You are connected to event: CFI-RPC3

.

>> Good morning, it's the last day of the gif.  Thank you for coming so
early and we have a very trk discussion today about a very interesting
topic.  My name is Carolin Wiesser.  With me on the panel is car Lynn
Nguyen, and we have two participants from the -- from the world bank for
going to participate from their perspective.  We don't have video
participation but they're going to speak and you're going to hear the
comments.  I just would like to start shortly about the work we are doing
in Oxford.  We have developed a cyber security maturity model.  It's a
model which -- can you -- which looks at national cyber security capacity
from various dimensions.  Look at from five different dimensions policy --
cyber education training and skills, cyber legislation and technologies and
standards.  So we have developed this model in cooperation with experts
from various fields.  And have implemented this model over the last one
half years in more than 40 countries.  A regional study and strategic
partners, world bank, and several governments including the Dutch
government as part of the initiatives we have used this model across the
globe.  The idea behind this -- the reporting process to give policy makers
and governments and organizations those who do development projects and
also do make decision on infrastructure, et cetera, to make informed
decisions about capacity building and also by doing this actually do a
capacity building in itself.  Because we are very convinced that this is a
topic which is a very -- it touches every part of society, economy, and is
very crucial for any kind of socioeconomic development.  So this model has
been used -- we went through a process earlier this year and we continue to
use this model across the globe.  And we are very happy to -- also have
already impact in terms of the countries use the recommendations they get
from the report which is submitted after this process.  It can make really
informed decisions.  They can make decision about the next steps.  They can
start new collaboration.  So we are fostering this kind of exercise.  We
are fostering this kind of processes.  And we foster collaboration among
all the stakeholders across the world.  We will talk about how to use
modern how they integrate cyber security capacity.  Carolyn?

>> Good morning.  Thank you very much, Carolin, and thank you for inviting
me to participate in this forum. So one of the things that when we first
started thinking about the workshop proposal, what we thought was that
cyber security is very, very much an integral and a central part of the
WSIS conversation.  So during the review last year, for any of you who are
familiar with the outcome document that was the resolution from the UN
general asembly, cyber security was a part of that outcome document.
Having participated in that process what become clear cyber threat was an
integral part but there was also a lot of fear from government, developing
country as well as other governments around what should be done.  And also
there was a lack of understanding of the role and the value of the
multistakeholder process in enabling this conversation.  As well as what's
already been done through multistakeholder partnerships in various
different parts of the world.  So this workshop was really proposed to
address some of those shortcomings.  So we know that governments around the
world are very concerned around cyber security threats, and therefore are
developing strategies, guidelines and regulations and national standards.
But as these things are being done individually by different governments in
different countries, for example, more than 85 countries are developing
policies.  What's happening is that the differences in the approach are
creating compliance frameworks that are fragmenting the Internet, which
then gets at sort of if the idea of cyber security approaches is trying to
enable connectivity, to enable society as well as of sustainable
development goals and what's happening in reality is counter to those
goals. So for Microsoft, starting for a few years now, we've been
advocating really the establishment of some sort of cybersecurity norms or
some sort of guidelines.  And we're starting to see this happen within the
last couple of years.  So, for example, in March 2016, in March of this
year, G-7 released principles and actions on cyberer which really pulls
together the conversation around openness and reliability and security of
the Internet as fundamental to achieving the digital economy and in
particular the sustainable development goals.  And it puts forward things
like we affirm the importance of respect in promoting privacy, data
protection and cybersecurity and at the end of the document proposes
concerted actions.  In October this year, the G7 followed that up with
guidelines for the financial sector.  So in terms of trying to make in
order for us to really achieve the goals much WSS and the SDGs what we
would like to talk about in this session is how can we all work to
cooperate in developed harmonized security and baseline security approaches
that leverages for example risk-based best practices such as cyber security
framework.  Because what happens, if there can be a common framework, then
there could be a common set of vocabulary approaches, this is very much a
holistic discussion and having a common set of vocabulary to people who are
not necessarily cyber security experts can really broaden the conversation,
because this is an important conversation that will take everyone, it does
take everyone to try to make this work. Secondly, what we think should be
is that such guideline work should really focus inalitying outcome-based
requirements. Thirdly, really participate in the development of an
international standards and security baselines.  So look at something
potentially like starting with the new cyber security framework and then
really open this conversation up to all the stakeholders here.  Make this
really an integral part of the Internet governance conversation, and the
SDG because that's really what it will take in order for us to achieve the
goals that were laid out there.  Thank you.

>> Thank you very much for being so early.  I know it's the last day.  It's
a pleasure to -- for us it's a pleasure to sponsor to organize these.  With
our strategic partners, Microsoft which we have an excellent relationship.
The World Bank and the world economic forum, one representative of our
member states.  This actually represents the importance of having different
actors on the same table. Another topic is how development of Internet
governance interact but it's actually important and this is something we
have seen.  One thing is cyber security from having cyber security with a
development perspective, kind of I don't want to, but I will use sell cyber
security from a development perspective and actually the interaction of the
cyber security and the development world.  Which are maybe two different
things and two challenging things for us at least in the international
organization's perspective.  From the cyber security program, we have been
trying to do five main things.  One is promotion of national strategies,
the development and coordination of computer -- the provision of training.
Crisis management exercises and a new language which is research and
expertise.  In all of these we have been trying be more inclusive, to
include private sector, academia.  Actors of a civil society.  Actually we
with the purpose of provide us economic perspective.  We recollect flies
that the traditional security -- recognize that the traditional security
speech might be really difficult.  One of the things that we have
recognized is that security, in terms of indicators, it's really difficult
to quantify.  You can have many qualitative indicators by when you want to
go to the -- are really difficult to measure.  That's why when we are
talking about indicators and how to bring that to the attention of the
policy and the decision-makers and to the ones who actually will assign
budgets and assign priorities in our countries.  And actually in companies
and institutions, and different organizations.  We approach organizations
such as the World Bank with the last one with Oxford University for a
period of two years we prepare this report but yeah on April 2016.  And
actually we got a lot of support initially from Microsoft on the
availability of these indicators.  And we partner with Oxford on this.  And
we identify 49 lines or 49 priorities of countries.  We who doesn't seem to
have go online to cyber security -- and you will see all the 49 indicators
of 32 Latin American and Caribbean countries.  We find out that in the five
different areas that Carolin was mentioning, Latin American and Caribbean
is not totally prepared to face cyber threats.  We recognize that this
should be actually not use the traditional security, not should be the
traditional security speech.  Actually it should have development and
socioeconomic focus.  That way it will be much easier to engage the private
sector and the society in general in all the national projects. One of the
things we have been trying and maybe one of the lines of action that we
were the most right now is the development of national strategies or
national policies or national action plans, we leave that to the countries
to decide how they want to have the approach.  It's -- well, first to Volvo
all -- all national actors.  And to highlight as they are investing a huge
amount of resources on the traditional development projects, the most
linked to the cyber security will be broadband access but it's not the only
one.  If you think on transportation, energy, finance sector, on different
projects, they are very, very linked to cyber security.  We tell them,
look.  All your investments, all your billions of dollars will be at risk
because you didn't invest maybe one or two or three or .5% that you could
to cyber security.  There are studies or the UN could say that for each
thousands of -- should have at least 3 to 6 security forces.  We say forces
but invest at least that amount to indicate those development projects to
people, to officials, that protect cyberspace.  It is not just law
enforcement.  It means actually people that come protect their citizens
rights and can make sure that cyberspace is totally secure. Again, this is
for us it's a learning process.  We recognize that.  That this is still
disconnection between the development and the cyber security world. A
couple of years ago there was an activity and this is something we have
actually discussed in several locations with other development
organizations.  For us it will be ideal that the on the development
projects as they include safeguards on human rights, on gender, on
different issues, actually they push to include a safeguard on cyber issues
that will change the way on how development or investment projects are
conceived and that will help us a lot in all our cyber security
initiatives.  Because it will not be use the traditional organizations
pushing for this, it will be actually the beneficiaries and it will be the
investors, the ones who will be responsible for making sure that all the
cyber space is protected.  And at the end this is a shared responsibility.
And when we say -- and we hope that when we say such a responsibility, it's
more than we say, we actually mean it and we are committed with it.

>> Thank you, so much for allowing me to -- inviting me to join this panel.
This is a very interesting topic.  I will ask if I can have the
presentation please.  The one that starts with Colombia.  Meanwhile as you
know there are -- something happens with the tech.  Okay. So as you know we
have -- yes, there is a problem with the fonts.  That always happen.  No
problem.  Let's move to the first one, please.

>> Next one?

>> Yes.

>> So as you know, in terms of we have we're talking about development, we
have two pillars coming from the United Nations agenda.  The first one is
economic development, social inclusion and protection of the environment.
So there is impossible to conceive how to do this without ICTs.  So all the
ICTs become catalyzers.  And at the national level, each country has its
own priority.  In this I'm trying to show you this graph, but I don't know
the people in the background have their TV.  So it could be fine.  We have
we prioritize in our national plan of development for the country that this
every person has proposed their plan.  We pryer ties some these kind of
objectives in our national agenda.  -- and we have consolation of the
social rule of law.  And good governance as six of our priorities in terms
of our national development plan.  So we realize and we put it on the law
that ICTs are a huge opportunity to achieve these strategies so we make
what we define a national ICT plan we call live digital.  Or digital live.
So with this plan we want to have more and better infrastructure to access
to the people to ICTs, because we aren't -- we are, we really follow the
rule that more Internet, less property.  So that's an equation that we
really think on it. So finally we went to reduce the digital divide in the
country.  And we want really to move as a digital economy player.  So we
are trying to have things like internship using SDGs and to move from
traditional development business and projects to another one that comes
from digital economy.  Or comes with digital economy. So the conclusion
here in our national digital agenda is that Colombia can get the best out
of the opportunities, the ICTs offer.  If citizens or business do enough
trust on it.  So that's why cyber security is so important.  Because the
cyber security gives the confidence to the people and business to use the
digital environment.  The next one, please. And so we design in our
national policy, we define can you please move five times?  We define in
our policy five dimensions.  The first one is the regulatory framework.  We
need to move forward not only to provide framework to provide a safer
Internet and using ICTs, we also need to have our regulatory framework to
gain the best from the digital environment in each sector of the economy.
You know, the uberization of the technology of the business has a big
challenge for the whole sectors of the economy.  So the second one is that
the governance.  We put it together in the policy.  So we realize that
governance is very important because we need to involve with the support of
the OES and EOCD, we obtain by 2014 several recommendations about how to
improve the governance because they found that one of the problems we have
in Colombia.  We have some institutions working on this, but we were lack
of ordinance to bring more things together.  So we define some actions, for
example.  We define national digital security agenda as one of the actions
we will do next year to improve this kind of topics in our country.  So to
build this agenda we will have the participation of all the stakeholders
coming from cyber society, coming from academia, coming from the sector,
and of course from the government.  The management approach so we define
for instance we will have a model, a national digital risk security model
that we will we want to have as a model that we used not only the public
sector but also the private sector in this multimillion dollar business and
also for the public in general.  And the fourth one is the digital security
culture.  We were talking yesterday we talk about how to improve cyber
security and that's not new that the citizens has a huge responsibility
regarding cyber security.  So we need to improve the culture and also in
the business.  And the last one is the capacity building on digital
security risk management.  Because of course we need to -- we need to
improve the capabilities and capacity of our national police and our
attorneys and the attorney, the judges, all the people that will do
investigations and that we find that the people that fights against cyber
crime need to have more capabilities.  But also in terms of cyber defense
and of course in terms of how to use in the best way ICTs.  So this is like
I'll wrap-up very fast.  Wrap up expressions about what we do in our --
what we did in our national digital security, but I want to highlight the
most important thing we do is that the former to help us to build in 2011,
we started to define, okay, we need institutions.  We need to engage
authorities about this.  We need some laws.  We need to work on our legal
framework and we started with that.  But now we realize that this is not a
technical issue.  Colombia pointed out that this is now a strategic issue
and we need to move it to the top of our national president agenda and
that's why we define a new national digital security policy that comes all
things together.  Development, cyber security, and also governance.
Because we need to bring it together.

