues which came events organized in countries by
the youth IGF on cybersecurity. Actually it’s victim protection.
I would like to call on the because we don’t really have the
policy today on how to protect victims
of the This came regularly from these important and would like to
bring to you. do something from legal and
policy perspective. And if you allow us to take the
And if you allow us to take the said about education and allow
us to educational cyberdetective. Portugal would be more than
happy to be used and incorporate by the
policy mechanisms as well. I think we do have a few minutes
left. introduce, because the lady and
the the room. Just to introduce
quickly and then comment and then we introduce
the youth question from Lebanon and then
we have Thank you. Please, sir.>> Thank you, I’m Jonathan bull
lock. the united kink dom in the UFDD
group. Julia said there because often
things intention and create a far worse
situation. For example, many politicians view quite rightly concerned
about the issue of immigration. Because they’re concerned about
talk about this issue, they sometimes stopped from talking about it
which is, For example, in the UK with had
a gangs in small towns which are
mainly of Muslim background.This is a serious issue. political correctness and so
scared of the Internet or what have you,
the issue So I want to support what’s
being often going wrong when things
are done intention but end up banning in
a way Thank you very much. >>YULIYA MORENETS: Thank you
once again.agree. I would like just to quickly you have two
questions. don’t know about the time which
was by the delegation. I would like to quickly introduce
the colleague from Chad.>> Good morning. (Speaking non-English language)>> I think I have to translate.
There is no translation.I don’t think there’s a possibility. mostly in French. In Chad as
she was saying she IGF Chad. It was their third edition this
year. They have organized and elected
a new committee as well. The last activity was also on responsible use of Internet
which is a well. We can see it’s not only the the
world. I think Michelle from Lebanon,
you one — two sentences, please.>> Michelle: Well, the
technical devices, our main concerns are
identity speech on social media. In
Lebanon we have lack of legislation about these issues.
And the people are confusing between the So I would like to know how are
you the European countries?>>YULIYA MORENETS: Thank you.
A quick question. Geta I think you have a quick
question as well. going to the delegation and
closing. Please. Quickly.>> Geta: I would like to add a the European Parliament from
Germany. because right now I guess
Internet is no tool but more like a social
phenomena agree with the issue that we are
having right now. Instead of making tools for giving awareness to the young
people. especially in developing
countries think the young people we would
like to open and inclusive which is very
collaborations. As we know Internet — damage Indonesia, whether people in a
very knowing about Internet, knowing
about have no idea how to use it
wisely. So the collaborations, I do
believe between the government, the
private as a civil society is very
important to Thank you. >> YULIYA MORENETS: Thank you. European Parliament delegation. questions as well?>> Julia: I think there’s —
there fear, wherever it is, is a place
for for free speech, people to present
their views.important. We need citizenship education
and citizenship education in order
for that is part of how you have a
more more participantive society.
I think what has been happening is has been a lot of false
accusations about things.such a lot of fake news. You see what
is happening in the UK.What is happening with the Trump interference on the Internet
from platforms flooding people’s
gadgets with all kinds of This was even true in the Brazil
elections recently.a lot of work in Brazil. what’s app messages which were
encouraging people. What I’m really worried about is you have
violence online.You have violence and threats online and this is a space where they can
say the face-to-face to each other.
But when politicians are making statements and they’re
encouraging, it ripped up by the right wing
press and ends up in real violence.What is happening on
the Internet actually from everybody at all
levels right through to the policy
makers and to really behave in a much more
— in a about the way that they are speaking about things. So for me I think citizenship that digital and media literacy
so that really informed about what is
real, what responsibilities. I’m very proud that in my region
at they had a research program with
young about cybersecurity, which I can
share link up to it so that you can
look at it on my Twitter feed. It was reported by a really conversation which is an online
magazine It’s very important that we
continue experts. It works with experts from the having their papers,
discussions, their very open way. So it’s not like you’re an
academic access to really complicated way. digestible form for everybody to
look at. I would also like to say I was university last Monday on human
rights There’s a new think tank called
Britain really concerned about a lot of the rights and citizenship issues
which are European values right now.
>>YULIYA MORENETS: Thank you so much.comments on the Dell he
gation. >> We are over time and there is the president of
the country. our dedication and not
everything can be legislated. have the new forums and it
brings a lot that we can all share. So it brings also the
responsibility everyone joining. Internet. I think the best
hint that I have start from thinking that we put
online, would like your daughter to see
and read? common — it’s fair for
everyone. you can talk among the old
people or you fellows. But it turns out to be not if you insult other people or
group or individuals. is, I think the best way to make
a the right to speech and propose
your own it’s really discriminating the
rights of the others. But thank you so much for a very brought on board in this meeting
and job as well. >> We have to thank the delegation being here with us as well as
the iCANN. responsibility and if we can
repeat this make a tradition of this, it
will be great for the young people.Thank you again. If
you just will give us two minutes to take it together.It
will be great as well. Thank you. (Open forum concluded)

Danny Hutson

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *