You are connected to event: CFI-RPC5

WS90:  The Internet and ESCRs: Working from experience to policy 9 December
2016 09:00 services provided by: Caption First, Inc. P.O. Box 3066
Monument, CO 80132  800-825-5234  Www.captionfirst.com               ***
This text is being provided in a realtime format.  Communication  Access
Realtime Translation  (CART) or captioning are  provided in order to
facilitate  communication accessibility and  may not be a totally verbatim
record of the proceedings. ***  :

>> MODERATOR:  Hello, everybody, and welcome to workshop 5. We're about to
start our streaming in two minutes.  Just a little advice before.  If you
have a question, please talk into the microphone.  If you have a table
microphone, talk loud and near to your mouth, and if you're in the second
row, you can wait for this microphone to come to you.  This is for
streaming quality.  So we'll start in two minutes.  Thank you very much.

>> ALAN FINLAY:  Good morning, everyone.  Welcome to this session on ESCRs
and the Internet.  The session is called working from the national and
local experience to policy considerations.  The reason we framed it as that
is because it's also the launch of the GISWatch report, which I think you
might -- some have at the front there.  We'll tell you a little bit more
about that later.  So basically this is framed with -- framed in terms of
the authors for the GISWatch reports, so we have two or three report
authors here and a number of country report authors here. We will go around
and let them share their brief interventions around their reports, their
country reports, and what their experience is at the national level in
terms of the country. When it comes to economic, social and cultural rights
on the Internet, I don't know if anyone went to the human rights session
yesterday, the main session, and the point there was that we were trying to
show -- it was organized by APC.  Well, in terms of it, I understand, but
the point is a lot of emphasis is given to civil and political rights on
the international and global level in terms of Internet policy development
and APC has over the last couple of years tried to raise the profile of
economic and social and cultural rights to put them on a level playing
field.  It makes complete sense that freedom of expression is not more
important than the right to food, for instance.  So we've been investigate
willing over the last couple of years how this impacts on Internet policy
development. In a sense our kind of findings are contained in the GISWatch,
at least in the thee mattic report level.  You will see the research we've
been doing framed in different ways, and some of our conclusions so far on
the topic. I would like at in the point to introduce Andrea who will give
you a rundown on ESCRs and the Internet.  Talk as you wish. That's fine.

>> Good morning.  Sorry I'm late.  I think talking about the perspective is
really the ABC perspective is emerging from the chapters in the book.  So
it's not a -- we don't have a fixed perspective.  I think the main concern
has been and Alan has outlined that already that human rights is approached
scattered something important in the IGF space but in a narrow way.  We
want to broaden the perspective. I'm sorry.  Did you cover already
GISWatch?

>> AUDIENCE:  He did.

>> SPEAKER:  Can you -- so -- so just briefly to tell you about global
information society watch, A TH  -- APC niche natured this after the world
summit.  The background was I'd like other social summits that the U.N.
convened, they did not produce a clear set of indicators or targets for
governments to deliver on.  We were concerned that there was nothing to
actually hold governments accountable for implementing what was known as
the people-centered human rights-oriented information society.  We then
thought, let us create a space as APC, as a major social society network
involved in the WSIS with Civil Society perspectives on whether there's
progress or not could be captured, and that's the background of GISWatch.
The first topic for GISWatch, when the first edition was released in 2007,
was actually participation, because one of the outcomes of the WSIS process
was that there was a recognition that you cannot actually achieve change in
the information society without all stakeholder groups being involved and
participating.  So we initially our first measuring exercise was looking at
participation. Since then we've looked at access, freedom of expression,
access to knowledge, surveillance, women's rights, sexual rights, and ICTs
and environmental sustainability.  I think that's, you know -- I don't have
to say much more.  I think what is important about GISWatch is the format.
It captures the mattic chapters that analyze the issue.  We often work with
people that are experts in their field, but then we have the country
chapters, and country chapters are really very open-ended.  We give the
authors a very broad topic, but we want them to define the terrain.  The
purpose of GISWatch is not that you contribute to a comparative research
study, but that you engage in writing something which is meaningful to you
in your context, your country, your work, your organization at that
particular point in time. You'll see that when you look at the country
chapters that the angles that people take very enormously from country to
country, and we like it that way because we want it to be relevant to you.
I think that's all. I can tell you that the theme for next year's global
information society watch will be community networks, so that's exciting.
Thanks.

>> Thanks.  Just to say the APC is working in this area is sponsored by the
IDOC, and we have someone from ISOC.

>> SPEAKER:  I'm a senior program officer with the international
development research effort.  I think most of us know and I don't have to
say, but we're a crown corporation that became a government, and we support
development and research grants in the Global South.  Really just like to
thank APC or organizing the work in publishing this report.  I went through
it last night, actually, just before the party.  We all enjoyed the party
and I found it interesting that Jac Kee is in the story particularly in the
context of dataification and we're looking at how to counter users and
collective rights to look although and resisting this sort of fetish about
collecting data by default.  I don't want to go on.  I assume there's a
format where the chapter speakers will be presents.  I'd like to thank APC
particularly for that, Roxanne that and Valerie for their work and
Anriette, so thank you very much.

>> ALAN FINLAY:  Thanks.  Okay. So just a brief overview of the content of
GISWatch.  As Anriette mentioned, I think that you have expert thematic
reports here.  We present APC's perspective, and a lot is research.  We
look at education and the delivery of textbooks in South Africa and issues
of digital heritage.  We have Stewart Hamilton here from who wrote that
chapter, sustainable development goals and the Internet and ESCRs which
David Souter couldn't be here.  Those frame the key issues here.  What has
emerged over the course of the research is that more key issues are
becoming relevant, so I think in the future it would be interesting to look
more strongly at copyright and issues like that algorithms, for instance.
In terms of the country reports, there were a wide range of themes that
were covered, but there was some that could be grouped, so there was a lot
of interesting indigenous languages and how the Internet could be used to
preserve or to encourage the speaking of those languages.  John Dada is
here. They're right-to-work, whether garment factories in Cambodia or
telecommunications companies in the DLC.  How they outsource and manipulate
workers in terms of outsouring outsourcing.  Why don't trade unions use the
network for networking and information sharing.  The problem is face FWOOK
-- Facebook is 3.5 million human resource accidents waiting to happen,
which was quite nice. Education.  Quite a negative perspective on the EZ
indication program except in Uruguay, and it's connecting in the process of
he had indicatings is connecting the poorest households in Uruguay, some
50% apparently now are connected to the Internet through the education
program. Some on gender rights and new 3D technologies in preserving
culture heritage in Syria. Crowd funding is is used to fund social
programs.  In Lebanon some social program would be crowd funded.  People
outside of the country choose what they want to fund in terms of social
economic programs.  Algorithms, you'll hear just now about Poland and how
algorithms are used in the social services due to the negative effect.  I
would think the most important thing for me, anyway, and if you look
overall in the country reports is that the Internet is being used by
citizens to enact and express their rights.  When the state is in action,
which is an interesting phenomenon, that it enables this expression of
rights.  For instance, in Valentina is here in Bosnia, they opened a
national museum, because the government doesn't want to fund the national
museum.  Van Valentina will talk about just now. For me, that is the real
take-home of of the Internet around citizen-centered initiatives I would
say.  The country report authors, want to get a sense where they are. Okay.
You're thematic.  Okay. So we'll start from left to right and just the
country report authors will.  Just one, yeah.  Okay.

>> VALENTINA PELLIZZER:  I'm Valentina Pellizzer.  For the watch in year my
colleague and was not me directly that wrote this part of the report,
although we did contribute to the thematics, so I'll keep it really short.
We wrote on the health system in Chile and how it's -- a new proposal that
relates to providing a health system through televia by using Internet and
television service. This seems like a good idea in theory, but in practice
we found that there are some problems in the implementation.  First, that
the primary care units have poor or no connectivity.  So that's always what
is first, right? We're trying to solve a health problem, but then if
there's poor connectivity in rural areas, then we have to start a step
back.  Secondly, the current provisions are outdated, and this presents a
lot of problems because health-wise those provisions that regulate right
now in Chile are probably 70 years old.  How are we going to apply this to
remote in a way for health services?  So while thinking about health as a
social, economical and cultural right, bringing into the terrain of the
Internet, we found out that access is one of the first challenges.  So I'm
going to leave it here.  You will hear about me also in a while.

>> My NAM S is Nicholas from Poland dealing with data protection and that
kind of stuff.  In this edition of GISWatch, we wrote about Polish efforts
to build professional administrations and welfare and assess it from the
human rights perspective mostly from the right to social protection and the
right to work.  This process of building the  tools both offline and
online, application to apply for benefits and new big databases and new web
pages with information about benefits, but also algorithms used for
automatic decision-making when people are applying for benefits. From human
rights perspective those tools can behave like double-edged swords.  Many
of them can be beneficial for people if well designed and implemented and
under proper legislation.  They can give some better access to benefits and
to make easier for people to navigate through this very, you know,
complicated bureaucratic system.  But, for example, algorithms used in the
automatic decision-making process, they can create very serious risks and
threats from human rights' perspective.  To give you a very short
introduction to this problem, if you are unemployed in Poland, you go to
the job center, and every unemployed person is categorized -- is assigned
to one or two or three profiles.  A profile determines what type of help
you can get from the job centers.  The categorization is SMAD by a job
center, and it's based on data, which is collected through the registration
process and through the computer-based interview. To each data there is
assigned a score, and after the interview, the competitor is counting the
scores and giving the profit to the person.  The whole process is not
transparent both for workers in job centers but also for unemployed
persons.  There is no way to change the profile. The people are staying in
their categories, and they cannot change that.  There is a great risk of
discrimination and real one, for example, single moms and the disabled
persons are cut off because of the specific way of data processing.  You
will look at this in the report in more detail. What is also very bad in
this whole idea is there is an assumption that the computer is -- clerics
will J better than people and they will not take into account a variety of
complexity issues and complex life situations.  I will now stop here.
Thank you.

>> SPEAKER:  Good morning.  I'm with research Africa based in cape town.
Originally I'm SGLIM Bab wan actually to put it out there.  Together with
my co-author we wrote with determining user capabilities in order to
achieve ESCRs.  This is based on a study we did the in the western cape in
2013.  We decided to take a sex aggregated approach looking at male versus
female.  We found people who were Internet users used it to achief their
ESCRs, and for women it was looking at health and educational services,
women who were Internet users in comparison to men.  We also asked people
if they had the potential to have unlimited Internet access, whether there
are Internet users and not non-Internet users.  A lot of them use it to
achieve ESCRs, but it was more men than women. It showed that even if you
have the potential to have Internet access, women would still be left
behind in order to achieve their ESCRs. We also looked at the barriers that
impact Internet access that limit Internet users from achieving rights, and
we found that cost, affordability for services is still a major barrier,
and one thing that for me personally is a great concern was that more women
than men were concerned about privacy and surveillance online, which would
definitely limit of scope of use of the Internet. Then for barriers for
non-Internet users, we found more women than American were non-Internet
users.  The main concern for women is they don't know how to use the
Internet or don't have access to the resources in order to use the
enternetInternet, which re-affirms the point women should still be targeted
when it comes to increasing enter knit access to close the divide.  The
recommendations are there still needs to be better POECHLs or reworking the
policies around affordability and access to focus on women and men, and
also that we call to action people who were content curators and Civil
Society working around health services to actually find out what kind of
information is online that women are -- that women and men are accessing
with regards to health information in order for them to achieve their
ESCRs.  Thank you.

>> ALAN FINLAY:  Valentina.

>> VALENTINA PELLIZZER:  I'm sorry.  Our GISWatch was about our right to
culture, and we went looking into cases.  This is very complicated.  It's a
post-war society, so the culture, the traditional culture institutes and
museum have been during this 20 years after the war constantly under
discussion. Who would finance them?  Seven years ago the STIGS  decision
was no one will.  You have all the history to the last word was very
interesting was just closed down. It stays like this.  There's a different
process, and then one group that has experience decided to animate and to
use the Internet to call people.  So it's been organized 40 days of
activity campaigning.  Without the Internet it would never happen.  Also,
this campaign was calling everyone to come and to be -- to volunteer for
one hour one day to the museum and to show, to guide people.  So anyone if
you're from the U.N., embassy, representative to people from the, you know,
folk or music or anchorwoman, anchor DZ man and ordinary citizens and
teachers bringing classes.  At the end of the 40 days the museum is open.
Without the Internet it wouldn't have happened, because the Internet put
all the actors that were doing their blah-blahing behind closed door in the
eye of the public.  Of course, this initiative also succeeds because it's a
national treasure, and people identify with one another. The other case
that was an archive on the women and the women during the parties online in
the second world war.  It's an archive that we did with a collaboration of
the institute, but this archive doesn't enjoy the same kind of support or
public understanding, which is clear.  The one is sitting in a traditional
concept culture and the other one is a feminist perspective in a war in a
country that's in a transition. It's trying to re-evaluate and forgetting
sometimes the past. For us, it shows that the Internet is really powerful,
and when used even the most, you know, traditional tools like Facebook,
they can help really connect and overcome the silence and the unwillingness
to help and to do what you're supposed to do, finance other institutions.
Thank you.