>> MODERATOR:  I would like now to go to our first remote speaker.  Danil,
can you hear us?  Hello, Natalia. [ Indiscernible ]. Down in this area
there is huge ongoing project right now.  Now we are turning our attention
more to connecting the rural communities right where we see a clear market
failure.  The private sector is not coming there and there is a lot of
population leading in those rural areas.  Disconnected.  People are lacking
capacity.  People are lacking understanding on how this infrastructure can
ease and bring them more opportunities.  So we want them to know more about
that.  We talk about the ICT and digital skills building.  But along with
that is absolutely necessary to talk about the safe of Internet, about
cyber security online.  And we talk about the population which is having
lower development skills.  So we are talking about a specific cyber
capacity building to the population which is mot you know a technologically
savvy youngsters.  We talk about the population with lower skills.  We talk
about the population with low English proficiency.  So we are talking about
a design of the cyber security capacity programs for those people.  Making
sure that they are able to use Internet and that they are also using it
safely.  So emergence of those programs and integration of those programs
in our rural development projects is something that is really starting to
emerge as a developing constitution.  We are looking very much around to
incorporate on those issues.  We see currently lack of those curriculas of
understanding of how to do it, what could be the result.  We would like to
see some pilots, something very important for us.  To give you an example,
we are now starting to implement a program in Georgia on national
innovation system and it looks into the innovation development around the
reason.  And of course innovation go hand in hand with ICT adoption as
well.  And we're thinking about designing of those programs to bring masses
on the Internet.  We need to have a critical mass of people everywhere.
You know, using this.  This is when the digital dividends will start to
give real benefits.  This is something that we as the World Bank look at
very seriously and this is something we would like to cooperate more with
everybody.  And we think that the a workshop like this one is useful to
bring everybody together and to debate who does what, what is the best way
to go forward.  And we think this is the way to go.  So thank you very much
for allowing us to present our position here and we wish you a very
fruitful discussions.  Look forward to participate there.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you very much.  I hope time for questions later if
there are any questions in the world bank I would like now to give the mic
to our next speaker.  If he's available.  Danil?

>> Good morning, can you hear me?

>> MODERATOR:  We can hear you.  Hello, Danil.  We only have some from you.
But please, you have the floor.

>> Danil Kerimi:  I'm delighted to connect remotely.  I sadly had to be
elsewhere this week but it -- [ indiscernible ] I'm also I feel there is a
lot of echo. The topic close to my heart and I think everybody who is in my
room on the last day of the gathering because indeed we have to be
traditional and very good at connecting the dots.  The various
organizations and governments and businesses are doing tremendous job in
connecting identifying critical -- so in the past we have energy nexus
where we try to -- to think about it -- in order to each problem in each --
and increasingly as we move -- as we became completely dependent on cyber
space Internet and cyber space border, demonstrates our business life and
other -- [Cutting out]. World bank and others working with our partners
primarily business community issues that are they're facing.  And all of
your institutions have been in this effort. In the past we try to work
directly with business leaderships and also leaders -- and to sensitize
them.  And when we heard that work a few years back, it was hard, we had to
did a lot of selling, we had to do a lot of sensitizing, people have
different priorities.  But increasing we find that people come to us
without any effort. I'm not sure who is there this week, but Belgium for
example created an integrative ministry digital development and questions
all in one.  And we increasingly think that this will be a way forward.
What Natalia has just mentioned is music to my ears -- thinking into their
traditional work.  What we notice in the past is very hard to bring cyber
security questions into conversations around infrastructure development.
But now as we moved beyond into smart infrastructure. [Breaking up].

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you, Danil.  Thank you very much for I think it's a
very good different perspective how important it is to bring everybody on
board and to see cyber security capacity building as a multistakeholder
effort and as an international effort, which is not can be think sort of on
a national level nor one of the tech policy level or infrastructure level.
A question to the panel these are a lot of top-down approaches.  When you
said earlier you feel some disconnection to certain spheres.  How could you
create this connection?  Are there any ways to also kind of link it to
button-up approaches?

>> Connection?

>> How to create this kind of connection.

>> Well, we have panelists trying to make these connections in the
different forums.  Every time we go to a country we try to engage with the
multiple stakeholders.  We try to like the metro to open the doors all the
time.  But of course it's challenging.  And the thing is there are few
people of course in the government world that are people that actually
handle these project that have these powers that they need to actually
consider the need to include cyber security as part of their agendas.
While Danil was talking, actually came back to my mind a concept from the
WEF, and now everyone is talking about the revolution and it says we're
going to lose jobs and everything is moving or everything is already our
digital lives and you know we are not protecting our digital world.  We are
still not realizing important of security environment.  We are still
carrying too much and taking too much about the physical world, but we have
not still realized that our lives, all the dependency that we have on the
ICTs.  We just need to change the way that we think and you know, and work
together.  Because it's not just different.  It's something that needs to
be interconnected.  Again, as an agenda issue, as a human rights issue,
cyber security should be a component of all these development projects.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you.

>> I think that as I said -- it is important to have this and like put out
the conversation from the technical side.  The most important thing we did
was in fact because we were as you know Colombia is going to be -- we are
in the -- to become member of the OCD.  We working very close to them and
with the support of the OES and then after that because of the expedition
or when the OECD issued their new data security risk management
recommendations last September, we find it like an opportunity to bring
this to the president level agenda.  Because the person is so interested in
becoming part of the -- it's one of his goals.  So and priorities, yes.
And so when from the -- ask us to fill all the committee recommendations
and service and all this kind of stuff, we realize that we have a lot of
work to do.  To adopt that kind of recommendations.  But so we move forward
to adopt the recommendations in our national digital security.  So in fact
it was like a good coincidence to be part of this road map and being in the
moment to for doing the actions to be part of the OECD and the end of the
previous policy that we have in this matter, because the policy coming from
2011, finally ends December of 2015.  So we needed to have a new one.  So
it was a good coincidence to have that kind of recommendation, to have the
support of the OES, that was so important.  We have 20 countries of the
world working with us and telling us how to improve our policy.  So I think
very good and we got the message and we did it.  That's important thing.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you Carolin for bringing up that question because I
think that in any -- when you start to look at the online initiative, I
think a critical component of it is that people need to feel that they are
safe online at the end of the day.  I think that you had brought up before
the importance of trus worthiness of the system.  People need to feel
empowered and they also need to feel safe.  They also need to feel that
there is a place for them to go to in case something happens.  So let me
give you an example of something we at Microsoft did in order to address
some of these issues.  In 2003, a detective with the Toronto police
department came to us and said look, we have a digital strategy but however
this is this issue in terms of online photoings of young girls, sexual
abuse type of photos.  They said as a technology company, can you help us
with this, what can you do for the average person online.  So Microsoft
went to work together with Dartmouth, Microsoft research and we also
established a unit called the digital crime unit that in 2009 in partner
with the national center for missing and exploited children to start to put
these tools out there so that not everyone can use these -- now everyone
can use these tools.  So in 2012 we made photo DNA available to law
enforcement worldwide at no charge.  And then in 2015 we made this
available to qualified organization essentially as a free cloud service.  I
think that these kinds of tools are absolutely critical to complement the
top-down approach.  Because then people feel there are tools, there are
resources that I can go to.  And this brings up an additional, another
point that perhaps I want to put it out there, which is that as we start to
look at connectivity projects such as was described by the world bank, et
cetera, I wonder if there's an opportunity to also put together a tool kit.
So, for example, as Oxford is implementing the capacity model, putting this
out there, just to be practical, here are a set of tools that everyone can
use.  And I think that's our thinking when we start to think about how do
you ensure online security and safety.  What are some of the tools, what
are some of the one, two, three, because that's how you get people online.
Another related question to this also, and this was something that was
really dressed by the broader IGF community which is people need to know
what they'll get when they get online.  Why should they get online as well.
I think that's another question that's being addressed by some of the work
in terms of digital literacy or information literacy.  This is why we're
all making the point that this conversation around cyber security safety
really needs to be hand in hand with all of the other dimensions of the
conversation as well.

>> Thank you very much.  It's very important to emphasize.  Kind of like
also getting these different fears together and not -- and also be aware
that there is also knowledge and expertise from the button to inform
policies. I would like to open the floor to questions for Danil because he
has to leave a little bit earlier.  Any questions or also to the other
speakers?  Please raise your hand.  We will collect two or three questions
and the panelists will answer.

>> AUDIENCE:  I represent the mobile operators of India.  I would just like
to reinforce what the lady from Microsoft said from the ground level up
when we talk, I don't think it's necessary at least to convince anymore
about security and governance and we need to connect the 1 billion.  All of
that is accepted.  I think we're now in the stage where we want to know the
how-to.  This is becoming increasingly important.  What is a common
criteria set that we can look at.  What should a IT act or a government act
look like in terms of inclusion in critical comments and phrases and
requirements that meets a good model.  For example, when we talk about
businesses, the greatest issue in terms of security is what consumers
themselves do when they say I agree.  Nobody reads the 1,000 requirements.
So when you want to get on you say that's obviously giving it away.  The
access to very personal information, what are we doing in terms of making
sure that the legal language in these applications are constrained and
there's a model set of here's not the fine print but the large print before
you say I agree.  So some of these practical aspects would be helpful for
us to implement, to have to deal with the logistics of getting this done at
the ground level.  Thank you.

>> AUDIENCE:  Thank you.  I'm from Google Mexico public policy and I was
going to mention the importance of prevention in cyber crime in helping the
new users to know all the tips to cyber security and particularly with
young people, right?  So it's very important for them to not only to know
how to do a good pass word or a pass phrase, but the decision but I think
that's a very important part of it.  But also as Carolin mentioned, all
this cooperation, for instance, the photo DNA that you mentioned, we worked
with Microsoft as well to develop after washds the DNA for videos to
detect.  People to have this tool kit for cyber security and security
online and we have a huge advantage because we speak Spanish so it will be
easy to have a standard of the minimum issues for cyber security to take
place.  Thank you so much.

>> AUDIENCE:  Hi.  I want to embrace the points about con.  You don't
understand the properties of a system and I think that's a core tension.
How do you deliver trust while at the same time admitting that things will
go wrong and there are real risks.  It's communication challenge.

>> I would like to comment on the Indian gentleman.  I think being aware of
-- being cyber aware of how we can protect ourselves, being aware of what
the risk that is already empowering note that the Internet itself but also
knowing these are my rights I have the same rights online which I have in
real life.  I think the other dimensions we're looking at which are all in
particular for coming online now these are knowledge that they can trust it
and if something happens to them they can actually go somewhere and they
know they have those rights and that's very crucial.

>> I want to comment on a number of things.  To identify -- there's a huge
risk when we talk about models because and I'm not talking about particular
institution, but there's some institutions or some country that would like
just to copy and paste.  There is importance to recognize that every
institution is unique.  Want to improve it in the next year or so in order
to continue updating our countries on this. On the on the -- that's why
yesterday we actually organized another panel with Microsoft Oxford
actually Colombia, I national alliance.  We prepare a tool kit OE8 cyber in
Spanish and English and how to develop an awareness campaign.  One of the
things that we have found out is that countries in Latin-America and the
Caribbean probably around the world, we don't have awareness campaign.  So
there is not a common message to all ICT users. A proposal is something --
try to do next year.  Is organize a series of working groups with citizen
of countries to try to raise the level of awareness and try to specific
countries our campaigns activities involving different actors.  We truly
believe there is a huge opportunity for private sector, academia in a civil
society to engage in this awareness area as happened in other countries
like the U.S. and Canada. For the comment about the trust and the
communication challenge, I think that reality that we need to face but like
we need to act.  It's like you know, in every session, the trust issue,
it's there.  But you know, we leave the session and we still talking about
trust, it's a trust problem.  And it's not just IGF.  It's about every
workshop area we attend.  It's how to tackle trust.  The best way to tackle
trust is working together.  Talking to each other.  Break dividers that's
the best way to work together.  It's not just between governments all the
different actors.  Otherwise the information will be there -- everything
will be like a snowball.  It start small and get really big.

>> I want to highlight about the topic of prevention and awareness.  That
and we talk about that. We have a campaign called in ICT I trust.  We have
another campaign focused on pornography and that is called I protect you.
So that kind of names are not a coincidence.  We want to have short names
for all the campaigns that make sense for the people and that give some
kind of feeling because we need to connect with the people.  The privacy is
not important for the youngest people and we realize that because we did
surveys and we found it.  So we need to rise that kind of conscious in the
people.  So we need to have on the characteristics on each sector of
people.  And that's when one of the conclusions we have.

>> MODERATOR:  I was trying to see whether it's clued.  Did a quick search,
didn't find the information.  So I think back to something really
practical, there's a lot of really, really amazing work going on out there.
But I think that you know if we look back at the IGF as a global platform
for shurg, I'll use the word policy options instead of best practices, then
let's make sure that information is integrated into the intersessional work
here as well.  Because I think there's a lot of great work and I think to
your point, it feels like if we could put it to, if there's a tool kit,
there's various versions of it.  If you feel this is a policy option that
really should be shared with the other regions, make sure the information
gets out there as part of the intersessional work.  Or the BPF work because
it really needs to be there.  And it gets back to how does the IGF help to
realize the SDGs. I want to go back to the comment around trust needs to be
achieved through skepticism nd many others have said yes we need to do
that.  But I think another part of the IGF is that a stakeholder comes here
to understand a little bit better about what they need to do in order to be
a part of that whole conversation because that's the only way to establish
trust amongst all the stakeholders.  And a multistakeholder model cannot
work unless there's trust.  So because you know what we're seeing, I talked
a little about some of the cyber crime regulations that's been passed
that's causing fragmentation.  That's because there's no trust.  And
government feels the need to act because they feel like they're the only
one, they're the back stop.  So therefore you get these -- let me use the
term draconian regulations.  Because they don't feel that anyone else will
come to the table whereas from a business perspective, we put out
guidelines, we say okay here are the things that we will do in terms of
security, privacy, transparency, but no one believes us.  And so the civil
society comes in and says yeah you put all of that out there but let's look
at the corporate social responsibility index where you're not doing things.
That's why we come to the IGF and to share what we're doing, how we can all
improve to kind of address the skepticism.  So thanks for asking the
question.  That's a great question.

>> AUDIENCE:  Can someone from the remote participants have a question.
Hello?  We would also like to react to the questions, if that's all right.
The remote panelists.  Thank you.

>> So you know, there was touched an issue of the awareness campaigns.  And
the best way to organize them and that we are lacking them and we are
lacking coordination and so on and so forth.  I think it's very important
that this issue would be going from top to down this means we do not talk
only on the federal, on the government level about these issues, but we
also for instance for future will be bringing local guys local
municipalities, local communities.  So unless this goes down there, this
issue of building the awareness.  And really addressing the cyber security
capacity of the real people on you know in real small towns around, you
know this can be done only collaborating with those bodies.  Local bodies.
Municipalities, associations of municipalities, Internet service providers,
small ones delivering Internet there to those people.  And I think this is
the way to go forward with this capacity building.  Because pretty much on
the national level and on the international level there is a consensus
already built.  We all agree on everything.  Now we just need to do it and
to do it efficiently to bring it down all this consensus there and start
implementing those campaigns.  I think this is the most important moving
forward.  So I really think that also the discussions on the IGF should
shift to more experience sharing.  And to more awareness building among
those.  You know?  They should be taking part in those events as well.
They should be listening the same things we do because we are sort of
boiling in our own juices for a number of years here and a number of those
participants is not increasing.  People just don't know what we are talking
here sometimes.  And I think it's important that we bring this and build
this bridge there to rural remote as we call them and as we start talking
to real people whose capacity we want to build.  That's the key, just
wanted to make this point.  Thank you.  Work in the bank is something that
is the biggest challenge.  I think as another project in this sector, this
is the biggest challenge as well.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  Okay.  Carolin?

>> Yeah.  I just want to make a comment regarding the notion at the
international level there's no more work needed to build in terms of
consensus.  I think there's still a lot of work that needs to be done to
build out the consensus.  Hence the notion of some sort of a har mommized
set of cyber security guidelines.  So think there's still a lot of work to
be done there. So I just wanted to -- [ Laughter ] There's a lot of work to
be done everywhere.

>> MODERATOR:  Okay.  Now I would like to -- yeah, please, there were two
questions -- yeah.  Maybe take three more questions.  -- questions from
three more people and we collect those.

>> AUDIENCE:  Hi, my maple is Alex from privacy international.  I wanted to
get the perspective of the different stakeholder groups represented on the
panel today to see how the discussions we're having around cyber security
relate to what we're seeing in terms of the expansion of surveillance
policies and practices across the world including in some of the
governments that are leading the discussion on cyber security, which
includes an expansion in the legal level what powers the government has in
particular when it relates to cyber security around the expansion on a
technical level compelling our creators to install on their own
infrastructure so governments can access and conduct surveillance but it
also includes undermining encryption through the use of back doors also
governments having direct access to the systems, communications and
infrastructures.  So I'm finding it very difficult to see how the efforts
that are being put forward in the discussions today relate to some of the
policies that we're seeing on the other level and how can we work to try
and reconcile those two.  Because they are happening in parallel.  But in a
way if we're doing one then we're kind of failing at the other as well.

>> AUDIENCE:  Hi, good morning.  I'm from local government, a municipality
near from here.  I want to share two experiences.  I have work for security
system for 911 system here in the state government.  I think there is a big
challenge in the governments, state level and municipality level, to make
the IT people inside to understand the advantage of their technology, not
only in the surveillance and the surveillance area, but in the community
creation area we have -- we as a team have been developing social media
security system for awareness around cataclysm, like emergency.  But nobody
in the local IT departments knows how to use it.  And there is important to
make a big -- there is no need of big bucks to do big things.  There is a
lot of initiatives, there is a lot of opportunities, but the people in the
local IT government doesn't know how to use it for anything else.  Also I
work for the municipal police department.  We created some really
interesting prevention crime prevention softwares that they never know how
to do that.  They never know how to implement that in the reality.  How we
can make that awareness that cultural, we can attack that cultural issue
that the people always say oh, if I want to do big things, I need big
bucks.  No.  That is not need of that.  If you want to do big things, you
need big creativity and big intelligence.  That's all.

>> MODERATOR:  One more question.  The gentleman in the corner?

>> AUDIENCE:  Good morning.  I am from the government of Algeria.  My
question is in addition to the role of governments and should play -- the
cyber security dimension in that development and governance, I would like
to know -- the question is addressed to representative of Microsoft.  How
do private sector could help governments in order to take na account the
cyber security dimensions agenda, thank you.  Specifically the development
countries context.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  Should we start with the last question?

>> For the last question, the gentleman, I'm not sure I understand the
question.  Can you repeat that?

>> MODERATOR:  Could you repeat your question, please?

>> AUDIENCE:  My question is how the private sector could contribute to the
inclusion of the cyber security dimension in the development and governance
of the governments.  And do you have specific -- could you tell us if you
have specific projects in developing countries.  Thank you.