>> My name is John Dada.  I'm from Nigeria and I work with a rural women's
organization.  The topic of our research in GISWatch is the seven of
minority languages in Nigeria. It has over 500 languages, and three of them
are the most dominant, and, of course, this gives them political advantage
with the three.  Where we work is deep rural, and there are about seven
languages spoken in that area.  The youth in that community have had access
to our computers and trainings and so on.  We've had a problem that the
older generation have no access to the information we have on those
computers. So this is where the issue of localization came in for us, and
this is also where the issue of the community networks came in. At the
moment in Nigeria, the three dominant languages have a lot of advantages,
which does not devolve to the other communities.  The other issue of
languages has been used very effectively by politicians to divide and rule
the people.  So there has been a further disincentive to develop the
minority languages until we came on board and encouraged the people there,
look, your language is -- some of have not even been documented never been
digitized.  We were willing to work with them to begin to document and then
digitize some of the languages.  That's how the project called ZITT
language came about.  It was working with seven communities in that area
that spoke seven distinct languages, and wive begun to document them.  But
in the course of working with this minority language, we realized that even
the major tribal languages are having a problem. Suddenly English has
become the elite language, and you find in homes they speak English
language.  Their kids can't speak their own traditional language.  So there
is a gap with the major languages, which the minor languages do not have.
This intergenerational transmission of culture and language has become a
major issue even with the major languages and also with the minority
languages and this research highlighted that chasm beginning to grow
between the older generation and new generation of both the major languages
and new languages. Our work has been to begin to document these languages
and digitize them and then begin to have them develop their content within
the community network so that they can develop relevant content in their
language and speak to each other within that context.  The communities here
have very little culture, they have culture wars.  The culture is extremely
rich, and having a voice in a community network helps to preserve that aura
of culture for them, and this is the stage we're at.  For me, the fact that
this research has shown the gap which the three major languages have is a
plus, because it also means that they can come on board to help us preserve
this, the smaller languages, because in the technology we use to preserve
this language is something they can also use to begin to communicate to
their children. Thank you.

>> SPEAKER:  Good morning.  I'm from Panama and working with Central
America and Latin America in Panama.  I didn't write the paper.  It was my
colleague named Grace Mathieus. Maybe she is watching the TRIMGS from
Panama.  We wrote a paper about the telewar in Panama because we don't have
a relation to this topic.  This is an international center when we have a
lot of international and multi-national companies based in our country.
They used to practice this work, but we don't have any information about
this topic.  We hope with this FARP the Panamanian government and the labor
minister read our paper and take the correct measure to learn about it
working in Panama.  Thank you.

>> ALAN FINLAY:  L eandro.

>> SPEAKER:  Hi.  So the reporting from Spain from this year was about on
approach that was on ( indiscernible ) and it was about that typically we
see it often that our social life happens in private spaces.  It happens
disconnected from the local community.  So this is called the scale
thermometer, and it's an interesting combination where children in schools
they do real work, let's say, with the community, and they take this meter
around the school and create a map of resources like safe places for
children when they go to school or if you're allergic to pollen, which
paths you can take to get to the school and not suffer from it.  And
knowing about the history of the neighborhood and mapping out those things
in a local application so people can find out.  I mean, it's a located
system, and I think it was a very nice experience because students realize
that they can expand their local community not in the sense of community
networks and computer networks but in the sense of social neighbors and
their uncovering learning, talking to people, and reporting locally about
local things that matter and otherwise that's what it's about like you see
about culture and about empowering children to SKRUS do something for their
communities.

>> SPEAKER:  Hello.  Good morning, everybody.  I have everybody for a good
final day this year.  My NAM S is C ddambiand I'm representing an organize
based in Costa Rica working in the central American region.  In our case
the purpose of our report is about economic rights and the Internet, and
especially it talks about first of all the need to deconcentrate the
opportunities of IT sector because the IT sector opportunities are very
concentrated in urban areas. They're very concentrated in men and also in
white men.  Then we have a very particular case in Costa Rica in the
northern region in the rural area where it's have been developed what we
call our rural part of the digital economy.  Then what we did was to study
which are the conditions that create these particular cases where the IT
sector is becoming the first economy in these rural spaces. Then we check
the conditions that have a play in this case to have these specific
opportunities to develop the digital economy and to base our rural base in
the digital economy.  Then we study the case, specifically the case. This
is a place where our cooperative works, and we work trying to create more
women leadership in the rural areas and in these very specific rural areas
where it is this digital part.  The conditions like universities with
informative careers and like some conditions and like the interest for the
young people to stay and not migrate to the urban areas, for instance.
Those are some of the conditions that have created these possibilities to
have these IT economies in these rural parts.  Thank you.

>> SPEAKER:  Good morning, everyone.  I'm working in Colombia.  Our report
in Colombia this year is about the role of ICTs in the Colombian peace
process.  It's a very challenging topic for our situation in our country.
Since 2010 the Colombian government was holding private conversations with
armed revolutionary forces of Colombia.  In September 2012 our president
Santos was elected and re-elected in 2014 announcing the association of
negotiations with FARC, which began in November 2012.  Four years later on
August 23 this year the negotiations was ended with an agreement document.
Then on November 29th the definite bilateral cease fair has gun. The same
day the Congress of the republic approved the agreement. On September in
2016 the signing took place in the secretary of the United Nations and more
than 15 heads of state. On October 2 a national referendum was held to
verify if Colombian citizens are in agreement.  In this referendum it won
the option unfortunately for us.  After the referendum the negotiations
continued including the representatives of the other option.  Then a new
agreement was signed between Colombian government and FARC. Last November
the new agreement was broke by the Congress of the republic.  Next Monday,
next week in December the constitutional court will decide if the
legislative act for the piece to facilitate the agreement can be executive
as the government is proposing. This is the situation of the peace process
with the group FARC in Colombia at this moment. Okay.  If the agreement is
approved, there will be a long process of repatriation, reconciliation and
social inclusion in order to be granted for a long-lasting peace.  This
report analyzing how ICTs can contribute to the peace process in order to
promote the dialogue and achievement of a long-lasting peace.  Seen some
years ago, there are initiatives use Internet to promote a peace you feel
culture and education for peace.  Other initiatives have supported actions
for peace building in the territoterritories, charting knowledge,
facilitating the dialogue between different actors, disseminating inspiring
stories and offering better opportunities to people.  This year our
document, our report document some of these initiatives because ICTs will
have an important role in the process of the implementation of the
agreement.  We invite you to read our report.  There are document different
initiatives on these initiatives implied by the NGOs in Colombia.  Thank
you.

>> ALAN FINLAY:  Thank you.  We have two remote authors, one from Romania
and the other from Kenya who will give their brief presentations.  Rozi is
first. How does this work?  Rozi is first.

>> SPEAKER:  Can you hear me?

>> ALAN FINLAY:  Hello.  Yes, we can hear you.

>> SPEAKER:  Hello, everyone. I'm Rozi Bako from Romania.  I participated
for the tenth time in developing this report, this country report for
Romania.  I would go back to Anriette's first word RS when they presented
the introduction of GISWatch.  The first report was on participation, and I
was thinking, why is that the tenth report of the Romanian GISWatch in 2016
is, again, about participation.  Did we not make any steps further since
2006? Why is it so relevant to talk about participation after ten years?
And thinking about this issue I realize that, in fact, participation is the
core element and core benefit of the information society and of the
Internet.  The way in which we tackled the issue of participation in 2006,
2007, ten years ago, it was a broader -- from a broader perspective from
the perspective of stakeholders, key actors who are playing on the field of
providing Internet, providing infrastructure development, content
development for the online spaces.  Now, after the mobile revolution and at
least ( indiscernible ) the sharp increase to Internet devices and
broadband Internet in the country, we can bring the discussion of
participation to a -- to the next level.  We can talk about participation
in TERMs  of social inclusion and economic inclusion.  Kemly was talking
about the inclusion economy.  John Dada talked about the inclusion in terms
of cultural inclusion for languages.  And for Romania, there is still a
problem of access to infrastructure and in the mountainous areas and who
have technical issues in accessing the Internet. Economic problems for
those left behind both economically and socially who have scarce means to
pay for the Internet and let alone to understand the comment and meaning of
it.  We highlighted our 2016 reports on the Romania population who is the
most disadvantaged community in the country.  I would say the most -- not
only me, but the reports that the most disconnected community in the
country.  And also to other socioeconomic groups that are not benefits from
the information society like the elderly, who are not -- who are not really
-- who are not really benefitting from the access, skills and understanding
of what Internet could mean to them. According to the national statistics
institute, in 2015 73% of elderly people have never accessed the Internet
in Romania.  This is a country which has a pretty good infrastructure and
also a few more capital indices according to the latest 2016 E-government
report of the United Nations. So Romania ranks in the first third of the
countries around the world, but still, there are significant groups that
are history behind.  Ethnic groups like the Roma and age groups like the
elderly and also rural communities.  The rural is also a space where there
is a lot to be done and Civil Society actors together with government
initiatives are very -- are akin to move these disadvantages forward.  So
I'm glad I could participate and I could reiterate this year the issue of
participation in this GISWatch Romania report.  Thank you.

>> ALAN FINLAY:  Thanks, Rozi. Our second online contributor is victor from
Kenya.

>> SPEAKER:  Hello.  Hello.  Can you hear me?

>> ALAN FINLAY:  Yes, we can hear you.

>> SPEAKER:  My name is victor Capio from Kenya.  I'm from the Kenya ICT
action network, and the thrust of our piece was basically what role the
Internet is playing in primary schools, and how we can harness ICTs for the
next generation.  Ten years ago mobile phones and computers were reserved
for a few, and today, for example, the Internet and mobile penetration is
-- has exceeded 85% of Kenya's population.  And the government to trying to
leverage the niceties for the right of an education.  Kenya passed a new
constitution in 2010 which providing very clearly and  the right to
education, and we were looking at how in the implementation of rights that
ICTs can be used to follow these rights.  At the same time to look at a few
case studies of young children who have leapfrogged and how they are using
technology to do this has already exceeded some of the measures proposed in
the article.  It is important for the government to recognize how young
children use mobile phones and computers and to aDOP  -- adapt the system
and current learning program they implement to take into consideration
those particular nuances that young kids even two years old can download
apps from NIR play store and use them.  As such, the digital Linux system
should not just be textbooks on a screen, but we have to also look at how
kids' new ways of learning over and above just reading a book to make the
learns systems more interactive, but also at the same time to prepare this
because you cannot cure lack of access to education by throwing or
thrusting a device before a child.  The infrastructure proper investment
must be made to ensure that even the teachers understanding these
technologies to ensure that the infrastructure is there and there's
electricity across the schools and there's broadband Internet.  You have to
look at the entire core system, and that's why we were faulting the
government.  Their approach has to be comprehensive that looks at all the
factors and not just simply giving a tablet to a kid. So we provided
several recommendations and we hope to share this with the minister of
education. We hope that they will take them into consideration and probably
do something about it.  Thank you.

>> ALAN FINLAY:  Thanks, Victor. Those are some of our country report
authors.  It's impressive, I think, with the diversity last year and the
year before.  We did a similar launch of GISWatch, and it's really nice to
see people from different countries in the room speaking about their
reports. We have a couple of thematic authors here, but I wanted to know if
there were any questions that anyone wanted to ask about the country
reports.   Is that a question?  No.  Avri who wrote on technical
institutions, do you want to see a few words about your report here?

>> SPEAKER:  Sure.  Avri Doria, I'm a researcher with a foot in the Civil
Society and advocacy for the last 15 years. Basically what I was assigned
to look at and happy to look at was whether the Internet organization
sometimes called the IStar organizations had any ESCR type of commitment
activity relevance.  Of course, they're not rights organizations, so in the
first place, as not being rights organizations, it really took a little bit
more of digging.  One of the things that I went back to was looking at
human rights and looking at the notion of who has duties, who has
responsibilities, who needs to respect, who needs to enforce?  Though
they're not states and, therefore, they did not have, you know, and were
not duty-bearers, they are responsible in ways for a public core of the
Internet.  Something that is vital and has been by some considered to be a
public good.  So in that sense while THEP  they can't be said to have
duties, one could look at there being responsibilities and such. In looking
at the organizations and I looked at four specific organizations and also
one type of organization.  I looked at the Internet corporation for
assigned names and numbers, ICANN.  I looked at the Internet Society, ISOC
and liked at IATF and looked at the IRTF and looked at the regional
Internet registries which there are five commonly known as the IARs. ICANN
has been working on human rights responsibilities.  In the most recent
version of its bylaws it basically indicated a need to respect human
rights. Now, ICANN hasn't figured out what it means yet and there's an
ongoing process now, but in terms of activities, you can look at it, and
they've put a lot of effort into making sure that the internationalized
domain names, the IDNs were available, and they have an effort going to
make sure they work.  In that, it's a contributory.  One of the things that
basically showed through this is that the Internet organizations were
providing very much a base on which the Internet could be used for the
ESCR, and without which it would be more difficult to do so.  So with the
IDNs, there's also been a certain amount of worry lately that in the
distribution of domain names that the developing economies and such had not
been reached, so there's a lot of conversation going on within ICANN about
how are they reached?  The Internet Society is the only one of the
organizations that actually has a certain commitment to ESCR written into
its charter where it talks specifically about development and open
development and making sure that the Internet is available everywhere for
everyone.  It's very specific.  Within its goals it works a lot on
education and works with the global network of chapters to try and
understand the issues, the problems, and work with local communities in
terms of trying to make sure that the Internet is available in many places
and to understand the issues with making it available. Want IETF -- I'm
going through this.  IETF is harder to who looking at.  This view, and this
is a view stated in many sentences, when the Internet works better, the
world can use it more.  The world can use it for more things. It doesn't
directly in any sense talk about rights, yet, when, you know, there was a
problem with surveillance, it definite worked on how do you make Internet
protocols more supportive of privacy?  But basically its goal is to
neighboring sure that the enter -- make sure the Internet works everywhere
for anyone without impediments.  That feeds over to the research task force
and they're basically sister organizations where in the IRTF is where they
don't establish protocols.  They're looking at issues and doing research.
There's two groups in there whose work is pertinent.  One of them is called
guy YA, and it's basically -- I forget what it stands for.  We also have
cutecy names and words that apply for the acronym.  So, yes, it's an abbing
rim in the IRTF, but I don't remember it. There's looking at how, indeed,
to make the Internet work.  How to sort of help it spread and basically
make sure that the economic factors, that the market factors that would
help it spread in various places is there, again, with the basis that the
Internet is necessary for every right and to be furthered to enable it, not
that the rights can't be enabled without the Internet, bullet we have seen
that the Internet has become a necessary component. So what's missing?
What can be done to do that?  The other group it's got is the human rights
protocol considerations. It's taken the task of saying while engineering
trying to say protocols are neutral, we kind of all have learned that
protocols really aren't neutral, and that a protocol can enable rights or
pose a barrier or disable righting.  It's doing an in-depth analysis of the
IETF protocols and sort of trying to find out what are the elements that
make a protocol more enables?  What are the elements that the goal of that
group is to produce recommendations for protocol designers and for
architects to say these are things you need to think about when you're
designing a protocol so that the protocol will enable as opposed to
disable.  Of course, in designing a protocol or an architecture, that
people are constantly doing trades-off, and what we're trying to say is
that human rights enabling is, indeed, one of the things that you have to
consider in your trade-off. Finally and I know I'm probably talking too
long, the IRRs, they are responsible for distributing the numbers, the IP
addresses. They work on a regional basis, and within each region the main
goal is to make sure that connectivity is everywhere, and that there is an
IP address for anyone that needs it for any service that needs it, for any
computer that needs it, and part of their whole program has been the IPV6
as a vehicle saying, here.  There are enough numbers. We just need to get
them distributed.  The other type of number they distributed, the
autonomous system numbers, the ASNs are the numbers that every service
provider needs.  Making sure there's a big enough group of those and
they're distributed.  All of these organizations, while only one
specifically says they're working on human rights and even ESCRs are all
basical trying to make sure that we have an Internet that is useful for
rights and tries to enable them. So that was the perspective I took in this
short article. Thanks.