>> Carolyn Nguyen:  Great, thank you so much for the question.  So at
Microsoft, as you know, cyber security and security is a really important
issue for us.  In fact we just released a set of policy recommendations, 78
to be exact on cloud for global good and a large part of that addresses the
surveillance issue.  And also if you're interested in the details in terms
of implementing secure cloud, et cetera, happy to talk to you afterwards on
that.  But I want to go back to the surveillance question a little bit.  To
answer some of the questions.  For Microsoft we've made it very clear, sort
of what our position is on privacy and protection of privacy and responding
to law enforcement requests for information due to national security.  So
first of all we encrypt everything end to end.  Everything that's in our
cloud is encrypted end to end.  We've also advocated very strongly for the
rule of law and for clear legal framework in terms of when information
needs to be sent over.  In fact, we've sued the U.S. governments quite a
few times on this.  So one of the cases has to do with the fact that the
U.S. government came to us to ask for information which reside in our data
center in Ireland.  And what we've asked them to do is to say well, there
is an M lot process that should be used to ensure that there is trust from
our consumers and customers with respect to the data that we have
responsibility for.  So that's why we took the U.S. government to court.
Now, to use another example, which is unfortunately during the Paris
attacks, law enforcement also came to us having gone through and gotten the
appropriate warrant information and we turn around the information that was
requested within 30 minutes.  And this was at 5:30 a.m.  So I think that
that legal framework really needs to be established and really needs to be
clear.  And that's a really big part of addressing this question between
privacy and surveillance.

>> Okay.  Just to connect with is that our colleague from Mexico said,
regarding the privacy issue.  I think that we need to put it, this topic in
the highest level of discretion in our national policies and strategies.
For instance, in Colombia we take this into account and we define some
principles as part of our national security policy.  So we define some
principles.  And one of the principles are to safeguard the human rights
and the fundamental values in Colombia.  This includes something like
freedom of expression, free flow information and communications and
personal information and privacy protection.  As well as the fundamental
principles that we consecrate, we include in the Colombian political
constitution.  And we discussed this with the cyber society and
organizations.  And they ask all of feedback.  In case of the limitation of
these rights, according to constitution, applicable international
standards.  This mission must be proportional, necessary and between a
local framework.  That's a result of working together.  I think this is a
very good example of how if we open the box and we go with this discretion,
further than the government institutions, we will find that feedback, we
can achieve a better document and policy for us.  And only to --

>> First of all about the what the expansion of this responsibilities and
local issues.  From the OAS perspective, we have a general secretary and we
have autonomous bodies and -- the committee against terrorism where the
cyber security program is located and there is another body of the OAS
which is the inter-American commission of human rights.  I CHR.  And
actually my secretary -- sorry it's important in terms of operation.
Because integral organizations actually operate the same way. My program
actually when we go to a country -- you're right, my right, we promote the
or we respond to the mandate and to request and we say let's work together
on cyber issues.  We support on establishment or development of the -- or
we provide assistance security policy or whatever they might need on cyber
issues on cording of course to our capacities.  Of course I believe any
intergovernmental organization or anyone working on cyber capacity building
would like that the capacity that we are building will be used against the
population.  Will be against the final users.  And it's like Peter Parker.
With great power comes great responsibility.  And you can have all these
capacities for good or for bad.  At the UN it's very important that we have
a strong civil society and a strong private sector and a strong community
and a strong academia also.  Because tomorrow there will be the ones that
will defend this.  When the unfortunate incidents or actions against
population happens at the inter-American level, the citizens can bring this
to the attention of the inter-American commission on human rights. We
submit it to the government but I wanted to try to be resize on this very
important issue. About the gentleman from -- it's very difficult I'm sorry.
Beautiful town we recommend -- it's a really good restaurant.  In many
other countries in the hemisphere and the world.  The states have their own
way to do things.  It's very difficult sometimes to do things at the
federal level.  We need to recognize and to work with.  But that doesn't
mean that from the state side you cannot promote for example state policy
on cyber issues or you cannot promote decoration of state commuter
emergency response team or a state coordination mechanism.  That's the
importance of what he was saying of saying the institutional frameworks.
Because if you don't have that institutional base, if you don't start with
the basic of the institutional base, everyone will continue working on
slios and with discoordination and you will not have the high political
support that will say you know, actually, we need to use these
technological tools in order to send -- these are open source tools that
don't cost anything and that will provide like a really good benefit to
population.  So it's really important to have framework on cyber issues.

>> MODERATOR:  You want to add something to that?

>> Only one point from Mexico.  Thank you for this awesome place.  So one
of my responsibilities in Colombia is to provide to municipalities for the
central government in terms of IT management inside the government.  So we
decide to provide by decree like all the agency must fulfill these
guidelines over the country.  But that's not important.  You need to have
use an appropriation strategy to ensure that you will have that -- that
these -- on a day-to-day basis -- I don't know if there's another
experience in the region, but we can share that with you because we have
all these points.

>> MODERATOR:  We are at the end of our session.  Thank you so much to all
the speakers here and to the remote speakers.  It was great to hear
different perspectives.  I think a lot of things are already done.  I think
we still have to work on these efforts.  We'll be around for a bit more if
there are any more questions, please approach the person.  Thank you very
much. [ Applause ]

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Welcome everyone to the session on public we we and open access models.
My name is Steve song, I'm from the network start-up resource center and
I'm going to open the discussion by -- well, perhaps with a provocation.
In 2005 the Economist published an article that sort of declared a
revolution that actually mobile networks were going to connect, especially
Africa, rather than sort of traditional copper wire networks or other
means.  And that has proven to be a bigger initiative -- a bigger movement,
a bigger change than anyone I think could have dreamed.  And it's become
the kind of common understand that simply if we wait long enough, mobile
networks will connect everyone.  For a number of years it was regarded as
kind of problem-solved.  But what we see now is that mobile networks are
actually slowing in their growth and are now experiencing challenges in
extending their business models into sparsely populated rural areas.  And
we also see challenges with ability to pay and making access to
communication affordable for all. So with that in mind, what we've seen in
the last 12 to 24 months are some new things happening.  So I just wanted
to relate to you some news from the last 12 months in sub-Saharan Africa.
So in -- and this is all with the exception of one or two literally within
the last 12 months.  In Dakar, prepublic wi-fi services, low may, Togo,
free public wi-fi.  Kenya, poor Internet have just launched commercial wi-
fi services.  Muingu, which is a slightly over initiative, operates a rural
wi-fi service.  Liquid telecom have launched over 350 hot spots in nine
counties in Kenya and public libraries in Kenya are also offering free
public wi-fi access.  In Tanzania, just two weeks ago the government
announced a free public wi-fi service following the news from Uganda where
the government is offering free public wi-fi after hours in the greater
Kanpala region.  A major fiber network have also launched a whole sale wi-
fi New York through the Kampala region which has led to ISPs there offering
24 hours of access for 1,000 shillings or $0.30. I mean, the list goes on
and on and you're actually going to hear about it from my colleagues here.
But not just wi-fi in urban areas, but in townships, on buses, petrol
stations, total petrol stations in South Africa offer free public wi-fi and
most of you will have heard of initiatives.  So the question I hope we can
discuss today is, is this a blip, is this a sort of marginal add-on or what
the role that these complementary technologies like wi-fi can play, and if
they are relevant, what can we do to noble them.  So, and I don't think --
I want to emphasize that we're not limited to wi-fi in these discussions.
There are many pilots going on with TV wide space technology which is a wi-
fi like technology but operating in unused television frequencies.
Community fiber projects also springing up where communities, obviously
wealthier communities are banding together to build their own access.  And
I haven't yet touched on bottom-up initiatives such as community wi-fi
initiatives to provide access in underserved areas.  So there's a lot going
on but it's almost like they succeed in spite of the obstacles that they
face.  Obstacles such as regulatory frameworks that allow them to operate
or access to high speed back hall.  So one of the key constraints around
these networks is the cost of access to backhaul and it has been moved by
many governments towards open access networks around fiber optic backhaul
but has that actually brought the price down in order to enable the further
spread of these initiatives.  These are all questions that I hope we can
dig into today.  And with that I would like to turn over to our first
speaker, Christopher Geerdts from South Africa who has recently conducted a
study on behalf of research ICT Africa on public wi-fi in south frk.

>> Thank you, Steve.  There's a lot of questions I could answer.  But in
terms of this introduction I'm going to focus on the study we did, when we
started in most of the desk top and the interviews we done just about a
year ago.  The time in between has been spent trying to get some sort of
dough manned research done with the providers.  But I looked at nine main
free public wi-fi projects.  So what I focused on was not all the
initiatives with commercial ventures offering free wi-fi, which is a
number, but specifically where the government has provided.  And why we did
this was to inform policy.  In other words, if government says we need to
create a more inclusive access environment using wi-fi, how could they do
it?  This would be the beginning of a discussion on how it could be done.
If you look at the different -- to see what extent they are relevant in
different contexts and what good practice we could tease out. On the face
public wi-fi looks really exciting because more and more people are getting
smart phones, the price is coming down quite dramatically but what you end
up is having people with a fairly powerful computer by the standards of a
few years ago walking around in their pockets.  And now with wi-fi those
can be broadband enabled.  Can one deliver on that vision of providing
access in such an easy way which could make such a difference.  And that
was really the argument of the first of three case studies I just wanted to
touch on.  Which is organization called project -- they developed South
Africa's first large free wi-fi project in the capital city and they argue
that access is basically a human right and because it's a human right it
should be provided by the government.  And they said the cheapest way to
deliver is by public wi-fi.  If you use a smart phone or a tablet, you
don't have to put in the money of the device, because that's provided by
the consumer.  And if you use government buildings, they already have
physical security, they already have connectivity and they already have
electrical power.  So you can bring down the cost of providing the service
quite dramatically.  And then the service would be provided really around
government buildings within 100-200-meter radius.  So the project is a non-
profit organization and they provide a turnkey solution.  They take local
authority from the entire process from installing, planning, managing,
organizing, running, assisting with the branding and they're doing the
content.  It's basically a one-stop shop.  All the local authority has to
do, and it's a big all, is to pay.  And payment is really on the high sites
and the megabytes that go through.  You would have to have at least a 4-5
year or even longer commitment to those payments.  So with the first
project just ending its third year, what has worked well?  I've tasted the
technology itself and it works really well.  For those of you who have had
experience with public wi-fi which is probably most of you at airports and
shopping centers and restaurants, this is actually an exceptional service.
It uses a better broadband service than many fairly rich areas have in
their own houses.  So the first sites chosen in their project were mainly
on high education exam puss.  And that gave them a bit of a publicity head
start because students are an ideal target.  They buy smart phones even if
they can't always afford them.  They learn quickly.  They're social
creatures.  And they need the Internet for their studies.  Reports of
impact was good, and the gender disparity in that particular group is less
significant in the broader population. Another thing they have done really
well is they have a superb content portal.  The content relates to
education, health, employment, and it's offered on an unlimited basis.  In
other words when you're accessing that content from that service, there's
no limit to how many you can consume.  There's also a focus on the local
video creation.  Which was the part that won the award.  Video information
is interesting because it obviously doesn't require a high level of
literacy to consume.  So in summary on the good side, they offer a really
good turnkey model.  In other words if a local authority doesn't have any
capacity or any background in wi-fi, they can soon be offering access for
return for their dollars in their public buildings.  So what was limiting
in the model?  Well, smart phone access on the street corner is good for
information consumption and even video.  But of course it's fairly limiting
if you want to do software coding or fairly complex operations which would
require a PC.  You had about 8.5 access by PCs on their project.  The rest
is mainly smart phones and tablets.  It's not really suitable for serious
content generation.  So for a small business if you want to go out to the
street every time you want to do a transaction, that's fine.  They come in
as experts and they run their project.  So there's really minimal community
participation except perhaps on the content side.  Once they've gone into
an area and provided their service, pretty much shuts out competition.  And
got a huge advantage now.  They've got this high sites introduce cost,
guaranteed income and once a wi-fi network is entrenched, that network is
providing radio interference if anyone else tries to come up and create a
second wi-fi network.  Customers are allocated a daily bundle of 500
megabytes which is quite generous.  But there is no way a customer can
purchase additional.  Once their 500 is finished, that's pretty much it.
And that was an intentional design which I see to be a mistake.  I think
that they're actually reviewing that plan now and seeing the potential to
offer people migration to a commercial service if they want to consume more
data. It is also telling when one looks at South Africa, that even though
they've had public high profile success on their project, have been unable
to replicate it with any reasonable amount of scale around the rest of the
country and recently unfortunately they had to lay off staff.  Also they
save money because they're knot non-profit but they have a significant
operator underneath which is actually not non-profit and we've seen them
grow on and now become an operator in its own right.  So one has to look
very carefully at governance issues even when a company or an organization
says that they're non-profit.  Everything has to be free was said very
strongly in the beginning.  That was a tennet of their launch but now
they're looking at other models, they're experimenting with Facebooks, the
free basics model. The second one I looked at was in Cape Town run by the
city itself which had a lot more capacity for doing its own project, having
implemented its own fiber network already.  This focused as a pilot to
under served areas specifically and on residents in general rather than on
students.  The city with U.S. grant funding, they looked at two areas, and
they provide an open network.  In other words for those wi-fi, it allows
commercial Internet service providers to provide service on top of that.
They actually have three providers.  As long as those three providers fits
in with the proviso that they offer a certain amount which is 250 megabytes
of free access per day to each user.  In fact they said it can't be less,
it can't be more.  They have to make the provision 250 megabytes.  And
those Internet providers can then commercialize the service whatever way
they please over and above that.  So what works with that model?  Well, I
believe that model fosters competition much more effectively and it enables
comparison of different business models.  And indeed when we looked at the
stats coming in you can see how they were learning through the process
because each of the three ISPs was approaching it in a different way.  So
we got very interesting comparative data, which is available from research
ICT Africa in a publication they've done.  And it informed what future
models would look like.  Because this is the beginning of a long journey of
understanding.  And if anyone asks, I can elaborate on some of that later.
What's limiting in their model?  Well, technically they add a very quick
amount f feedback that wi-fi doesn't penetrate very well into houses built
of zinc.  There is no competition at the physical layer, which is now an
issue because the project expansion has been so slow, it's still sitting at
the pilot stage about a year after they intended to expand.  What I've
noticed is once the city owns a network, it becomes a bit preoccupied with
the network relative to fostering of competition in general.  And the
equipment to manage needed and wi-fi to manage multiple providers has been
a lot more expensive than if you just provided a single wi-fi network.  In
fact civil times event -- several times entry cost.  And there's always a
limit of ISPs.  You can't have any commercial because of the limitations of
wi-fi at the moment.  So those are the constraints. And the third case
study, which is actually the most interesting to me, and it's in fairly
early days of the roll-out, is the way the pro vengs government.  The
province doesn't -- provincial government.  So up until today very few
people on the private sector had ventured into the rural areas because of
the high risk and low returns.  So what the government did was they
actually reduced the risk via PPP, a public-private partnership to roll out
finer and they put it out to tender.  And what they could do is they could
not buy the fiber but actually use the fiber under this agreement to
connect all government buildings.  And by doing the public-private
partnership it could bring down the price to less than half of what it
would have cost just to go out to tender.  In return for guaranteeing their
own usage, their own demand as the anchor tenant for all the government
buildings for a number of certain years.  Not only that model but the idea
of reducing a risk which I see as the most promising going forward with wi-
fi.  Rather than just providing a free service.  Free wi-fi service was
added as extra on this project.  So government would pay for the wi-fi
usage on a per megabyte basis. So what works in that model?  I think what
works is to leverage the resources of the private sector.  The way to get
their interest in moving into these areas is to reduce risk.  And I think
the future of public wi-fi is finding innovative ways to reduce the risk.
And government's main question should be how can we reduce the risk to make
these areas more interesting.  Are there other ways of getting information
as you know from public wi-fi or a return including advertising and
including in fact what's considered the most valuable analytical
information.  And by that I'm referring to legitimate analytical
information.  The province they were able to deply much more quickly.
Rather than themselves -- forcing themselves to roll-out extremely quickly.
So the up turn was extremely quick.  And they're still able to innovate.
And the government can stipulate that those sites are open access.  So they
don't have to restrict competition at the service provision level. What
doesn't work?  I'm just -- I'm not saying this doesn't work, but
potentially as restrictive in the future and that's the monopoly element
that near tell now has a huge provincial network and it's very difficult
for another operator to compete and emulate that without having been given
that head start.  Now, unfortunately with that project, because it was a
fiber project, the wi-fi actually took second seat.  Although the project
itself took social comben fits of wi-fi. So those are my three models.  And
then just in conclusion if I can add three more conclusions because all
together I actually looked at nine projects.  The one as I have said I
support a sector model to drive growth.  Not exclusively, but across most
of the areas where there is a benefit finding ways to turn it into a real
benefit for the private sector.  We have, for example, in South Africa a
wholesale wi-fi operator and they're more than willing to expedite roll-
outs to huge expanses of the country.  If they can find a model that works
for them and government should be engaging them to see how to do that.  The
other thing I noticed when I looked at all my nine projects was they were
focused out of the wealthiest two provinces out of the nine.  The other
seven really weren't touched and when you look at the projects that Steve
was talking about, they tend to be in the capital cities, I think with the
exception mainly of Kenya and even where it is nine provinces.  And again,
they were only in the wealthiests two metropols.  Even the clusters in
South Africa are all connected.  So the rest of the country is pretty much
untouched at this stage.  Even then a few of the -- in fairly rich areas.
So we're still a long, long way from talking equitable or inclusive access.
It's very hard for the smaller cities to justify wi-fi spend at the moment
in the face of abject need and extreme poverty.  I know that many of you
would disagree and say wi-fi is still important, but we're preaching here
to the converted.  I'm talking about when you're facing an audience out in
the real world that is faced with potholes, roads being nonexistent,
sanitation issues, how do you put wi-fi on to the agenda.  That seems to be
why wi-fi has ended up being restricted to the big cities.  A good project
requires good planning and this is my final point.  So that would involve
initially an integrative start city type of initiative, good governance,
low corruption, adequate capacity to deploy.  And when you look at a wi-fi
project and evaluate it, it's quite a strong link to the underlying fiber
projects that are in the area.  And that's actually my quick way of
evaluating them.  If you see a successful fiber project, for example, in
your case I would say liquid telecom have deployed successfully, you're
likely to see a successful wi-fi project very close behind.  So that's
almost like a proxy of and very useful in the debate to link the two in
your understanding.  So that's my final point and I'm happy to answer
questions on the other seven projects or anything about how wi-fi relates
to technologies.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you, Chris.  That point about fiber and wi-fi is
tremendously important.  One, from the point of view that the marginal cost
of adding wi-fi, if you own fiber, is like .0001%.  Wi-fi is so cheap in
comparison that it's just an easy win and because of the capacity of fiber
it doesn't have an impact on other services.  The other thing is, and this
comes back to your point, I think that the reason for me, the reason why
wi-fi hasn't extended out of the major metropolitan areas is because of the
cost of national backhaul.  Any country you travel to in sub-Saharan
Africa, they'll tell you that it costs more to get data to the cost or the
point of exit to the country than it does to get at the rest of the way to
Europe.  So lowering the cost of fiber backhaul is deeply implicated in the
success of urban wi-fi beyond urban centers.  With that I would like to
turn over to Moctar Yedaly to get a perspective from the African union.

>> I would like to apologize.  I will speak quickly and step out so you
will not have a chance to ask me any questions.  I have a matter to take
care of.  But I will take it from the point where we just finish the link
between the big pipes, the big transmission channels and with the
development of wi-fi.  This is where we are actually -- the African union,
our business mainly is about considering the macro big projects integrating
the continent itself rather than going into the nitty-gritty national small
project in general.  Sometimes because of those actor that did not fulfill
their missions, we step in and we try to see how we can supplement that
deficit in terms of providing connectivities.  While we are looking at big
project in interconnecting the continent, we start lately to worry about
the connected.  We believe that in most of the countries, the universal
access strategy policies have failed and even sometimes have been abused
for specific matter that are not really in the interest of the cities
themselves.  And we start, and we just starting.  But thinking the way to
provide connectivities to those unconnected to linking it with electrical
or power project we do have on the continent.  Indeed, the African union
have a big project for development in Africa, which has four major
component.  Water, electricity, transport, and specifically ICT.  Mind you
that many years ago we have designed an African satellite which is now
launched that had a small solution about a small antenna that doesn't cost
too much has specific links and can provide Internet access be it through
wi-fi or the technology surrounding that.  But the big pipe was provided
because at that point of time we thought that private sector would not go
into places where the return on investment would be so low. Number two,
although the coverage is there, the access is not provided either because
the devices are expensive or are not put into place to make sure that those
surrounding that access point are not connected. So from that point of
view, we are emulating what we were preaching in terms of empowering
communities to provide electricities through digital platform which is a
new way of conceiving economy horizontally rather than vertically.  And
allowing people to produce electricity and sell to others around would be a
policy that would be much, much encouraging, not on the big cities but in
the remote and specific areas. This is one of the biggest concerns. The
second concern for us is once we provide the access to the population,
without being somebody who is dictating what they have to do or not to do,
wouldn't like to find ourselves in a position whereby the wi-fi or
infrastructure or access is being used for something that is not, quote
unquote, useful.  And we have noted for instance in India recently one of
the biggest hub station has been, because it has a wi-fi become the hub.
Will that be something appropriate for Africa or Africans in general
without again, and it's very important.  Dictating what the behavior should
be or the contents should be.  We think it is very -- it is our
responsibility to make sure that once the access is provided, is used for
the well-being and for the socioeconomic development. Once again we provide
the access by no matter how scheme, PPP, public, private, the issue comes
again here.  Why would we provide access or infrastructure while somebody
was riding on those without actually paying anything for the services
they're providing.  So this is the measure points from the African point of
view.  I am sorry I won't be able to answer to those questions.  Some of
them might be controversial.  But I will apologize and just step out.