>> ALAN FINLAY:  Thanks, Avri. Would you like to talk about your thematics?
Thanks.

>> SPEAKER:  Very quickly, I also I did a thematic report regarding
intellectual property rights.  It's one of my favorite discussions because
I believe human rights attacks are being perpetrated by intellectual
property law, and for me, it's been really interesting to see the power
schemes that -- and the lobbying behind treaties like the TPP that a lot of
people say it's now dead because of Trump.  It's probably the only good
news of the Trump election, but I don't think it's something that is going
to go away.  We've been seeing this tendency in other.  In Mexican and per
ROOUFian Congressing, the senators want to pass the legislation.  They want
to copy the TPP on legislation, even the TPP is dead and nobody is going to
ratify it.  So, for us, we wrote shortly on how treaties like the TPP
impede the access to culture and the access to scientific knowledge,
especially the intellectual property rights.  I don't know if many of you
know, but this was negotiated in secret for six years.  It's very
worrisome, because it's decisions that affect us all. So it's even going
against the same logic of our democratic regimes, and in countries like
Mexico, at least, there's sum democracies just to override them with
international treaties is a crazier idea, and especially where we
documented here.  It's very short.  I mean, I think we've studied this
topic so much I could write a book about me complaining on the intellectual
property chapter of the TPP and economic and social rights, but this is
like five pages.  It's a good summary.  If you want to read it, I encourage
you.   First, I'll make three or four points on T. First, the provisions
that -- in intellectual property chapter that impede the production of
generic medicines.  Well, this is in -- it's called biological -- I don't
remember the name in English.  Sorry. It's these medicines that cannot be
created 100% synthetically. They have to come from a biological process.
So the TPP have new intellectual property right provisions for that
knowledge, right?  So this in practice would mean if tomorrow they
discovered a cure for HIIV, Ebola or Zika or cancer, the TPP would impede
the generic medicine for six years.  This is a matter of life and death for
people that can't pay the high at that time pent prices of medicine.
Regarding Internet rights, I mean, this is the -- this visual is
tremendously serious, but in our arena there were very worrying things,
especially the exportation of the DMCA model. I've been saying all along
the IGF how the Mexican presidential office used digital millennium
copyright act to censor where the president makes mistakes and confuses CDs
with states and states with countries.  So the TPP had provisions that
exported these with no -- they just exported the really bad things with no
exportation to say put it in a way of the fair use in the United States,
which is rich in terms of exceptions of parity criticism that most Latin-
American countries do have.  I don't know.  I can literally go on forever.
I'll live it here, we have the digital log provisions in the TPP.  In the
GIJ beginning when the intellectual property chapter first leaked, we saw
that there were -- there was a proposal to put in jail users that unlocked
digital locks.  So unlocking a PDF could get you in jail in Mexico where El
Chapo escaped two times from SCOMBRAL. This is conflicting. Fortunately,
the leaking by Wikileaks allowed us to pressure and push back.  But this at
the end resulted in very high monetary sanctions for final users as well.
So generally speaking, treaties like the TPP as we see them today do impede
-- they favor the interests of certain multi-national companies over the
interests of culture in general.  We cannot access culture in very tight
copyright schemes, so that's -- it's only four pages, so yeah, I think it's
a very good exercise to link it with economic, social, and cultural rights.
Thank you.

>> ALAN FINLAY:  Thanks.  We're happy to have Stewart Hamilton FL IFLER.

>> SPEAKER:  Thanks.  This goes on quite nicely from her comments, I think.
I'm speaking on the two authors of the paper that we did for GISWatch,
Steven WIEBer and Julia brooms.  You can find our paper on page 36 and it's
about an issue not addressed enough, which is the long-term preservation of
our digital memory.  We've set this issue within the context of the
sustainable development goals, particularly target 11.4, which looks at
protection of cultural heritage.  Within the library community I'm hear at
the IGF talking about access and increasing access to ICTs, basic Internet
access, but preservation of information is really one of our fundamental
sort of obligations as information professionals. We've been doing this for
hundreds, if not thousands of years with the shift to digital information
environment.  Of course, everything changes, so our paper is about how can
we cooperate in this new environment to sort of protect people's right to
access the digital cultural heritage.  We laid out three areas of what we
call the digital heritage challenge.  One is an antiquated copyright system
and one is the ever changing nature of digital technology, and the other is
just the shear mass of digital content now available.  Whether it comes to
copyright, the fundamental position that we have is that our global
copyright system and, in fact, the vast majority of am national copyright
systems are completely outdated whether it comes to dealing with challenges
to preserve the digital information environment.  Many many cases copyright
laws don't help us in a print environment, but we can do a lot more with
print materials than with digital. Things such as digital legal deposit is
still very much in the infancy, and we really run into problems when a lot
of information we received is via licensing systems from commercial content
providers and the conditions and obligations on those licenses actually
override the exceptions to copyright that exist in law that help us do our
job.  So preservation activities in particular, but also sharing
information with other libraries across borders are often restricted by
commercial contracts.  When it comes to digital technology, it's actually
easier for us sometimes to read a document from 1500 years ago than to read
a floppy disk from 15 years ago.  That's something we're not hearing enough
about in Internet Governance conversations, which is about interoperability
of form  formats and how formats are limited by licensing and commercial
terms in order to be able to preserve things.  There was an issue in
Australia with Grier's materials to the archive and libraries there.  It
was in a disk in a world processing format.  There's major problems to get
that in a position to future generations to be able to access. We should be
discussing more and it's mentioned in the paper about issues, degrading
digital material over time and link rot, which can be addressed with
permanent link identifiers, but there's still a major issue to get us to
move to this.  We discussed that in the paper. Finally, that third
challenge, the massive content, what is there to preserve?  How do we make
the decisions on what is good, what tweet is good?  The library of Congress
is archives all tweets.  They must have some tremendous material in there.
What a challenge that is.  What do we pull out of that and keep and get rid
of?  We pull out in the paper a cooperative project which we've been
involved with UNESCO, a number of governments and a small part of the
private sector called the persist project, and that is a project beginning
to tackle the thorny question about what we preserve. That's one of the
solutions we suggest to be looked at. The other solution we're strong on
and I mentioned in the session on human rights yesterday is fundamental
copyright reform and if IFLR is work ago the property organization for an
international agreement on a new copyright framework for libraries and
archives.  There's a great deal of support from there from Global South,
Latin-American Caribbean and ocean that but a massive pushback from the
Europe Union and United States, and in some ways that's another
conversation.  It's interesting that at this point yet we're not able to
agree on what an international common framework would be for copyright that
could actually move us towards a shared digital heritage online. I'll
finish there and say I have noticed consistently within the IGF and we put
in workshop proposals over the years turned back that the issue of digital
memory is not really registering here.  I'd like to see more emphasis on it
in the future years, and I hope that our paper on page 36 could be useful.
Thanks.

>> ALAN FINLAY:  Thanks very much, Stewart.  So does anyone want to make a
comment, a contribution, ask a question? Sally.

>> AUDIENCE:  Just taking up some of the issues that have come up at this
table but also in discussions during the week on these issues of economic,
social and cultural rights, and I think the -- the issues of community
control versus civility and scaleability have been present since the
beginnings of the Internet.  We moved from essentially a model of community
control to one that's become largely corporate controlled and is now sort
of pushed back to take back some community control. The experience is the
-- the country experience is that we presented mostly show how Internet
provides a framework for approaching economic social and cultural rights
and strengthening them.  But the study and some of the more global focuses
also show how an economic rights provide a frame, not the only one but a
frame for approaching Internet rights as such.  And this concerns both the
positive affirmative aspects such as access in community control as well as
the negative aspects such as how the recent revolution of the Internet
monopoization and concentration of power and violations of privacy, data
extraction and privatization, nontransparent algorithms, et cetera, et
cetera could affect both economic, social and cultural rights and political
and civic rights such as in the erosion of labor rights, cultural and
linguistic diversity threats to the democratic process.  The right to
reliable information, et cetera, et cetera. So I think the economic, social
and cultural rights approach the book is exploring combined, obviously,
with other approaches and other rights, social justice focus, et cetera
from both these positive and negative aspects could be an effective way to
bring a community organization social communities, other Civil Society
actors to take on the the importance of looking at the Internet as a
political issue and not just an instrument. It's important to -- something
that's important to mobilize around and take back control of. Including
movements that don't see the Internet as a political issue or don't
understand how to approach it.  So I think it helps to visualize the
dominant concentrated model isn't the only one possible.  Also, that it's
not sufficient in a globalized well and organized Internet to look only
from the community focus.

>> ALAN FINLAY:  Thanks, Sally. Any other comments?  Anriette?

>> SPEAKER:  Thank you for those remarks, Sally, because that's what we
hope to achieve with the projectproject.  I have to say it's an
extraordinarily difficult project, which I think is a reflection on
economic and social rights that involves so many.  It's a rage of rights
and processes, but it's also a reflection how we started to work in the
Internet community and how we approach Internet rights.  I think the
enormous preoccupation that we've had were violations of privacy, the
impact of surveillance, the shutdowns, the way in which regimes in some
parts of the world are fearful of the Internet as a tool for protest and
for change, I political Chang Lenning, and that's incredibly relevant.
Really we had to step back from this Civil Society preoccupation with
freedom of expression and sole political issues.  We did feel we need to
take a conscious step back and look at human rights on the Internet in a
different way to get at the broader framing. I think that in itself, the
fact it's been such a challenging process is also for us a learning
process.  What we've seen now, actually it's huge. Looking at labor, labor
rights attaches on organization of labor, which has changed.  The world has
changed, and how the worker -- how worker organization and trade union
movements operate as social change agents now is very different from how
they did 30, 40 years ago.  So I think that we actually are just beginning
the process.  We need to deal with the fact that so much labor is
unorganized and the tally work in those cases.  It's taking us into the
Internet and right on the Internet but also on how do we bring about social
change?  What are the challenges?  How has that changed in the last 20
years?  I think that exploration needs to go much further, I think.  So we
were hoping this would be a project where we came up with a new monitoring
framework and expand the rights charter and influence the IGF agenda and
that would be it, but, in fact, it's going to take a long more than that.
It's going to take a lot more than that.

>> ALAN FINLAY:  Thank you, Anriette.  We have a few more minutes left and
I'll hand over at this point to Roxanne that, who is the GISWatch product
coordinator, who will give a quick overview of -- are you? Okay.

>> ROXANA BASSI:  Okay.  Good morning, everyone.  So I'm RRoxana, and this
is my third year for GISWatch coordinator and I'm very well-known for
pestering authors to deliver on time.  Like Anriette said, it's a
challenging year because GISWatch is a process.  The book you have is not
the final product.  It's one of the products.  What comes before that is
capacity building of the 45 organizations that participate in this project.
So the way we do that is we create content and we research for them and we
prepare a kind of framework in order to organize their work.  While doing
that, we realize that there seems to be a contradiction there. There's so
much to say about economic culture and social rights and the Internet and
ICDs, and at the same time there's so little documented. So we couldn't
find good sources or reliable sources or updated sources, so I think we
really hope that is this is a starting point for local research and
regional level and hopefully at global level.  We want to ask your help in
disseminating the report and its findings.  If you follow our website, we
can have local events that take place and translation of the reports as
well.  I don't know.  If there are no further questions, I think we can
close this session. I'd like to than the IDOC and CEDA who supported this
project and the whole that helped us and Alan who worked 25-7 STIEMGZ and
editing weekends and very long nights and, of course, all the authors.
You're a pleasure to work with.  Let's continue this project next year like
Anriette said on community networks. Thank you very much. ( Applause )  (
Session concluded at 10:22 a.m. CT ) W SWS29:  Bridging digital device gap
the blind through technology 9 December 2016 10:45  Today F.

.