>> MODERATOR:  I'm not sure we can let you go after making those
provocative statements.  That you should determine what useful content is
and the issue of free riding -- I feel like we have a whole session right
there.  If you must go, thank you.

>> Thank you very much.  Again, apology.

>> MODERATOR:  Well, that's a lot of food for thought. With that, I would
like to turn over to Carlos Rey-Moreno who's based at the university of the
western cape in South Africa and is one of the insti gators of a community
wireless networks.

>> Carlos Rey-Moreno:  Yeah, actually, as Steve has said I'm a post doc
fellow of the western cape in South Africa and as part of my research I've
been involved in the creation of networks, that are community owned among
interservice providers.  And probably the other side of the world in South
Africa from the big capital cities that Chris was talking about.  Access to
electricity and other services is cars.  Only 3% are connected to the grid
and 5% of them has resources to collect rain water so they don't have to go
to a river or communal water points that they really work.  That is because
the income per person are 15% of the national average.  So people can't
afford private access to those resources.  In terms of communications, it's
covered by operators.  And nearly everyone owns a mobile phone.  The fact
that many family members emigrate to other parts of South Africa to work in
the mines or in the farms, or access to location makes communication a
priority for many of them.  As they want to be in touch with the people
that they care.  Such a priority makes that people spend 22% of their
disposable income in communications, many times are going food to do so.
So valid proof of the mobile communications might not be working in some
places. Sadly, it is very common to hear that many people having to make
the choice in between making a call or eating.  And although it's a
percentage of disposable income, it only allows them to access a very --
basket of services with less than 20 calling minutes a week. In this
context, since the network which was with the assistance of my university
is providing services to try to reduce this cost of communications.  To do
so they install operating our wireless network that easily provided free
voice calls among 10 publicly accessible analog phones.  In addition the
community used energy priced to create a mobile phone charging station.
With that money, they get from the charging those phones, they are able to
cover the monthly cost of the networks and those services were later
upgraded to provide calls to international numbers for a fraction of the
prices offered by incumbent operators.  Even those networks is able to
offer voice over IP calls, they might not be able to reduce this cost for
everyone as only a third of the people own smart phones and very few decide
to use phones. The cost of voice communications would be straightforward in
the communities had access to the spectrum as probably very is good tell
you in a second.  From the two main providers, from the four main providers
in the country, only two are providing national wide coverage.  One only
cover 25% of the national territory and one of the other two providers and
the rest and it doesn't seem that this situation is going to change with
the slowdown of GSM roll-out in the country.  Communities spectrum
considering that the same number of calls is currently made.  The cost of
communications could reduce from 22% to 3%.  Organizations and individuals
that are present in this room at the moment presented this proposal to
parliament three months ago and we are waiting for feedback although it
seems very positive and we are making strides into that direction.  In
terms of that provision, they are about to make it happen, thanks to a
grant for structure to connect to the fiber in a town that is 60 kilometers
away.  And provide hot spots in the community.  To tackle the lack of wi-fi
enabled devices, two laptops will be made available in those hot spots so
community members can benefit from accessing that data.  They are also
working with the school to use the computer rooms.  The department of
education set up those rooms in 2013 you about they have been barely used
since then.  In both cases they are working with them to understand what is
preventing them from using those computer rooms, provided them with ICT
training to overcome them, including among other things, security, security
online, local content creation. Something similar to this public access to
the Internet came very strongly in the first community networks in Africa
that took place two weeks ago in Nairobi where public access appear as a
common feature across the networks.  In all cases, the cost of the service
is decided by the community, but that always as cheap as possible so they
can cover the operational cost.  So we are talking about moving beyond
affordable access.  We can see with example of the free computers in the
school.  Nothing has happened until the community has taken the matter into
their hands.  So we are talking about a creating a local economy, creating
or providing digital skills, generating local content, and actually giving
the communities the opportunity to have a agency about the developmental
process and affairs.  And to answer the question that was said in this
panel, if we talk about universal access and the context of South Africa,
this model is complementary to GSM networks.  But if we talk about
universal affordable access, this model complemented with more changes in
the environment, could actually rival with other models that are out there.
But if we look beyond affordability and the goal is to take communities
outside the cycle of poverty and disempowerment that they are trapped into.
Community network seems to me the only solution.  Thank you so much.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you, Carlos.  I think that is fundamentally essential
point that there appears to be spectrum scarcity, but in fact there is a
lot of spectrum that is unused.  And the current model we have for
assigning spectrum is not allowing communities in rural areas to solve
their own problems.  And you know, what we've seen in the explosion of wi-
fi services across sub-Saharan Africa is not because wi-fi is such an
amazing valuable piece of spectrum.  Just the opposite.  But because it's a
very narrow piece of spectrum.  But it's because it doesn't require
permission to use.  It allows for self -determination.  Permissionless
innovation.  Which doesn't mean there are no rules.  It just means that the
rules are imbedded in the technology so the devices have to play nicely
with each other.  And this is a new paradigm we are facing in terms of how
spectrum can be managed.  And with that I would like to tern over to Erick
Heurta who actually I think has taken one of the biggest innovations
forward in spectrum regulation and I won't steal his thunder and let him
tell you about that.

>> Erick Heurta:  Can we move a bit, attempt to use my hands and I don't
want to disturb that computer. Sorry because of my voice it seems that the
party was hard yesterday. [ Laughter ] I talk very much. Actually, I will
talk -- invite me to this panel, I say why did they invite me to this
panel.  But then I quickly accept the invitation because on this experience
of developing GSM networks in rural communities, and also before like in
looking at the policy of social coverage in telecommunications, I face
myself a lot with different programs along this years of information
society.  And now it seems like kind of branding programs of many
governments, open access wi-fi.  We have like thousands of public access
places and many governments advertise that as one of the greatest
achievement of its policy.  But I think we can look at it carefully.  And I
will talk about three experiences just in this way I have faced with.  One
is from Mexico, the other is from Colombia and the other is from Nicaragua.
And I will focus on rural areas and public access in rural areas. In the
first case in Mexico, some of the rural areas, the only connectivity that
could be at some point given to those areas are satellite connectivity.  So
you arrive there and the government has be careful, I don't know how
efficient, someone might hear there's statistics on that.  We can tell you
better.  But it's around 30,000 along Mexico.  What I have found is on this
rural places are some of these antennas that connect a school, for
instance, then the school have to give public wi-fi as well.  So if you
need to use the wi-fi, you get close to the school and then you can use the
public wi-fi.  But in those cases, really the connectivity of the wi-fi
connectivity is really poor, you can hardly do anything.  You can hardly
download a document.  It might take you some minutes or 10 minutes to send
an e-mail.  And if you're lucky you can send some message on your what's
app.  But still allows some communication where physical therapy satellite
connectivity cannot be afford.  And there you have some other cases like
Colombia where they have almost all the municipalities connected to fiber.
And then they also have a program of public access within that fiber and it
seems that works really well. And the last one I would like to talk about,
and this is more like a different experience.  I went to because we have
been collaborating in one of these GSM networks in Nicaragua in a very
isolated place.  It's like the English-speaking part near the Caribbean and
naturally has been a very difficult place to access.  Both, I don't know
why, probably because it has been easier it is close to a sea cable, sea
cable comes through that area of blue fields.  So I went to a community I
have to go by boat within the river, or lagoon.  This community and it's
really, really in the deep, probably like a two-hour boat.  And then you
get there.  And then I went to the park in the city and I have found that I
could have video, send video, download photos really quickly and it was
public wi-fi in the part actually came to me to my mind like some other
philosophical issues of Internet.  Like I mean because in the park like
everybody instead of playing like that with this mobile.  Well, that's for
another chat.  But the connectivity was great.  And then when we, when we
have a meeting with the people of the GSM network, one of the problems was
the connectivity.  So I said how does that happen?  I mean, it's not a
problem of connectivity.  It seems that these guys have fiber here in the
public access area.  But they couldn't get connectivity to connect their
networks, this could send calls outside of their own network.  And so I
think that is like a very good point of reflection when we talk about
public access wi-fi.  Shall we be looking at public access wi-fi or should
we -- do we have to look further, do we have to look connectivity not to
public access.  Because well I think there are like levels of users in a
network and I think because he mentioned at the beginning.  You have user
probably like myself that just use that to send e-mails and doesn't do much
stuff with Internet.  But if you are like software coding on that, then you
need another type of connectivity.  You need probably some connectivity,
more secure, more capacity, have to be to create, to program.  Or to do
programming.  And then there is another layer of user that is the one that
can expand the network and build a network.  So for instance, in Colombia,
I have the chance to talk with someone from the ministry and she was
telling me this wonderful things about this program.  And then I ask her
how does community can connect to that fiber in the municipalities to take
that connectivity to other cities that are farther -- that are not -- that
are far from the municipality.  And she said ah, I don't know.  But she was
the one in charge of that program. So I think that you have to look this
thing of look at this thing carefully, no.  There are some places that the
only thing you can do is to have some public access because there is no
other way to do connectivity and then with a satellite connection and
that's a best effort.  It probably doesn't work very well but it's a best
effort in connecting the people and giving the basic service.  But when you
have fiber there, when you have fiber, why why you stop the community of
doing the best use of the Internet or scaling to other layers of user.
Artificially you're creating even though there you have fiber.  So and we
said that the governments, by doing this, are accomplishing really with
Internet access.  Were actually blocking Internet access to communities.
So we have to be very careful with those policies from the perspective of a
researcher and present the perspective of a policy maker.  We don't have to
say okay.  And then the question comes to me is that is that something
intentional or is that just ignorance.  And I think this sort of the
mixture of both.  Sometimes it is intentional because we think that we
shouldn't compete.  That sometimes some of the things these are state
networks, we shouldn't compete with the operators.  But the problem here
thinks, and we'll talk specially for the case that I saw in Nicaragua.
They cannot get access to the government fiber.  But they can neither their
access to the submarine cable there.  They said you have to buy like 5
gigabits and they say we only have 1 or 2 megabytes or something.  And then
it comes like within the intention of the mixture of ignorances.  There is
a market so you have to enable those other operators, the conditions too in
this community operators, the conditions to expand the network.  So it
won't happen anything to the big operator, you won't bother him if you
allow or give these people access to two or three that they need to
operate.  And also the thing is that it's sometimes government doesn't care
because it is popular to say we have a thousand public access points.  But
probably the public access points, even though they are giving good
services to their users and the users are happy to send e-mails and images,
while this is happening, they are stopping other people to make better use
of the -- not better use.  Another use of the Internet in developing
programming or in expanding the networks. So I think that is what we should
be looking at is connectivity, not public wi-fi.  What we should be looking
at if we are really granting access to the Internet to people, or we just
trying to show something that is not really efficiently done.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you, Erick.  I think that point about fiber is
fundamental.  You know, people talk about fiber as if it were just one of a
range of technologies.  Fiber, wireless, copper, et cetera.  But fiber is a
different category of technology, because its capacity is relatively
infinite.  It is the deepwater port of access.  So when governments think
about deploying fiber infrastructure, they often mimic the private sector
model, which is to extract as much value as possible from the network.  But
that's not the strategy you have for roads.  Right?  When you deploy roads,
you want as much traffic going on that road as possible to enable the
economic development of your country.  And if you were to actually cost out
fiber, according to its lifespan of 15-20 years and the terabits of
capacity that it represents, a gagibit connection across your country, the
actual infrastructure costs maybe 1 dollar, $50 or something like that,
that were there a more strategic approach to fiber, that we would then see
an unleashing not just of public wi-fi but of community efforts and private
sector. Anyway, I see the moderator -- I'm the stand-in moderator today
standing in for Alison Gillwald and I wonder if you want to offer any
remarks.