>> MODERATOR:  Good morning, everybody.  My apologies.  It took a little
bit more time to set up the technical concerns, because actually after we
have the presentation through the Power Point, we're going to give you the
live demonstrations on how we can bridge the gap between the digital
technology with a volunteer from the blind. I'm sorry about starting late.
Anyway, a warm welcome to all delegates and IGF friends to the workshop
number 29.  On behalf of ETDA.  ETDA is electronic transaction development
from Thailand, and we will, you know, introduce ourselves a little bit
later on.  So, as you know, according to the digital age beyond the limits,
I think that most of us here think that this is a crucial time to, you
know, think about how we can contribute them to benefit to others, and
therefore we would like to share the knowledge and the practical experience
on the topic of breaching the digital divide for the blind through
technology.  Let me give you a good background.  In Thailand there are
almost 700 blind people -- sorry.  70,000 blind people in Thailand,
approximately about 1% of the population of Thailand.   So we are here to
build a practical application called read for the blind, and that can
bridge the gap between technology and the people who have difficulties and
volunteer to help them to access the information and communications.  Let
me introduce a little bit the read for the blind project. Consequently, the
read for the blind project in Thailand becomes a successful more modality
with more than 120,000 engagement of the target with difficulties in
Thailand. Before we move to the presentation, let me take a little bit more
time just to introduce ourselves and who we are.  ETDA is electronic
transactional develop as I mentioned.  It is a public organization on
behalf of ministry of digital economy and society.  We have the main
responsibility to, you know, promote eCommerce, ETRADE facilitations for
the infrastructure and like digital economy laws for cyber security.
Anyway, one mission that we aim is to collaborate and to empower with the
market stakeholder board the NASHLonal group to raise awareness of the
Internet Governance in the target group of Thailand as well. So we have
main, key topics that we would like to build in this workshop.  First of
all, we have two speakers in the forum today. The guest speaker we
introduce you about reads for the blind project, which is a mobile
application, a cloud-based audio book, or we can call it -- it is a
creation for the blind. Secondly, we will move to the introduction of help
us read, which is a phrase book group socially for the blind in Thailand.
And then we move to the live demonstration, and then you can, enjoy, how
it's functional and practical application that some would pick it up and
apply into the environment in the country.  At the last section, we're
going to have a question and answer among, you know, friends of IGF. Then
we can bring altogether in the future corroboration for the successful
development, because we don't want you to have a good talk in this room.
This is how we can read for the blind project to another neighboring
country or, you know, another IGF friend environment.  Let me introduce our
honor speaks. We'll start with the lady first. I would like to give the
floor to miss Cholatip Yimyong.  She can go on and introduce yourself to
your friends.

>> CHOLATIP YIMYONG:  Good morning.  My name is Cholatip Yimyong from
national reading for the blind and disabled of Thailand association
foundation.

>> MODERATOR:  Our colleagues, Miss Cholatip Yimyong even has guilty with
the blind when she was young, but she's so excellent because she got a
bachelor degree in consumer science and she worked for read for the blind
in Thailand.  He works as the head administrator supporting electronic
contents services at the national library for the BLIEND in Thailand.  So
let's move to the gentleman, our guest speaker, I would like to introduce
Mr. Natwut Amornvivat right now.  Mr. Natwut is a co-founder of read for
the blind and helped us with the read project.  He also gets the CEO at the
mobile development company in Thailand. So I think that it is the time to
pass it is floor to our key speakers to contribute the functional and
application technology which helps our friends.  May I pass my duties to
you?  Thank you.

>> NATWUT AMORNVIVAT:  Thank you very much.  Good morning, everyone.  We'd
like to go over our personal stories of our team in Thailand.  We developed
two systems to help the blind.  The team is multi-stakeholder.  It was
started PO private, and we work with NGO, for example, and work with PO
private.  The key stakeholders are the library for the blind and
corporations.  I myself come from PO private sector, but we know that
technologies can help solve the problems.  The two stories we're going to
talk about is one read for the blind mobile application, which basically is
a cloud-based audio book creation for the blind.  Another one is called
help us read, which is the instant social help for the blind. So if you can
imagine -- if you could take a few seconds to imagine yourself as a blind
person, or if you want to close your eyes, if you drop something down the
table, right, it's so easy for us.  We just open our eyes and try to find
it.  For the blind person, the books that they need to read and study, the
work that they need to perform to earn money to raise their kids and even
to, you know, contribute to the society, it's very difficult.  They cannot
see.  Looking at this slide, Cholatip is a blind mother.  She has two kids,
right?  This mother's day her kids drew her a mother's day card and gave it
to her and said, I love you.  She asked, what is this picture, right?  What
did you draw?  The young kid, she's so shy and she just -- she wouldn't
explain it. How can Cholatip understand fully to appreciate it fully,
what's the love that her kids give her?  Today we would like to tell you
that we can use social networks to help the blind to understand the
situation.  Our story starts about four years ago in Thailand, right?  Very
few become volunteers in terms of audio book creation.  Myself included.  I
always thought I want to record books for the blind.  I never do it.  I'd
never done it before, because I never know where this place is. I never go
to the library for the blind.  Its very difficult to go, right? One day I
decided to go there, and in the room there's a few PCs.  There's software
that requires about one and a half hours of training, right?  Once I'm
done, I ask, what is the most demanded book right now? The staff gave me
this civil law and said in three days a blind student needs to take the
examination and no one has come to read it for her yet.  Three days, this
law book.  So I spent three hours that day, the remainder of the day
reading.  I went through just two chapters out of maybe 20 chapters, and we
know that blind kid will never got this book to study before a final exam,
never, right?  As an engineer, we know that the most -- the easiest and the
best recording devices in everybody's hand, right, is a mobile phone? If we
can have an app that can record the audio book, we can do it anywhere
anytime, right?  A thick book like this, if they have 20 chapters, 20
friends can do one chapter each, and we could finish this book in a night.
Right?  So I tell that to the library, and we spent like three months
afterwards talking with the library for the blind thinking about the
features.  In the end we managed to engage Thailand to combine our efforts
to produce an app call would read for the blind education.  Eight months
later we launched this app.  This is about three years already. The app is
basic.  It's basically a microphone recorder, but the key things is it
cannot be a normal recorder, because you definitely make a mistake, right,
when you read the book, you will misread it.  You will misspell it.  So the
app you can scroll it, rewind it back to the point where you made a
mistake, and then you just record it again, right, in the middle of it?
The second key function is that once you're done with the voice recording
with the chapters, you upload it into the cloud, and the blind -- this app
can be accessed by the blind using accessibility function. The blind can
read -- can -- we use the word read, right?  They can listen to the audio
book immediately, right?  So on the blind person's side, we have a specific
blind person's log in, right?  So they can identify themselves as the blind
so that we set up -- imply  comply with the copyright law.  They lock in
and scroll through the books and articles and listen to it. Basically, it's
collaboration. This technology is basically a bridge between volunteers and
the blind.  It's a hybrid between humans and technology in terms of helping
the blind, right?  We collaborate or help, instant help, and on the blind
person's side, they can read books.  They can comment.  We know that
volunteers get high moral boosts because they get comments back from the
blind to say thank you and comment. There's no number of person listening
to their books.  That is very important from our experience. In this we
create and engage a social system.  Once we're done with this, we launched
it publicly, and this is quite important.  When we launch something, we
need to really engage the public.  We use a lot of people, celebrities,
universities, students recording books for their peers to start recording.
This is when we have a lot of challenge.  The first one is a copyright law.
All right?  After we launched about three years ago, one of the biggest
publishing house calls up and said they are very concerned about this.  I
asked them, okay, library for the blind has been doing it for the last 30
years.  Why now? I said, because it's so inconvenient, it has been very
inconvenient, so there are very few books, very few volunteers. Now that we
launch it in the mobile application, there will be a lot more help, and
then I'm concerned.  I'm totally understanding him, right?  We totally
understand him.  We thought the app is not going to be that easy anymore,
right?  So we bring a lot of books down. We create this log-in for the
blind persons, and so -- but lucky for us one year afterwards a new law,
copyright law in Thailand passed and it said, if you do a copy of the
inaccessible content for the blind, you are exempt from copyright.  So it
basically -- I think a lot of countries have that law at the moment, so I
think a lot of people can do pretty much the same thing.  And the app eco-
system is run by the blind foundation, which is very important as well.  It
has to be run by the blind foundation. Second one, the voice quality.
People would ask if the microphone connects with USB to the PC, is it
better than the voice you recorded on a mobile phone?  You know, as an
engineer on mobile phones, we know that the quality of the voice from
mobile phones is very good because of the noise reduction. It's $100
billion industry, right?  The quality of it is very good, but we can't
control is once we have 120,000 volunteers recording from their home, from
their workplace, we cannot control the background, right?  So we urged the
blind association that give us a chance.  You have very few books in the
past.  Let it being a high quality book, but for us, let us create a wide
variety of books for the blind, articles, something the blind never got
before but more like a medium range quality, right?  So we pass that -- we
went through that issue. The next issue comes up because of our own system.
Once it's very convenient, there are 120,000 volunteers.  Number of
workload of quality control at the blind library has been -- they were
overwhelmed by this number of audio books.  What we change is that
immersion we launched last year, it became a cloud-based system like
YouTube. When you record an audio book, the book that has been listened to
most and has been rated with the most highest score comes up in the
ranking, and when the blind comes in, they will only see the high-ranking
books.  So it's more like a self-scoring kind of system. So we sort of lift
some of the quality control workload out from the library itself.  So three
years after the launch until today we have 120,000 voice volunteers in
Thailand. The number of books before read for the blind was 5,000
nationwide before.  After read for the blind we have 18,000 more books from
read for the blind.  The eKO co-system of this application is very
important.  I need to show you this.  On the top part we have the
volunteers.  They're reading to the cloud, and from the cloud the blind
person can log in and they can extract the audio books.  Not only this.
Many blind people in Thailand do not have smartphones, right?  We have to
treat everyone equal. In the blind foundation they would select the highest
quality books from the system, bring it from one cloud to another cloud.
This second cloud will serve different channels.  The first one is the not
typical dial in called 1414.  You can listen using a land line and feature
phones.  Second one is TAB radio, Thailand association for the blind
Internet radio and another one is application called tap to read.
Basically it's to show we need to have several channels in order for the
grassroots section people as well as the people who have smartphones in
order to participate in this.  And the key things to make it work is that
it is run by the association of the blind so that the participation from
the blind is -- it can be worked out. So basically what we have changed is,
first of all, we can manage to get people to contribute an audio book from
anywhere anytime.  Secondly, they can collaborate.  The big, thick book,
they cannot do it in one night, for example.  Do we have Thai people from
Scandinavia or Germany and from Australia?  They have been contributing
their voice to blind people in Thailand collaborating with one books. That
is read for the blind. Another system that we want to talk about today is
called Facebook group, and we hope very much if you like this idea, maybe
you like to try to do it in other countries as well.  We would love to help
out.  We would love to do it as well. One NIETht Cholatip sent me a JPEG
file and said she can't read the picture for sure, and the picture is from
the school of her kid.  It's a timetable of the -- it's a study schedule.
If the school were to send her a text file, she'd be able to understand it
using a voice-over function, but the school sent her a picture file.  I
read it for her, but I asked wouldn't it be nice if we had more than 1,000
volunteers standing by to read for her, right?  She said, blind people can
use Facebook very, very fluently. Actually, in fact, she typed much better
than I do, much faster than I type.  So we try it.  We tried immediately
and we were in front of the room.  As a blind person we take a photo of the
sign in front of the door which says please wash hands before and after in
the hospital.  Take a photo and upload it to the help us read Facebook
group.  The volunteers in the Facebook group, they see this photo.
Basically what the volunteers need to do is type a comment explaining that
photo, so in this case the volunteer who said, please wash hands before and
after visiting exactly this.  As you post the picture, you get notification
when someone comments on your post, right?  So she goes in and looks at the
comment and uses the voice-over and listens to the comment so she can
understand.  If you're clear, we have a videotape of this.  Let's see.  So
this video clip will show how the blind person captures the photo and puts
it on Facebook. ( Video played ) >> Take picture.  Facebook, Facebook.
Notifications, one new.  Nothing.  Nothing. Search.  Nothing.

>> NATWUT AMORNVIVAT:  You use the feature to go there with the button.

>> Photo just now selected. Nothing.  Done.   Say something about this
photo.  Say something about this photo.  Cat WFGHHAFTT, space, IDS space,
new line TTTHHSS, photo.  Privacy. Nothing.

>> NATWUT AMORNVIVAT:  She posts it to the group.  We have 8,000 volunteers
24 hours stand by. Once you post it and see it and plain it in the comment,
now she gets the comment back.  She's seen the notification that someone
commented on her photo, and now she's going to attempt to read that
comment.  ( Video played ) >> Photo.  None available.  The first person.
Commented. Target on working together for now.  Six minutes ago, zero mics,
two have commented and they're working together for now.  The book has a
great cover with graphics on men and women. On the cover it says in two
volumes, volume 1 is the large type edition.  Just now zero mics, two
finger double-tap to interact with it.

>> NATWUT AMORNVIVAT:  Basically that's how we use the social network
system to help, you know, people to understand.  In fact, last night I
think when Cholatip -- the room was getting very cold, and she took a photo
of the thermostat and asked what is the temperature now so she can change
it up or down according to the current model. It's 24 hours help in
realtime, right?  So right now we have 8,400 volunteers in this, and the
example of the help that we did give is for example this. Timetable in
school.  Even if -- even at the school that allowed the blind person in
Thailand to study with that peer, you know, but let's send out the
timetable in JPEG.  It's not accessible. So someone posted it on the group,
and the group explained it.  This photo, take a photo of the milk carton
and ask, what is the expiration date?  You go to the hospital and come back
and get confused which drop is which.  We don't have accessible level in
Thailand. What impressed me a lot is the lecture that blind students can
study lectures that their peers lend them, right?  In fact, in the bachelor
degree law students they help their friends using this group, more than
8,000 volunteers.  15 years old, 15 years of old exams were finished in one
month so the next generation of blind person can have material to study.
But I'm an engineer, and a lot of my friends are.  Why don't we automate
all this?  What we learned and I never expected when we launched is this
example, the emotional side of things, the artistic side. Today
technologies cannot do it. Volunteers help to explain the motivation behind
a drawing. The color that the children used in the drawing.  The meaning of
the picture.  These kind of things make us aware that actually the hybrid
system between human and connecting technology still is very available,
right?  It's a bridge we need to use, but we cannot ignore the human side
of things, and this, I think, it makes -- it solves one key thing.  We
don't just solve the inaccessible content issues but the awareness.  Once
people get to give, they start to become aware of what they can do, right?
I want to leave you with some video. ( Video played ) ( Speaking in Thai )
>> NATWUT AMORNVIVAT:  So in the end we learned that we engage the public
in terms of making this help or campaign successful is also we actually
create a tool not just to help the blind, but we help volunteers.  You
know, everyone to have the tools to give, and that is what we found is very
important and the technology is the bridge between -- it's the bridge, and
it's very inclusive.  It combines the blind and everyone into one society,
and that basically is what we learned, how to make this campaign work for
us.  Okay?  So that is the -- what we want to say, and we're very open to
ideas, discussions, different settings in different countries, and I
apologize we don't have a live demo, but we do have some video in the
presentation already. Thank you very much.  LRZ ( ( Applause ) >>
MODERATOR:  Thank you very much for the presentation, I'm from Myanmar,
your neighbor.  We are also doing some ICT accessibility for persons with
disabilities in Myanmar.  We are studying to do that as well, and I wanted
to ask, it's the app and also the idea of the eco-system is very
interesting. I wanted to ask about the app, and is it the reading, are they
according to the DAIS standards and about the phone, 1414, is it a toll-
free number? ( Speaking in foreign language ) >> NATWUT AMORNVIVAT:  I will
translate.   Basically the stat constitutes  -- status is when we record
the app it was a typical voice.  Whether we export we convert it to daisy.
On the 1414 it's POS on that from the beginning.   This is very important
for us as well.

>> AUDIENCE:

>> MODERATOR:  We have some more information and comments because we would
like to encourage your participation in this forum, then we can learn and
chat.  We have a friend.  Welcome.  Can you share the situation in your
country, please?  Thank you.

>> AUDIENCE:  I'm from Bhutan. It was a wonderful presentation. This is a
key for those that are blind.  I wanted to know if this app is only
available in Thailand, or is it also available for others to use as well?
Also, similarly I was also thinking while I was listening to the
presentation, if also such developers or engineers are actually thinking
about something of this similar app for the deaf people like, you know,
they would allow the sign languages, and I was wondering if it could be a
similar challenge for them as well to study.  Is there any, you know,
possibilities of, you know, thinking such innovative ideas and also
bringing in for the deaf as well.  Thank you.

>> NATWUT AMORNVIVAT:  Thank you very much for the question. Basically the
two questions, the first one is is the app available outside of Thailand?
The we could >> CHOLATIP YIMYONG: is helping the deaf people.  The app side
is basically available worldwide, but it wouldn't work. It has to work as a
whole eco-system.  Once the app is -- once people record an audio book on
the app, it basically goes straight to the cloud, which is still okay,
right?  It's virtual. The QC of the voice quality is being done in the
library for the blind.  So it goes straight to Thailand, right?  The
quality is done there and held there. The lock in from "The Blind Side" --
the blind person's side is the specific issue by the Thailand association
of the blind to control the copyright. So this is how the system has to
work, you know, holistically, but as you ask, we would love to make it work
anywhere.  It's more like a multiple countries, it's not like a worldwide
thing, right?  If any country wants to replicate it, it can be done and it
just needs a center and passionate corner who is doing it.  It may be the
library for the blind in that country, but it can be done.  For now it is
domestic. The second thing, yeah, I think you made me think about Facebook
again.  People can listen -- I mean, volunteers can help listen to things
and type it as a text, and social media is wonderful for that.  We can also
do it. When we start to help us read, we have two persons.  One is the
Cholatip and the other is myself.  I sent it to my friends, 200 people.
She sent it to blind person friends, 200 people, and it spread.  So why
not?  Let's see if it works for the deaf people as well or maybe the blind
people in your country, because I think more should be maybe one language
per platform would be easier for everyone.  I would love to see this used
as well.  Thank you. ( Speaking in foreign language ) >> NATWUT AMORNVIVAT:
And there's some that can translate sound into text, right?  Right.

>> MODERATOR:  Let me go back to the Bhutanese friend a little more.  We're
more than happy to work with you more closely with these new applications
to your country, because one of those you are the journalist from the media
industry, and the other guy from Bhutan has come from ICT ministry of ICT,
right? Yeah.  We can help some more in the future on how to help each other
set up a capacity building and try to build more public education on what
these technologies will benefit to the community.  In the future we can
work more together.  Thank you.

>> AUDIENCE:  Hello.  I'm Jerry Ellis from Dublin, Ireland.  I found your
demonstrations and apps very interesting.  The second after you showed to
one based in America called be my eyes where somebody takes a picture or a
video and sends it off to a volunteer that describes it.  It might be worth
your while linking in with be my eyes and maybe help each other to
standardize it or improve it so that you learn from each other. The other
thing that I thought might be of interest was if you have volunteers
reading books, some are very good and some are very bad.  Some maybe don't
understand they have to turn off the air-conditioning because it interferes
with the sound.  So I'm wondering, do you have a set of rules or
regulations or recommendations that you give to readers to ensure that the
standards of the books are as high a quality as they can be? Thank you.

>> NATWUT AMORNVIVAT:  Thank you very much.  Excellent point. The quality
is a big, big topic and big points.  We do it through -- apart from the
apps, we have the Facebook page of the read for the blind where people can
engage, and in that Facebook page we have a video clip of the instructions
or tips, and basically talking about this, you know, how to record the best
voice quality as possible.  We also do an engagement and do like a group-
based kind of training as well.  We do it for corporations, big
corporations. They want to do a CSR projects based on read for the blind.
We go there and teach them how to do it, particularly on the quality of
their voice.  We have voice trainers going with us as well, and this will
help the volunteers not just for read for the blind but in their
professional life as well, right?  How to pronounce words correctly, things
like that.  So yes, we try to do that as much as possible. It's not -- it's
far from perfect.  In the end there will always be some low quality books
or articles created, but, you know, you sort of -- you try to manage it.
Yes. ( Speaking in foreign language ) >> NATWUT AMORNVIVAT:  Okay. Cholatip
pointed out an important part we did.  When we start off with someone
totally new to the system, we system them to record articles first. We have
two areas in the apps. One is an article, which is like one chapter and
done, right, and another one is the book with multiple chapters.  We ask
them to do just articles because it's precise and short and done. (
Cholatip talking ) >> NATWUT AMORNVIVAT:  The key thing is the app is just
one alternative ways to record. There's still traditional PC-based, high-
quality studio recording that's available. Very, very important point you
point out.   Yes.

>> AUDIENCE:  Hello.  So my NAM name is H damiD.  I'm from Jordan or other
Englishes and Thai.  This is the point when we launched this, the first
question coming in in Australia and she has a kid studying and speaking
English and we do this in English books in the system right now.  But
still, right now is purely based on Thai settings so the book can be
English, can be any language, but as the previous question, the eco-system
is run purely based on Thailand settings.  We can replicate it, but in
order for it to work, it has to be done not just the apps but the
organizational aspect of this. Is that correct?  Did I answer it correctly?
Okay.  Thank you.

>> AUDIENCE:  Will be accessible for people to use it?  Is it easy for
people of other languages to use the app?

>> NATWUT AMORNVIVAT:  If we want to reap indicate in other countries we
have to reVAFRM it and change the menu and stuff. It shouldn't require a
lot of time.  We would love to work together on that.

>> AUDIENCE:  Great.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  The next question is coming from -- the question from
colleagues from Australia.

>> AUDIENCE:  Thank you very much.  My question is a nontechnical one.  You
mentioned -- you introduced the electronic transaction unit of the
ministry, and I was just wondering how the government is involved in this
project supporting that.

>> MODERATOR:  I have built some perception on my side on behalf of the
government agency under the ministry of digital economy and society.  Right
now it's in the Thai government has the policy to move forward driving the
digital economy to the society in Thailand.  One of the important things is
all about the Internet Governance, and you know, promote the accessibility
for the friends, for the disability is one under the Internet Governance.
On in the role of the government agency, we have the aim and mission to
drive the good job, the corroboration with the private sector, and you
know, public sector like our friend from the read for the blind project
just to support, promote enhancing the project to, you know, other
communities in a practical way. Anyway here there is a representative from
ETDA.  He's here in this forum.  He represents EDTA, and he also works as a
multi-stakeholder adviser at the IGF as well. Could you pass this question
to him and you might have some idea how the Thai government can support
this kind of, you know, useful contribution.  Thank you.

>> SPEAKER:  Yes.  The speaker had been mentioned about the keywords of
hybrids from what we're looking at, I think, that two major separate issues
here we're talking.  I think the IT part we have no worries on the
intraoperabilities event.  It doesn't matter, you need to find a
stakeholder in another country who works.  What we're looking at here in
terms of IT is that how could we expand it and become a community based
driven that they can do even at the regional level for them to sustain, so
if two or three more countries collaborate together, then I think
government will be easier for this discussion and get their support from
the government.  They already are self-funded today, but from ETDA's
perspective, we're looking at how we could create the cross-country
implementation especially a lot of people share the same language, English,
Chinese, and how all this is shared together that is the most important
thing in IT. Secondly, I think what we're looking at as a unique in this is
this is the first time we hear the technologies that link between the
people and technologies to support.  So especially with maybe because our
groups of language we call complex grammar structures is hoping to use the
machine translation.  Google it giving up.  They don't do the translation
in Thai anymore, and I think it's the same for CLMB and the other countries
around in Cambodia, Burma.  The only way is how to bring the network of the
good people or good SA mare than people that like to do good things every
day easy access, and that's what we're looking at, and that's why we bring
them here.  We sponsor the trips and think that they can expand this.  I
think the network of the people is very important. The last point I'd like
to mention is this technology is not only for the blind.  If you look into
the future, what it can do is even help the tourism getting lost.  There's
a whole network of people that stand by to help, so how we utilize that, it
can use that for the patient that cannot read and stay in the bed.  I think
I heard a lot of stories about religious books that they can listen.  So
the technology itself after it's expanded is not limited to the
accessibilities, only limited to the blind.  That is how the government
sees that we like to see the calibrations in this, and we're picking up
this project because it has been presented in local IGF in Thailand, and
next year we host the Asia-Pacific IGF.  We do believe that we try to
create some more concrete action that we could collaborate together among
countries and then see who will be participating in the core system.  I
have to admit the fact that the accessibility is overlooked in several
aspects, in several areas.  I try to bring this issue in. Thank you.

>> NATWUT AMORNVIVAT:  To follow-up on your point, we really love to work
with other countries.  If you find this kind of framework or system
interesting, I mean, our -- if we see it happen in other countries as well,
we will be very, very happy.  We will be very supportive.  We'll be very
supportive to that.  Okay.

>> MODERATOR:  The time is gone now.  Last but not least, let me thank you
to all that attended this forum.  We're looking forward to, you know,
working more closely with our IGF friends to continue this kind of, you
know, technology, digital technology that brings the relations between
volunteers and the blind people, and you know, if you have some more
questions, please feel free, you know, to keep in touch through the e-mail.
Our key speaker, Mr. Natwut leaves the e-mail address as a focal point
contact.  Looking forward to welcome IGF friends to Thailand in the next
year coming, and we are sure that we will have the good corroboration in
the near future.  Thank you for your participation.  Good luck. ( Session
ended at 11:45 a.m. CT ) WWS66: Children's rights to privacy, safety, and
freedom of expression 9 December 2016 12:00  .

>> MODERATOR:  Please come to the table.  We'll have more interaction if
you come closer to us.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  Hello, everybody. Welcome to workshop 5.  For streaming
purposes, we need -- if you ask something and want to participate, please
talk loud and close to the microphone.  If you are on the second row, wait
untiluntil the microphone arrives to you.  So we will start in four
minutes.

And that's when we go on streaming.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  Hello everybody. Welcome to the workshop on children's
rights and privacy, safety and freedom of expression.  I'm Jutta Croll. I'm
glad to see so many faces around the table and the young faces as well
because we talk about children's rights, and that shouldn't be done only by
adults but by the children that are experts of themselves.  When we
considered to have a session at the IGF, this was close to when I had read
the report that was produced by Sonia Livingstone and her colleagues about
one in three users of the Internet worldwide would be a child.  In the
certain of the U.N. convention of the rights of the child, that means under
the age of 18.  Then I had a close look to the U.N. convention on the
rights of the child and had to look at which paragraphs and articles are
related to the Internet.  Then at the end I came to the conclusion more or
less everything is related to the Internet because the Internet is related
to the whole life of children that are now growing up in this world.  So
that was the moment when I thought it would be good to have a session at
the IGF where we are talking about children's rights and what does this
mean in a digital world. I'm very honored to have a very good, prominent
panel here.  I'd like to introduce you to all of the speakers.  We will
start with Sonia Livingstone who say professor and she's a head of
researchers that produced the EU kids online studies and also the recently
published report global kids online and as mentioned before the one in
three report. To my left is also Abhilash Nair.  He will represent the
legal perspective.  He's an expert for human rights and the legal
requirements and policy issues around safety.  I hope I did get that right.
Then I'm very happy to have elLAN Blackler here -- Ellen Blackler whos the
president of the Walt Disney company so representing the perspective. She
has both products and services for children and what children make out of
that when they use them.  Then I have Arda Gerkens who is president of
INHOPE international organization of hot lines where people report harmful
content and she's managing the Dutch hot line and has been a senator in the
Netherlands government. So coming to the NGOs, sitting to my right is AR
sad is he's the organizer called Rudy international.  He will explain more
in detail what the organization does do in the democratic republic of
Congo. He's also representative of the useuser Internet forum.  He stepped
in on real short notice due to a colleague from another NGO from the
African continent couldn't make it and wasn't available for remote
presentation.  You may have seen the name Khan on the announcement, and
he's not right here.  Happily we have you. Last but not least, Marie-Laure
Lemineur, and she comes exploitation of children online at APART
international and she has a long-standing experience in the field of
exploitation and abuse, and I'm very LAEP to have you here. I just wanted
to inform you that this session should be very interactive, so we will
start with short statements from the panelists, three to five minutes only,
and then afterwards we will do an exercise that is called appreciative
inquiry session.  I will explain that a little bit more, what it means and
how you can engage in the debate afterwards.  So we've drawn up some
aspects that the panelists might address in their initial statements.
Sonia, the floor is yours.  Thank you.