>> Thank you very much:  I wanted to respond to what Erick said but make a
comment about how this fits into our efforts within global governance more
generally and the regional impacts of our regional bodies on our policy
outcomes.  So we're saying all these wonderful things here, but they're not
translating into our environments.  I wanted to say I really don't think
it's fiber or public wi-fi or whatever.  I think it's just about using
leveraging the different resources that are out there as optimally as we
can in a resource-constrained environment.  And I think that's really the
mind set that we need to try and get bind to.  Because it's no use us
coming here every year and talking amongst ourselves, or talking at our
governments or people who quite only despite the multistakeholderism don't
feel engage, don't feel there is no ownership of these processes.  So we
speak about them and you get the kind of pushback that you saw today.  So I
was responding specifically for those of you who weren't here to Moctar
Yedaly's input from the African union which I'm perfectly aware of, we work
with him a lot on a lot of initiatives.  And there have been a number of
really devastating or retro gresive decisions taken by the Africa caucus
around OTTs for example and this kind of conventional wisdom that OTTs are
a bad thing that they are actually taking away revenues from operators.  In
the face of extensive evidence that OTTs in a changing environment, mobile
operators that adopt these platforms and drive the data revenues and
abandon the attempts to hold on the voice revenues, et cetera, are very
successful.  And yet you're still getting there have been a number of
workshops that I've been in this week with governments, African governments
that are still being engaged in this forum saying these things.  So I just
wanted to say that, because I think he's not stated to defend himself.  I
think we do need to address it and it's really important.  There are a
whole lot of things that are happening globally where we're all drinking
our own Kool-Aid and we get surprised when things don't happen like we
expected them to.  OTT is as much of an issue here in terms of trying to
get governments to not make decisions that will actually have these
devastating unintended consequences for this project that we're involved
in, this connectivity project we're involved in at the global level.

>> Thank you, Alison.  I'll give the panel an opportunity just to react to
their colleagues very briefly and then we'll take input from the floor.
Christopher?

>> AUDIENCE:  It took us four years to get to where we are in terms of
accessing fiber in a university that is 60 kilometers away and I'm
providing to access.  We were talking to providers that were in the area,
they were offering us. There are some places where these fiber is
happening.  There is fiber 5 kilometers away from us.  It's a political
decision not to regulate that fiber.

>> MODERATOR:  Can we have the mic over here please?

>> AUDIENCE:  I think this is a good discussion but there are some problems
here.  San Francisco is one of the biggest high-tech cities in the world
and there's been a fight for municipalization of wi-fi.  Who's fighting
that?  It's the monopolies who control it in the United States.  We have a
situation where they're passing legislation to prevent communities from
having public wi-fi.  Why?  Because they want to protect their revenue
stream even if poor rural communities in the United States are not able to
get public wi-fi.  So that's something we have to confront.  Monopoly
capital does not want small poor communities to have wi-fi, because it's
not profitable for them.  That's what we're really talking about. Now the
other question is Facebook, and I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up in
this panel here.  Because Facebook says it is providing public access.  And
we learned at the IGF last year in Brazil that Facebook says they're
providing free Internet access, zero-based, but in reality, it's a scam.
It's a fraud.  They're not providing free access.  They provide you
Facebook and if you want to continue to get Internet, you have to pay
service fees.  And they're marketing this.  They've got the Internet.org to
market this domain, to market their plan for making profits out of the
Internet.  Our view is we need public community access, public wi-fi that
cannot be controlled by the media corporations.  Their drive is not for
public access.  Their drive is to develop profit streams and that's counter
to what we believe our interests are.  In San Francisco, other communities
in the United States, there could be public access.  There could be public
wi-fi, but that's a threat to these media companies and that's something we
have to face on a global level.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you.  In the back there?  The old man with the beard.

>> AUDIENCE:  Hi I'm from Brazil.  I make a question to reflect and
comment.  Why not create a city and advertise it by municipality law that
makes possible sustainability in democrat governance this is a question.
And can we agree that community networks could be a part of digital cities?
Two questions.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  We'll take a few questions and then ask the panel to
respond.  Over to the left in the back there.

>> AUDIENCE:  Thank you, my name is Tony.  My question and concern is on
the public wi-fi access.  Looking at the rural communities who may not be
having the last point or the last point of the last mile of the fiber
connection, how are we going to address this kind of issue at a national
level?  And if we address it at national level, how are we going to make
them be aware that they are able to access this kind of national concern.
Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you. Mike jen sen there and just in front.

>> AUDIENCE:  Thanks, association for progressive communications.  I just
wanted to react to a couple of points that were made by the panelists.
First on the OTT thing I think we want just blame the governments.  I think
a lot of the operators in Africa have really pushed for some sort of
regulator.  Classic example is the ITU global symposium for regulators last
year which was sponsored by air tell, one of the largest operators in
Africa, they sponsored it very nicely giving everyone a tablet and a mobile
phone and everything.  Allow the chief executive to stand up at the
beginning of the conference and say I hope you regulators will stop these
people from eat eating our breakfast every day.  So there's a kind of
motivation from that area that needs to be addressed.  The other upon the I
want to consider is the -- point I wanted to consider is the one that was
suggested by the representative from Brazil, maybe public wi-fi isn't mu
tally cluf.  Thank you very much Erick for highlighting the issue that is
present currently and I think as the cost of backhaul goes down, I think
it's kind of inevitable that people will see the provision of access,
commodity, a basic type of infrastructure that should be provided just like
access to water or electricity.  So how can we take that motivation and not
undermine community efforts.  And I think that's our particular point. And
finally on the issue of kind of provision of public wi-fi by the private
sector, yes, I think we need to develop some kind of metric around how
these private operators are motivated, whether it's kind of a free basic
model where you get a limited text-based service.  Some free wi-fi
operators that provide free wi-fi but only to text.  Then you have to pay
if you want to get video.  So is there some model there that could be
promoted or should we be looking at something more generic like the great
idea for a free slow broadband service that could be provided by any
operator at minimal cost.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  We'll take one more comment just here and then I'll invite
the panelists to respond.

>> AUDIENCE:  Hi, thank you.  I'm from Fiji.  I'll speak in my personal
capacity.  I note the remarks made by the Latin American panelists and the
South Africa panels very interesting and those made from the floor.  In the
Pacific we have a hybrid of, in terms of backhaul, we have both satellite,
CNKU bend across the Pacific islands across the fiber.  In terms of I note
that the most recent speaker, Mike jensen, he mentioned that as backhaul
costs are decreasing.  We're seeing the reverse in the Pacific.  In fact
increasing not decreasing.  And the other thing I wanted to mention is IP
transit costs in the developing world, particularly from the Pacific, and
in ocean ya we have 27 countries.  IP transit costs are increasing, this is
passed off to the consumers.  Now I would like to zoom into one country in
particular which is mine, Fiji.  Governments have legislated things like
access deficit particularly to provision and encourage the tel-cos to take
in terms of the last mile and to prevent access into underserved regions.
But what we're finding is because of the increasing costs, despite
competition, in spite of competition, we're still seeing reneging and sort
of tel-cos and ISPs and operators are sort of reluctant to provide public
wi-fi or to provide access.  So in terms of I pretty much like the
suggestion that you said.  Can we have like a dedicated community access.
Perhaps one of the ways we can certainly do it is discussions such as this
is things that could sort of go up given that you have multi -- different
all sorts of people who global areas of regional areas of influence.  But
in terms of on the ground, perhaps one of the things that in cases where
government has reneged on deficit, perhaps one of the things we could do is
consider texting centers or to consider operators, first-year operators
that are providing a backhaul, whether it's satellite or -- and I know for
education research networks, like R net, there's already discount.  But one
of the things we could do is to explore how we could increase access by
providing stimulus.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you.  So some difficult questions there.  Are there
things we can do with municipal bylaws?  Are there other models we could
look at for municipal access.  And how do we address fiber at a national
level. I want to make a brief comment about national fiber networks and
turn over to my colleagues. We face a conundrum with national fiber
networks in many countries where they're either run -- they're built to run
by the private sector, where a scarcity model prevails nd the maximum
amount of value is extracted from those fiber networks.  Or they're built
by the state.  But the state often doesn't have the capacity to run them
well, or more importantly, when it comes to pricing, they're reluctant to
do anything but match whatever the private sector is pricing.  And I think
one answer to that might be to open up the ownership of those state-owned
assets to smaller operators, not just the large mobile network operators,
but allow a consortium to emerge, as they have done undersea cables to
allow small ISPs to go from being renters, share croppers on this national
fiber backbones to owners.  And the difference once you become an opener
can be profound because then you can choose how to amor ties your office
over what period as opposed to paying whatever the market rate is and I
think that would unlock those state assets in a way that would relieve the
government of the burden of risk and taking perhaps decisions that they're
not ready to take in terms of pricing that are allowing more flex among the
different players in the market. So who would like to respond to some of
those questions?  Erick, I see you.