>> SONIA LIVINGSTONE:  We weren't sure which of us.  Let me kick off, and
then you're coming in Abhilash.  Okay. Jetta, thank you very much. There
are many things to say on this kind of wide agenda that you've painted.
I'll begin with our 1 in 3 report. So in this report we tried to get a
sense of the obvious question, HOIM children are using the Internet around
the world?  This led us into inquiry into data and a very unsettling
discovery for the most part countries are not even measuring how many
children are online because they do household surveys of what's available
in the home or they do surveys of adults who are 16 or 18-plus. So in one
sense we actually don't know the most basic fact, but we are piecing things
together and estimated that 1 in 3 children in the world is already online,
and this is set to grow very fast in middle and then low income countries.
Of those already John  online, 1 in 3 users is a child under 18. Even from
the statistics we have, it gives you a sense of the scale of the rights
issues that arise in relation to children.  Then I think what a lot of
these conversations are very kind of global north, and as soon as I hear
anyone referring to their own children, then I know we've kind of lost of
plot in terms of the diversity and range of ways in which young people go
online. We talk a lot as if children go online at home and parents are
there, but in many parts of the world children go online primarily on a
mobile phone and could be anywhere or go online in a cyber cafe where there
are zero regulation or oversight for their safety anywhere. Outside the
global north there are a lot of issues of connectivity and access, which
are very -- which are crucial in terms of inequalities which are crucial in
terms of what children might do or sacrifice to gain connectivity and lots
of ways in which technology is shared and phones or connectivity is shared
so that it's not obvious who exactly is the user and who exactly is it who
is generating the data that might be used. So context matters crucially.
The other thing to me in the global north and Global South, I think we have
transcended that notion of the digital native, but we should erase it from
our minds, because young people are very -- there's a lot of facility with
functionality and keenless to be on trend and know the latest.  Critical,
informational, privacies, literacies, these are lacking and I'm not
criticizing young people here.  They're lacking among the entire adult
population as well as the youth population.  These are major kinds of
challenges.  We have a lot of evidence on what people don't know, and not
even the kind of evidence one might hope for in terms of trends in
increasing understanding.  I think people are increasingly aware of the
risk of using their technologies, but I don't think they're necessarily
increasingly savvy in grasping who has their data and how it's used or
shared.  So in addition to diversity of context of use and who is around
the child when they're going online, we still manage to put that together
with different context of thinking about privacy.  So the child has the
right to privacy, article 16 on the convention of rights for a child.  That
seems straight FWARD.  Privacy from parents is different from privacy from
peers, which is what young people are concerned about. Completely different
from the conversations and privacy at schools and there are growing
concerns, I think about how states, schools, health services and so on
connect and use children's data and completely different from the question
of how commercial services are collecting or prompting from children's data
I should say more accurately and possibly infringing their rights. Yet, in
our call for multi-stakeholder solutions, we kind of put them altogether as
if parents and schools and the schools will teach the kids what they need
to know and the parents make sure it's implemented and the companies offer
the right services and it will all come together neatly. Actually, if you
ask a child where their data is in relation to these different kinds of
actors, it's just getting really crazily complicated. I don't think there
are any -- you know, it's not that they're a kind of evil actor out to
exploit.  It's a lot of different sectors exploit or are pursuing different
kinds of interests.  Parents are anxious. Peers are fun-loving and will
share thoughtlessly.  Schools are trying to track learning but at the same
time they collect a lot of data they don't need. Companies are trying to
run businesses.  The result is a very different array of ways in which
kids' data is connected and increasingly intersected and presumed the next
ten years are going to see a lot of intersections of data sets in ways that
is quite mind-lowing positive imagine children are going to be informed
about.  Is that enough?

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you.  I think it's enough for the moment.  Thank you
so much, because I know you could talk hours, and it would be interesting.

>> SONIA LIVINGSTONE:  Five minutes is my natural unit.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you very much.  To Abhilash.

>> NAIR ABHILASH:  Thank you.  I will talk about the issue of age of
consent of children to set the scene.  When you look at international
instruments and domestic legislation that defines the person as a child,
you would see that there is hardly any consensus as to who is a child.
Internationally you would say 18 as the age of any person under 18 is
recognized as a child under the U.N. convention for the rights of the
child.  Also, if you look at domestic legislation in countries, you would
see that are different ones depending on three different factors.  The
context.  An example would be in the U.K.16  is the age of consent for sex,
whereas the age of consent for posting for a nude photograph is 18, but
that's in line with many other countries.  Also, conduct is another factor.
An example would be the age of criminal liability until the U.K. is 10. So
if an 11-year-old child murders somebody, which doesn't HAVEN very often,
they can be prosecuted as being criminally liable. Culture is also another
influencing factor.  For example, in some countries the age of consent is
lower than 16. In some countries age of consent is higher than 16.  So
setting a definite of age in defining who is a child is problematic, but it
gets even more complicated whether it comes to the Internet because
cyberspace does not recognize boundaries, it transcends physical spaces.
So as a result you would see that in some countries you need to be 18 or
over to be able to gamble online, to purchase alcohol can range from 16 to
21 depending on where you are, and there are also the norm active standard.
This is not necessarily law that to be on a social networking site, you
need to be 13.  That is lower in one particular country, but it has become
a normative standard in the rest of the world. So this is getting even more
interesting with the Chrissing use of gadgets and devices.  If you were
here, you woulden that there are newer ways.  The way the children use the
Internet is no longer on a laptop or mobile phones.  There are many ways.
Some have devices and toys that actual LE collect, store and distribute
data.  So it is quite important that we need to start thinking about, you
know, trying to find out what might be an appropriate age for children to
be using or sharing information on the Internet through various media and
devices, and who has a responsibility for ensuring that children are safe.
If you look at instruments like the U.N. convention and the rights of the
child, it sets out certain rights for children's rights to privacy we
talked about already, right to free expression.  There is also an
obligation on the state, the society and parents to ensure that children
are -- to enSHIER the safety and welfare of children.  That means the
rights are not absolutely precise enough.  The trick is to find the balance
between ensuring safety for children in one hand and on the other to uphold
the rights of the children.  What can we do to achieve that?  Do we need
more legislation?  Would that help?  Do we need the multi-stakeholder
approach, which is what I want to really discuss after I finished my
opening statement. I actually had an interesting conversation with Larry
this morning about using Lawrence's model, the modalities in regulation in
finding a solution for that.  So the state can legislate isasmuch as they
like. Laws, for example, requiring companies to ensure that the default is
set to maximum privacy around that and minimum privacy.  Would that on its
own help if people don't understand how to use it in a appropriate fashion?
So norms can probably help.  Again, they can shape the norms by educating
parents and children at school for example to get help, but also the
architecture of the Internet where you actually design products in a way
that there is maximum privacy and minimum privacy, although companies tend
to have minimum privacy as a default for various reasons. I also thought
about markets, you know, incentivizing companies to in terms of taxation,
for example to impose a lower tax regime for products that were child
friendly or privacy friendly, but these are initial thoughts.  I just
wanted to set the scene and make you have a discussion about how to take
these things forward or have a more meaningful discussion.

>> MODERATOR:  Wonderful.  Thank you, Abhilash.  You built the bridge to
hand over to Ellen Blackler, who is representing the industry perspective
and who might have a perspective on the incense vagus for companies moral
legislation.  I think these are both topics you could pick up and go to the
aspects as well.  Thank you.  Ellen.

>> ELLEN BLACKLER:  Hello. Thank you everyone for coming today.  I think
we'll really touched on two buckets of things that are related but actually
pretty different.  One is the legal frameworks and the rules that we
present to the users and the other is the guidance we give parents.  I'll
say more about that.  Talking about the legal frameworks in relationship to
parenting, we learn from parents they also ignore the rules.  A strict rule
is not helpful to them.  That's what the parents tell us, even about things
like movie ratings.  They don't want only to know if something in the U.S.
we have something PG-13.  That is not helpful if you have a teenager. What
parents tell us is they want to know why it got that rating.  Was it bad
language? Violence?  Sexual content?  Then they can decide what is right
for their kid.  So we hear all the time for parents slapping that number on
it is not -- can't be the end of the story. I think Facebook has had the
same experience where the research shows not only are kids under 13 on
Facebook, but they're with their parent's knowledge and consent.  In some
circumstances the parents have helped them do that, have enabled them being
online.  So sometimes we get into this battle about the age, and it's a
little bit about legal liability and not about the user.  So you need a
legal framework.  I'm not suggesting we don't.  You need those kinds of
rules to move forward, but I don't think we should kid ourselves into
thinking that that actually responds to what is needed in the marketplace.
Then on the parenting side, I think what Sonia is doing which is really
interesting work on teasing out what it is that kids are doing and what
kind of guidance parents should get. When you think about offline, where
we're had a little more historical experience, we have guidance to parents.
If your child is ready for this, here's how you tell if your child is ready
for kindergarten, enthuse how you tell they can have their own bank
account.  It's helpful to think about using the learnings from the
cognitive sciences, what we want to tell parents about whether their kids
are ready for social media, because what parents tell us is these firm
rules are both not helpful to them and not practical in the marketplace. So
I think that is something that the community -- the child advocacy from a
rights perspective can really help sort through, which is a little bit of a
different question than we think about with, you know, the legal rules.
Lastly, I'll pick up on a theme from the session the other day where I
think you or maybe someone else talked about safety by design.  You know,
that was a really helpful idea when we first started to get into privacy
regulation, to encourage people to do privacy by design to understand the
privacy implications and design their products for them.  I think using
that same language is also going to be very helpful to new industries that
come into the fold with interconnected products, and then also helping
people understand and articulate what they should be thinking for.  When
you say to an engineer you use the safety by design perspective, you know,
that is not helpful unless there's more guidance.  In an area I always find
is helpful precedent is disabilities access where we -- the law said to the
engineers, you need to make these products accessibility for people with
disabilities, and then they needed help to understand what that meant.  I
think we're in the same place where we can pressure the product
manufacturers to use safety by design, and then they need help
understanding what that means.  I think doing all this from a rights
perspective is very new from a business perspective, thinking about it as a
child's rights perspective as opposed to protecting yourself some liability
driven by parents is a really different way of thinking about it.  The
industry is going to need our collective help to do that properly.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you, Ellen. That was a very good statement. I'll use
that for the advertisement for the work that they have done in Germany.
POOIF put some of the brochures on the table there where the safety by
design concept is a little bit more explained and that's exactly what we
found out when we had some interviews with industry representatives and
engineers.  They told us, okay, we are understand the concept, but we need
to know how we should do that.  That's the parallel to the accessibility
topic that whether the I.D. came up, the engineers would not know how to
make a website accessible and make a product accessible, but it's a process
to learn to understand.  So thank you so much for that. So now, Arda, the
terms used.

>> ARDA GERKENS:  I would like to talk more about that parenting, because
we also have a helpline and a hot line.  We have parents calling us with
most of the times problems, right?  They will always call us after the
fact, and they would like to know what went wrong? How do we proceed from
here? More importantly we'd love to have parents who can engage with their
children about their online world before the fact. We also always advise
them to talk with them about, how was your day at school or at Facebook or
what did you do at mine craft?  Was it fun?  We think that's very
important. Speaking of this, there's a Dutch initiative called safe traffic
in the Netherlands. It's an initiative that's been done with parents and
schools together.  It's a voluntary organization.  All the school children
get in primary school they get a diploma to be in traffic and also to cycle
the bikes.  We have ate LO of bikes in the Netherlands. These are parents
who are engaged with this whole traffic. Also, they make traffic plans
around the school and they talk to the parents about what is safe and
what's not.  If you look at the bikes, they have a very small child 4 years
old, you probably have side wheels and helmets on.  In other countries you
have to keep those helmets even when you're an adult, but in my country at
some age you stop with the helmet and the side wheels going on.  It's just
like the Internet.  I don't think you can tell kids, this is the age you
can go down to the Internet.  You probably will be on the Internet as we
saw yesterday already as a baby. It's also very hard to say you can't be on
Facebook until you're 16, because social media is also very broad.  Many
kids are in what's uprooms at 8 or 9 years old.  The problem with parents
is we have parents that don't know, and there's so much out there.  Let's
be honest.  We don't know what can go wrong until something goes wrong.  I
would advocate it's good to get parents engaged like the safe traffic
initiative in the Netherlands together with the teachers and with
university science to talk about what is the way to lead your kids to the
Internet and get them to have a diploma on it.

>> MODERATOR:  That was actually my last remark.

>> ARDA GERKENS:  I'd love them to get a diploma on it when they have a
primary school, so they can learn the basic skills being on the Internet
and also the parents will know what can go wrong so they can guide them
through this digital age.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you, Arda, for your comments.  I think you also build
a very good bridge because we are now turning to the NGO sector.  I've
already heard from the situation and it might be different in his country
but on different continents about what role parents can play.  Always NGOs
are expected to step in and to help families, so what is your perspective?

>> Thank you so much.  I'm glad to be here today.  Thank you for inviting
me to be on the PARNL today.  It's good to see Marie and Larry in the
audience, because they were -- I mean they saw me first, I think, in 2011
when I was speaking on the same issues at my first FWV in 2011. A lot has
been going on, and I'm from the democratic republic of Congo and my name is
( indiscernible ).  I'd like to jump on the issue of parents, because it's
really good to hear from different perspectives.  We have like different
situations in Africa. Parenting is sometimes when it's about telling their
kids what is the age to go online.  I mean, we are facing situations where
the kids are online before their parents.  Their parents know nothing about
the Internet, so there's no way to tell the kids what you need to do and
you need to access the Internet at this age.  Most of the times it happens
the kids are online before their parents know anything about the Internet.
Young people are really using the Internet, and most of them are on social
media.  Social media, namely Facebook and what's up and probably Instagram.
This is through mobile phones most of the time. Not everyone can afford a
computer or not everybody can go to -- we don't generally have WiFi in our
homes, right?  So you don't own a computer, you only rely on a mobile phone
to access the Internet.  So my organization, I run a small NGO and we work
with children.  We basically do more on the humanitarian work, but we also
have a part where we engage young people and he is SPSHLly children on
Internet-related topics, mainly on Internet safety tools.  Also early this
last year I worked for UNICEF, so I was dealing with our communications.
So UNICEF is one of those organizations giving the voice to young people or
to children to express themselves.  We need to say that for children to be
able to express themselves, they not only need the space for them to speak,
but they need to be taught how to see whatever they have to say.  If you
don't give them space and opportunities to speak, then you are not
encouraging them to speak.  When you're encouraging them to speak, that
means you're also telling them how to use the online tools.  If you want
them to express themselves using online tools, there's a need for the
literacy for young people in order for them to be able to use the Internet.
Regarding issues of gender inequality, this is a very huge issue in ACH
Africa.  In a family with one boy and one girl, the parents easily give as
much to the boy and nothing to the girl or at least a feature phone to the
girl.  Do you see what I mean?  Men are the most encouraged, you know, and
are more entitled to access the Internet rather than women, and this is one
of the issues that needs to be solved. I think we can continue the
discussion, but that would be maybe quite a few points to start with.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you for your starting point and also for pointing out
to the gender inequalities.  We are always aware we face them everyone
where.  It's a big topic at the IGF, but I think you have mentioned that
its a very special situation on the African continent with gender issues.
Marie-Laure you have experience from many continents, and you can go on
now.

>> MARIE-LAURE LEMINEUR:  Well, my remarks are about on the question of is
there an adequate age for consent to social media. I have a problem now,
and I'm the last one and most of what I was going to say has been said.
Forgive me if I'm being repetitive, and maybe there will be a couple of
comments that can be a complement to what Abhilash said.  I was thinking
that we should somehow reflect around the con SEFT of the the age of
consent.  It's a very subtlive concept influenced by, you know, societal
factors, gender, culture.  If you think about the age of sexual consent in
Latin America, for example, in some penal criminal codes you had, you know,
11, 12 years old for a female, for girls, you know. And older age of sexual
consent for boys.  That's an example. It changes over time.  In France you
had to be 21 and now it's 18.  So it's a subject notion. Also, I was
wondering what is an adequate age of consent?  What does it mean,
"adequate"? Begin, you know, if you think of the children as end users,
their personality traits, the family environment and cultural context where
they're based, it all comes together, and somehow you have children of the
same age and they reach a different level of maturity and somehow that is
going to impact their perception of how they react to dangers, how the
level of -- how resilient they are when they are going through some sort of
situation where they're being harmed.  So having said that, somehow we need
those, you know, subjective legal standards.  We need them as a society.
So we know that there is the famous, you know, 13 years old threshold that
is a U.S. federal law, but from my perspective those -- this type of
standard is used less unless we force businesses or, you know, the owners
of those platforms to have a verification age system.  Plus, legal
consequences are linked to the noncompliance.  So unless we have those
businesses, you know, implementing age verification, what Ellen describes
will keep on happening.  We have users themselves tricking the  system
sometimes with their own parents.  The research and statistics shows
there's a high proportion of 10 to 12 and sometimes younger users on social
platforms, and we had the BBC in the U.K. release a statistic of 75% of 10
and 12-year-olds used social platforms.  So do we want to be pragmatic and
accept the notion that, you know, children are using those -- the trend is
that children are using younger and young ESHG  -- younger and younger and
the age is decreasing.  It's a legitimate used in the sense that they also
exercise their rights on those platforms.  So here we have the tension
between different rights and needs, and so maybe the way to go is to be
very pragmatic and also remember that the laws reflect what a society is.
So why not be a bit provocative and say, okay, the trends that children
are, you know, using -- younger and younger and use those platforms and
exercise their rights.  That's the reality.  There are business needs, so
why not lower the legal age, but put a legal mechanism in place, you know,
very strict ones, of course, with a combination of legal mechanisms and
very strict sanctions in case of noncompliance, and then we can sort of
combine, you know, the interest and have a win-win situation in that sense
if that's possible.  I don't know. I'm just putting it on the table.  That
would be my take on the topic.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you so much.  I think you have pretty much opened the
floor for the debate that will follow.  We have the idea to do that in the
form of an appreciative inquiry session, and I just want to shortly explain
to you how that would go.  So, first of all, I would like to mention that
the -- we would have an appreciative approach to the whole topic, and I
think with the U.N. charter of the rights of the child, we have a positive
approach to rights of the children.  We should now consider whether this is
also true for the process of digitalization and what does that mean to the
rights of the child?  Not only talking about how the rights are infringed,
but a really light saying that children are exercising their rights when
they use social media regardless of the age, if they're allowed to do so or
not, they're exercising their rights. So in an appreciative inquiry
session, we start with the first step, which is appreciating and valuing
the best of what is, and I've already made a start because I a lot
appreciate the U.N. chart either er of the rights of child.  The second
step is envisioning what might be.  Third engaging in dialogue about what
should be, so that's more looking into the future. Afterwards we will
collect ideas on how we can innovate what will be in the future. So let's
go to the first step, then, appreciating value in the best of projects.  I
would like to invite you all around the table, what do you appreciate about
the situation right now? We've been talking about the age of consent to use
social media, and that was triggered, that point was triggered because in
the -- in Europe we have now come Gcoming the general protection
regulation, which is somehow questioning the current rule we have with 13
because national governments could decide for that country to have an age
between 13 and 16.  Any nationality could set their own age, but that would
end up in a situation where children, for example, in the Netherlands are
allowed to use the Internet without the consent of parents at the age of
13, U.K. is 16, France might have 14 because that's all possible.  Let's
have a look at that situation in the face of what law already sets. It's a
fact that children are younger and younger whether they use social media,
and they are using it to exercise their rights.  So that's to open up the
discussion.  Larry, please.

>> AUDIENCE:  I don't understand how it's possible for any country to
signed this convention to pass a law or any continent or body to pass a law
like the GDPR.  I'll read from article 13.  The child should have the right
to freedom of expression and it goes to seek, to receive, to impart in any
other medium of the child's choice.  I'm skipping around. But the bottom
line is that it's very, very explicit that the child has a right to freedom
of SFREGS and freedom to seek information on any media of choice.  Now,
obviously, Facebook and social media wasn't around when the convention was
first ratified, but they were very clear, just as the United States
constitution wasn't around when digital media was written, but we apply
that to digital media.  It baffles me they have that provision in the law,
frankly.  Obviously, I understand the reason why we want to protect
children against manipulation by commercial entities and marketing, but as
we've talked about in previous IGFs and John Karr and I co-chaired a number
of sessions, when protection gets to the point it inhibits the child's
rights, we need to look at that protection and figure out how it can
modified so that their rights are, in fact, enabled. The fact of the matter
is that social media is the way people of all ages express themselves. It
is the modern town square, so to speak, and whether it's a child wanting to
participate in a family gathering or a child wanting to explore their
sexuality or their politics, they should have rights independent of their
parents.  I just, again, I'm baffled this this law passed.  I'm frankly not
particularly enthralled with the children online private see protection act
in the United States.  I applaud the intention.  I don't know if Katherine
Montgomery that co-authored is it here, I don't imply the unintended
consequences of limiting the children's access to free speech.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you for that comment.  I think you have not been
appreciative but more critical.

>> AUDIENCE:  Let me appreciate the motivation to protect children from
being exploited by marketers.  I do appreciate that.  I'd like to be able
to appreciate that in a way that didn't violate their rights.

>> MODERATOR:  Ellen Blackler and her neighbor to the right.

>> ELLEN BLACKLER:  I'm all for criticism and excited to get to that point.
I'm so excited by how we're now talking about -- there's so much agreement
on children's ---ing the benefit to children of using the technology.  We
used to come to meetings can say the worst thing that can happen to kids is
kept away from the technology, because that's the future.  It's exciting to
see that shift, and I appreciate that.

>> AUDIENCE:  Thank you. Mauricio from Mexico.  It's very interesting to
hear we're more concerned about how to regulate child's consent age than to
accept the facts.  The fact is that children are more intelligent than most
adults about getting through to social media.  I think that we do not need
to undervalue their intelligence and to accept the facts.  In that sense, I
think that GDPR had -- it's a good path to understand that children need or
we needed it to understand a children's age and move forward to consider
them on their capacity for deciding the age for going into the social
media.  What we need to understand is we need to go with them SXPT not to
consider some topics that are taboo anymore. They need to understand the
risks and benefits of social media, and I agree with the sense we need to
change all these and maybe to consider a lower age for getting them consent
for getting through the media.  In Latin America in that sense in 13
seconds, it's in pampers, and we need to get in in a closer approach with
this legislation so to get in a harmony session for standard sizes and
these kind of rules for children's consent.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you for that statement.  Any questions from the floor
from the statements?  I would really like to invite the young people to
tell us what age would you think would be appropriate to go onto social
immediate, to make use of social media without the content of your parents?
Here and over there, then.

>> AUDIENCE:  It works.  I don't think an age is appropriate actually.
Just the fact that Larry also mentioned that the children have to have
rights to be online to express themselves. I guess there has to be another
solution for this.  I mentioned in another session that I guess it would be
better just to delete the data at the age of 18, and then start over again,
then, banning them from all these platforms and websites of social media.
That's better than banning all these children from the web.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you.  I know Sonia has something to say to that, to
the blank sheet at the age of 18.  Will you do that directly, and then we
go to the other young speakers?

>> SONIA LIVINGSTONE:  A quick point.  Should children's data be retained
when they posted it under 18 and retained forever, and the other one is
what age of companies target advertising at you.  That's a different
question from the question about what age should young people be allowed to
participate.  The trouble is they're tied together in the legislation.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you, Sonia. Now on the right side.  It's your turn.

>> AUDIENCE:  I'm Natalie, age 15 from Hong Kong.  As a teenager, I think
no specific age regulations.  Just require parent's permission.  Ink that
social media Internet has the advantage, too, and provide educations to a
child.  Child have their right to learn and share or express their
feelings, too.  While we are considering how to protect them, we should
also balance the rights and how much we protect.  A coin has two sides.  I
think we might not stop child on the Internet in order to protect them.
That reflects real world.  We can't avoid all the damages.  So we would
have let them experience and educate them, not ban their freedom of
expression or their rights to learn. When it comes to the possibility to
ban social media, I think as a kid or teenager, my peers have Facebook
while they're eight years old, but while Facebook requires you to be 16
years or both, they simply lie.  They can type their fake birthdays to have
the service.  So I think this is not a good although nativing  alternative
plan. I'm having limitations for the child.  For example, they can serve
information about sex and violence on social media and they can't collect
the privacy of the students or information when they're 18 years old. After
18 years old, they can have the alternative to choose to continue using the
social media or not.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you for that statement.  I have one more question back
to you.  You said your friends were using Facebook at 8.  Did you think
they were ready to do so?  Did they get enough guidance or education for
doing so?

>> AUDIENCE:  I don't think so, but any simply can lie because you can't
identify them underage, yes.   It is not appropriate to do so.

>> AUDIENCE:  I think this is an interesting question.  When I heard
everyone commenting I was like, do I have an opinion on this, or do I have
my personal opinion on this.  It varies from areas you talk about.  Parents
are not so readily able.  I'm talk about some parents who are digitally
illiterate are not able to understand how to even help you better use
social media.  I know Facebook it was good for them to say, you need to use
Facebook at this age and this age.  But experience has proven people like
to give fake dates as you say.  It shows children are or young people are
really, really eager and they're trying to find way it ises -- ways to
express themselves. They feel like they have more -- I don't know how to
put it. They feel like they're ready to go it on social media because
sometimes they're not being given other platforms where they can express
themselves.  To say since our parents don't provide us spaces to speak, and
we're not proud of other groups. UNICEF is creates groups so children have
space to speak and share experiences.  There are children who don't have
access to the platforms.  They want to try to use social media so that's
another way to express ourselves, which would be interacting with our
peers.

>> SPEAKER:  I would like to react on something you said about the parents
not being aware, and I think it's a good point.  The notion of having
parental consent should be challengedchallenged, because in -- I would say
in most regions in the world, parents do not have a sense of what's going
on nor do they have the awareness or skills or ability to consent something
they don't understand, too.  I know that's, you know -- I mean, that's
their role to and the guardians and parents, their role to guide the kids,
but how do we deal with that?  I don't know the answer to that.  That's the
reality.  How can you agree to something you don't understand as a parent?
You know what I mean >> SPEAKER:  I think it's important to focus on the
parents first and make sure they can help their kinds and once they're able
to help their kids, I don't know there's an appropriate age for children.
It's different from country to country.  If children are already able to
use the Internet, it's age 8.  In my country some parents are like we don't
give children a mobile phone until they're 18.  Those children use their
friend's mobile phones.  When you put up a barrier, they find ways to
overcome the barrier.  Don't put it as a challenge to them and try to talk
to them, and say here's what you have on Internet.  Please behave like
this.  There's no way you can really, really control completely what
someone is doing online.  It's not easy.

>> MODERATOR:  We have already stepped into envisions what might be, and
we're also engaged in dialogue, so we're going quick through the
appreciative inquiry SE.  I have suegy Hargreaves on the list and then
Sonia >> AUDIENCE:  Thank you very much for I'm suesy HAR GRAEFZ. I want to
pick up on the issue of privacy, safety, and freedom of expression in
relation to self-generated images.  So the older age group.  So in the U.K.
age of consent is 16 but if you take a picture and you're 17, you can be
criminalized for it. You can actually be charged and you can actually be
put on the sex offender's register, even though you're over the age of cone
sent.  I think peopling take a common sense approach to this, because the
reality is nobody wants to criminalize 17-year-olds.  There is a big
argument about people choosing to take those pictures and use it as a form
of expression.  We have an ongoing discussion and debate about -- I mean
the majority of our work is about very, very young children.  We talk about
the ways to protect the privacy of those older children, one by verifying
they're under 18 to remove the images if they want them removed, and
secondly by respecting what is and has become quite sort of common
practice.  I don't have any answers.  I just want to share it's an ongoing
debate.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you, Suzy. Sonia, can you step in there?