>> Erick Heurta:  I would like to talk a bit about economy.  We always said
this is a very a phrase that always counts for in policy and regulation at
telecommunications.  The market failure.  We have to go where there is a
market failure.  But the thing is to say if there is really a market
failure, which market are we talking about?  A book on architecture of
economy.  What it says is there are three layers of economy.  The global
economy, the local economy, and the subsistence economy.  And each economy
has the capacity.  So it's not about the failure of the market.  The market
disintegrated into these three layers of the economy.  But if we want to
put some company that works well in a global environment, and make him pay
that company and work in the subsistence environment, it's going to fail.
And if that company don't want to go to that place. The same way if we want
to put a company of systems market to go into a global market. So what do
we need to do?  If we are from subsistence market to go to the global
market, we have to be integrated and aggregated.  For instance, if there is
a local like local network, wants to get into the market of fiber, that
it's a global market, then he has to aggregate many, many small operators
like him and probably as I said where they then are able to build that part
of the fiber or mark partners in fiber and that's it.  Both are the same.
But in the same case, if there is a company that want to survey subsistence
market, have to break its network, or their administration of the network,
so that there is a company, a small thing in this subsistence market that
can make that approach.  So that is very important to stop framing that way
the failure of the market.  It's the failure that we have said to some
stages of the market to allow participating in their own market.  So their
regulations, their regulation that it means the access to fiber, to access
to essential elements, the regulation blocks them and that is not a failure
of the market.  Because the market is there allowing these small companies
to get into that market and bring services.  It's a failure of the
regulation.

>> Amazing point.  I would like to talk about what Tony said and the
gentleman from the United States with regards to the fight these type of
models receive from monopolies and big companies and how the government
could enable what Tony was saying how people would know.  I think there is
an important effort that these community-owned initiatives need to do to
try to fit into their regulatory framework.  Although it's important what,
was saying about probably different environments for different economies,
at the moment they don't exist.  So trying to fit into a framework that
only plays into that one single economy no matter they are different is
very important.  And I think at least in our case we have managed to fit
into the regulatory framework.  So no matter how many battles we are given
by the operators, we have played by the same rules and applied to the same
law as they are doing.  And in that sense, I think to Tony's point, I think
it's very important to make governments aware that community networks or
municipal networks are enabling other types of access and enabling other
type of solutions for places where the market -- because of the economy, so
actually they promote these models as well.  They don't see these models as
evil.  They don't see that the only way as Steve was saying at beginning of
the session, that the only way for provision of services under resource are
mobile networks.  So I think there is a lot of on our plate so that we are
making the effort to play their game, but that they could play some of our
game as well and that would have very important synergy impact and
transforming the society into a way to be transformed.

>> I'm going to go a slightly more practical route rather than get into
high level global politics and policies.  Luckily in my life I've lived
through a couple of liberating markets opening changes.  The first was when
markets were actually liberalized and governments used to manage telcos but
told they you can no longer.  I used to have to drive to make calls to my
family because the government wouldn't put a phone in my house.  Luckily
that ended in the '90s.  That was a huge wave of change.  The next wave of
change I saw when mobile operators started to compete with the fixed
operators.  Especially in Africa that changed the horizon combleetly.  Not
only because it offered mobility, because because it offered multiple
players.  I see a new wave happening now and it's wi-fi driven.  It's smart
phone slash wi-fi driven.  And I don't want us to go backwards.  I want us
to go forward on it much and why it's based on wi-fi is purely as Steve
said.  Wi-fi is an accident of regulation, that there was a small slither
of spectrum that was license exempt and everybody drove the innovation.
That's the reason.  And we want to build on it that's why everybody in this
conference is walking around using their phones, connecting in many cases
to the local wi-fi.  My roaming hasn't worked since I've been here.  I've
been fighting with my operator for three or four days.  But it only matters
when I'm on the bus between the hotel and here.  The rest of the time I
control how I access.  And OTT applications are manifestation of that.
I've been the lord of my managing my own telecommunications.  For the first
time.  When I worked at a mobile operator for ten years, we used to tell
our customers you can take a phone with the package, and it's pretty much
tied to them.  This isn't tied to anyone.  I can change any time.  So I
don't want to go backwards.  When I think free public wi-fi, I think let's
open the market, let's allow more players, private sector players.  I'm not
fully tuned into most of the dynamics of the United States, but the
dynamics in the markets where I work are very different.  We want to
encourage the private sector to play a much stronger role, because we want
more and more people to offer services to compete.  And if one day we get
to the point where we have one dominant player, then I will deal with it
but not in the meantime.  That's my comment on wi-fi in general. Looking at
rural areas, I think wi-fi plays another role.  I've seen networks extend
for 300 kilometers providing commerce service over multihub wi-fi.  And I
chair an organization which had 300 such members.  Not tied into fiber
particularly, I was just mentioning it because it's a bit closer to public
wi-fi.  There's a huge amount that can be done in the countries where it is
allowed and providing massive high capacity backhaul.  And for short
distances now they're talking about gigabit links.  So the technology is
really going to another level and we shouldn't overlook it.  And not only
does it allow connectivity in certain areas, but it provides multiple
opportunities.  When people think wireless access networks, they think
rural areas.  Not so.  Cape Town has five providers making a living for
providing alternatives to areas which even have fiber.  Johannesburg, the
richest part of Africa, has multiple service providers providing wi-fi
based links.  We need to think about wireless as a complementary technology
at every level. Jumping to one of the other comments on the community
networks in urban areas, I don't have a lot of experience accept the one in
South Africa where costs are very prohibitive these networks started
popping up and they were very geek-driven.  You could look on a map and see
where people were connecting nearby to you and you could form mesh networks
yourself.  You can get software, get a server repurposed from your old home
computer and you could start connecting and it was becoming big and it's
almost dead now.  It's limited to a couple of people.  And it's because the
prices came down so much.  So it seemed to me that people really couldn't
be bothered to carry on with those networks if the price in the market is
right.  But that's just my own experience.  What it did do, and that was
really exciting for us in South Africa, was generate a whole generation of
techno-savvy young people who went into wi-fi in different parts of the
country and turned it into commercial operations.  But I didn't see a point
in it coexisting when the prices were right in the market to go to so much
effort.  But that's just an opinion of mine based on one set of experiences
in about three different cities. In terms of the free basic model.  The
last one was about free basic and Facebook.  I like the idea which most of
our wi-fi operators are doing of offering a certain amount, whether it be
250 or 550 megabytes a day per user and making you pay above that.
Innovation if you pay your rates and taxes in time you get a double
allocation.  That pays for itself extremely quickly and I like free writing
Facebook but a whole set of public interest portals and that should always
remain free just like Wikipedia has created that, why not extend it to the
wireless access layer.  And that's actually pretty much what these
providers have done.

>> MODERATOR:  Thanks Chris.

>> Thank you very much for that. I just wanted to comment quickly on a few
things.  The smart city and where the community networks shouldn't be or
couldn't be part of those, in fact in South Africa the real driving of
broadband take-up from the public point of view and the public policy point
of view really happened at the metro level and provincial level national
was taking too long.  Ultimately at national we did catch up and we put
some sort of requirements for public wi-fi, but it's really the provinces
particularly the two economically big provinces that have driven it and
they're main cities.  Both in the Johannesburg model, smart city model and
the Cape Town smart city model are these community networks.  As I said
they're not at the core of it, they didn't drive it or anything else, but
they're certainly part of that initiative.  The interesting thing in the
western cape broadband initiative which this is very much part of, is that
the communities -- the underserved communities were given priority in terms
of getting them connected and also with the public wi-fi, putting the
public wi-fi in their model as Chris has explained, unlike the Johannesburg
model, was that they would provide these public-private interplays and they
took different forms at the provincial level and private level but
basically people were allowed to connect to the fiber that had gone out but
they were given small subsidies in the one model to connect.  And after a
period of time that subsidy would go and they would have to run the model.
And the interesting thing is this conception of community in these modern
environments and urban environments.  And this was some of the problems
with our early universal service models.  That where you got these slide-
side driven models, at least there was a genuine community to run it or
take it over or entrepreneurial model, it never really took off.  I think
they face the same thing again.  The one community that's actually been
successful in this model is Delf.  Because it's a combleetly dislocated
apartheid bleak community they've got a very strong core and that public
wi-fi network is the one that's successfully selling on data.  So they've
got the 5 megabytes that are free but they are successfully selling on.  A
lot of the other commercial models have actually collapsed.  They're not
working that well.  So I think actually that also relates to some of the
universal service models and kind of learning from what we had before and
the questions you were saying about market failure.  That when all the
initial attempt to provide secondary universal access to the incumbent,
letting another player come in to offer those services, that the incumbents
have said historically were not affordable, when a second player said we'll
go in, the incumbents said we can do it.  What we're finding now is
something slightly different.  A very changed environment with different
layers of complexity and this sort of goes back to the question of
governance that we need to be thinking far more opportunistically, and what
can be done.  So at that point in time operators wanted to keep everything
in a monopoly, et cetera.  At the moment they're in a competitive
environment.  They were required to go and put this spectrum in some remote
part of South Africa or something.  It's an obligation for them.  But if
you actually said to them now, well, if you are not using that spectrum or
you're not running an operation there but you've got that spectrum and you
let that go and let communities who want to use it, but we're going to give
you this high demand spectrum that you want, there are a lot of operators
who are quite happy to do that.  A lot of them are wanting to get off the
second networks.  We need to be far more strategic about it.  And the final
point about these parallel systems that we've got.  If we're speaking about
in this environment, I do agree with you Mike these telecom interests
working through the ITU system and that's where they can get their interest
base represented, that's where government is representing them and then
you've got to parallel system here and we're talking about innovation and
regulatory innovation and using opportunities and they're not talking to
each other.  And I think it's really incumbent on us to get us all in the
same room more often.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you, Alison.  I'll just leave you with one thought.
I'm afraid we're out of time.  It wasn't very long ago that it required a
national investment and a national operator to deliver services.  What we
see now is the incredible potential of municipalities, of communities, of
individuals to deploi communication infrastructure and what we need is for
the regulatory and investment frameworks to catch up with that.  Thank you
very much for coming. [ Applause ] Copyright © 2016 Show/Hide Header