>> SONIA LIVINGSTONE:  I want to clarify that I don't think anyone wants to
stop children in expressing themselves on the Internet.  I don't think
anyone is trying to regulate in order to stop children from doing that.
There's the question about protecting their safety, but the regulation
we're talking about, both the child online protection act are designed to
stop companies money tieing the way in which children express themselves
online.  What we really want to move to yet what could be point is for
companies to provide services for children without money tieing them.
That's what we don't have.  Yes, we can educate PARNLTs, but there are
limits to that.  Yes, we can advise children, but there are limits to that.
What we don't have is any company or companies by and large, I'm sitting
opposite one that does find a way to provide services for children, but
most of the services that we're talking about will not provide those
services if they can't monetize the children and they just stop providing
them.

>> MODERATOR:  I give the floor to Ellen who wants to respond directly and
Arda.

>> ELLEN BLACKLER:  This is the central problem.  KOPA is a good example.
It was collection of data from children in a world with notice social
networking. We don't want this data collected from children, and at the
time was used really only for advertising.  So think about 13 in that
context.  That probably is a fine age to say you shouldn't collect data
from children for commercial purposes.  But it had the effect of making it
-- of providing a disincentive to companies to create children's
experiences designed for them.  At Disney, we do, but we collect no data.
There is virtually -- I think what we have seen is there's no commercial
opportunity to create a platform for children's expression that is legal.
We don't want it to be monetized with the children's data.  I don't think
anybody has found the business model to create that.  So the ability to
allow incentives for companies to create experiences designed for children
is the trick, and I think, you know, it's very difficult.  The reason you
see so many children -- I suspect that many children would use something
other than Facebook if there was such a thing available to them.  So how do
we get such a thing available to them, and that is something that we
haven't been able to find a legal framework that both protects them and
allows for a commercial production of this content.

>> ARDA GERKENS:  If you look at the industry, I see three kinds of
industry.  The one that knows about it and does good, you're good.  Legal
has learned their lesson and is doing a good job now.  They have companies
that also now that don't do good because they want to collect the data and
use it and sell it. The third and this is a really big group, the ones that
just don't know.  Let me give you another example.  In the Netherlands one
of our colleagues at the hot line has a friend that starts a fashion site,
and the idea is people can comment on the fashion and upload pictures and
everything. You can imagine within no time teenagers will be all over that
platform.  She was talking to her about it, and she said did you hi of the
fact that teenagers might be starting to post and chatting and all the rest
that comes with it.  She said no, actually, I didn't.  I can't blame her
for it because it's the downside of a world that we'd rather not think of
because we want the world to be nice and safe and free.  All the time we
talk about privacy and data protection, it is -- I think it need to be
within the education of the technical sector, and it's not if you go and
have education being a website builder, you don't learn about the laws and
you should at least know a little bit of it so when you build it, you can
say to your customer, did you think of it?  If you collect this data, you
need to comply with the data collection laws and need a safe and security
connection.  At this point it's not happening, and that's worrisome.

>> Thank you P for the statement that companies might not know, but safety
by design would mean they should consider from the first idea of producing
designing and developing a product or a service what would happen if this
service would be used by this age group, that age group and that the age
group and how to protect them.  I have Maureen and Patty and -- can you
give me your name again?

>> AUDIENCE:  Building on what has been said, and we had an interesting
session yesterday about Internet of Things and children's rights.  We're
talking about social media collecting, social platforms collecting data.
Yesterday we talked about toys.  Are there any type of devices collecting
data by end users who will be children.  There's something called tending
the garden you mentioned yesterday.  I don't know if all of you here in the
room are familiar with it. Apparently it's a toy, and that's because I
heard about it yesterday.  It's a toy collecting health around the health
of child transmitting. It allows the PARNLTs to monitor the health.  So
aspects of it of the child.  So think about what will happen if those
companies do not do what Ellen was saying. I mean, they're not transparent.
They actually use this data to make money out of it.  You know, analyze it,
the meta data, et cetera.  There is huge potential here for violating the
rights of the children and misusing this data.

>> NAIR ABHILASH:  I wanted to add to that.  I think it's all fine to have
safety by design and everything else, but I think we need to be conscious
of the fact that consent or obtaining consent needs to be much more
explicit.  There's informed cone sent, and parents and children don't
really fully appreciate or realize the implications of the amount of
personal data they share exactly.  That's not rocket science to draft it in
the way normal people understand it.  It doesn't take a lawyer to interpret
it.  I would be an exception to that, right?

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you.  It's Patty and then it's -- you give the floor
first to you?  Okay.

>> AUDIENCE:  I think nobody has talked -- I'm grateful you're here from
Disney, and I don't mean you're the one company.  I think that people have
-- we're not talking about normalization and critical thinking, and I think
the industry -- what we're talking about is keeping our children safe and
keeping everyone safe.  I think because Disney is here, I mean, to me Walt
Disney was a company you could rely on that was safe, and then it's become
-- it's normalization for their stars to be acting very sexy and stuff, and
I think that's the problem. It's that the FLORMs have jumped up.  What was
seen at one point not normal, we see young children exposed to things on
Walt Disney and those shows, and not having people going and saying, this
is not right.  This is critical thinking.  And the floodgates have opened.
You know, people used to be afraid of having the kids watch TV. Some
parents don't let their kids watch TV.  Some parents do. Now we have the
Internet. Everyone is exposed to so much and it keeps going rapidly, no one
knows what is the right of a child.   Is it the right to be able to watch
whatever and do whatever you want on the Internet, or is it the right of
the child to be taught critical thinking and what is normal in regards to
your own family?  For industry, they need to start thinking about, yes,
maybe they're doing things.  What is this affecting?  Maybe they have
blocks, but maybe even watching Walt Disney isn't the best thing for your
child.  What is the right of a child and any parent? I mean and that's my
point.

>> I think it's good you respect to the core topic of the discussion.  She
wants to react directly and then you get the floor.

>> MARIE-LAURE LEMINEUR:  Very briefly.  We heard about rights and we
haven't mentioned the words responsibility and obligations by end users and
all the stakeholders, you know. Just a very quick point.

>> NAIR ABHILASH:  Companies have to --

>> SPEAKER:  The lady said Disney is not collecting any data.  My friend
has to be taken out because of Norwegian research.  This discovered that
it's still collecting data, and Disney is analyzing that.  Also wants to
talk about the Disney movies instead of other things that are just more of
daily use for the children.  So what's the problem, I guess, is that we
can't trust some companies with the responsibility to do so.

>> ELLEN BLACKLER:  I'm glad you raised that.  The Kayla doll got a lot of
attention.  You'll be glad to know that the Kayla doll had no relationship
with us, and nose messages were not on our behalf and didn't have our
permission.  We'll probably be actually taking some action against them
about that. That was their -- we have no licensing relationship with them
and we collect no data and did not give them permission to use our data in
that doll.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you for making that clear.  Another comment from that
side.

>> AUDIENCE:  Is somebody from Facebook or any network here?

>> MODERATOR:  I don't think somebody from Facebook is here in the room.

>> AUDIENCE:  This is the problem.  We're speaking about that and we're
with a good company that looks out for the children.  So I think we have to
press them to be at a table.  We need them and the government to ask them
to make something.  The law is before what is happening. What is happening
is SCHIRN everywhere in the world, I think, in Latin America, we are not so
tied to the law, so parents accept that the children are under 13 on
Facebook, and it's no problem for them.  I think we have to sit down with
them.  I don't know where or how because whether I see the Facebook people,
they say, we are -- we haven't got people -- children below 13 because
look, we haven't got.  Then when we make workshops and say there are
children who has a network and has a Facebook everywhere they say yes.  So
what do we do with that?

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you for that question.  I will try to forward that to
Facebook after the session.

>> MARIE-LAURE LEMINEUR:  Should we consider to just lower the threshold in
order to accept the fact that children are going to Facebook and other
services as well and don't accept any of the age thresholds?  They lie as
you said before about their age, and sometimes they put themselves in more
danger with lying about their age than if they're honest with regard to
their age because there are some measures in operation to keep children at
a certain age more protected than when they are over 18.  If children lie
about it they don't get the measure of protection.

It might be good to lower the threshold and then when you have sanctions
you have those that accept it.  I have Larry and a woman.  Larry, you have
the floor.  Maybe the woman first and then you.

>> AUDIENCE:  I'm from Mexico, and I wanted to talk about something that
you're talking about the age of the kids.  I do talk with parents and kids
about technology all the time, and one of the most common things that I
find is that it's all about information and literacy.  They do want to have
information. They're worried.  I mean, the fear, I think, it's the main
motivation for parents today, and when you talk to them about empowerment
and going to really play a role of the parent, they really want to play it
on the positive side and they really grasp that in a very positive way.
However, they do need guidelines.  They need a bunch of them, because rules
is one thing, but guidelines is super important and tie those together and
it's what's expected for them.  I'm coming back to the age point is, one
thing that I think is very hard is, too, because in digital because in
social media you have very different social medias today. They go not to
one social media but they go to an average of I think it's six to seven,
correct?  Some of them are on the social media and kids are on there.  Some
of them are general audience on social media.  IJ it's very hard to think
about the age, but it's better if we think about what maturity should they
have and establish, establish that mature and base different ages for
different types of dynamics conducted in those social media.  That's what I
wanted to say.

>> Thank you.  Larry.

>> I KOENT work for Facebook but I'm on the safety advisory board which
means in an advisory manner.  They don't center to listen to me.  They have
some protections between 13 and 18 that are different than the protections
they apply to people over 18.  They already have a precedent for some level
of different.  For example, someone under 18, location is off by default.
It's off and not on. There are some. I think the -- I'd like to go back to
a point Sonia made that is very important.  To distinguish between access
to social media and the ability for social media companies to monetize or
otherwise collect data from children or to, you know, analyze and what's
the term profile children?  It strikes me if legislation is appropriate, it
would figure out a way and I don't know how it's done exactly that
companies can still make money from their child subscribers without
collecting data.  For example, correct me if I'm wrong, but when you watch
Disney television programs in America, you watch advertising.  So there is
plenty of precedent to advertising to children.  At least in the United
States we have rules on television as to how you can do that.  For example,
you can't combine the ads and the characters in the program in such a way
it's impossible to distinguish between the program and advertising.  Not
always perfect but at least we thought that through to some extent. Again,
perhaps there may be a way to focus on data collection rather than
requiring parental permission for social media. One would not argue that a
13-year-old should have to have parental permission to realed "The New York
Times."  That's absurd.  That's what happens in social media or would
happen under COPA and does and will happen under GBR.  I think Sonia made a
good point that legislators ought to think through the difference between
access and profiling and perhaps create different rules.  One last comment
a wise person years ago made a comment if privacy protections are good for
children they're good for adults as well.  So in many ways I think rather
than having this conversation based on age, we should have this
conversation in a gestalt matter to talk about limitations on collecting
information on anyone.  They won't go out of business.  If we had a regime
privacy policy, they would figure out how to comply with it otherwise they
have to close up shop.  They're not going to do that.

>> MODERATOR: Ive seen you, and Marie, I see you.  We have a remote
participant.  I give the floor to the remolt participant. Do we hear?  Does
it work?   participant. Do we hear?  Does it work?   participant. Do we
hear?  Does it work?  te participant. Do we hear?  Does it work?   She
needses a microphone.   So do read it out, or do we have the person on the
screen?  Okay. Please go ahead.

>> SPEAKER:  This speak by Rodrigo from Brazil.  To Sonia, when they use
news and entertainment portals regulated by algorithms, shouldn't we talk
about identity risk itself and the termination violation?  How to connect
the basic RCR right of having some freedom to regulate their own identity
as an intellectual safety?  To this I will go to the mediated self
construction when users alienated offal GOEithm functions.

>> MODERATOR:  Very difficult question.  Sonia, could you go on that?

>> SONIA LIVINGSTONE:  Yeah, I think this question is getting at something
really fascinating. Here we have our own identities and think we know who
we are, and we have oural GOE RIT Mcidentities that the Internet thinks we
are from all the likes and websites we visited and all the things we posted
and things others say about us and the particular ways the algorithms have
connected that up.  There is a kind of double-us, a shadow us out there.
That sad doe us is the currency that determines what advertising we get,
what access we get. Perhaps in the future what kind of prices we're going
to be offered for things, and we have no -- that is not auditable or
accountable by us.  We ask what Facebook keeps about us or data they keep
about us, but we can't access the whole thing.  There's a shadow of us that
has an identity linked to us over which we cannot audit or correct or
alter, but it's going to have consequences and that is happening for
children and for all of us, and I think it's an extraordinary next
challenge. Thank you for the question.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you so much, Sonia.  We have another question from the
floor.

>> AUDIENCE:  Hello.  I'm Ian from Hong Kong and I'm 16.  I heard many
discussions on whether we should restrict children from using the Internet
or using social media.  I don't think -- I appreciate the effort that
different stakeholders have put into  in to protect children, but is it in
an appropriate way?  I think that children will eventually use the Internet
and Facebook or other social media.  If we simply restrict them from using
this, they wouldn't know why they shouldn't use it.  They wouldn't know why
they would collect data and sell it.  Is that how we should educate them?
Also, is it able to issue a law that restricts the companies and maybe
government or probably companies to sell the data to make money and
restrict them, the data they collected can only be used for improving their
own service?  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  I think everyone wants that, but there's nothing in it for
the companies.  If they companies don't monetize the data, don't sell the
data but target advertising according to your data, if they can't do that,
they will have no incentive to provide you with any services at all.
That's the problem.  They'll just say, you know, why should we let you in
our services at all?  Yeah. Answer.

>> ELLEN BLACKLER:  I want to build on this idea because Larry put going on
the tabling to back to.  COPA is a bit of a mess and it was developed
before social networking.  It it says you can't collect data for these
reasons, so there's a bunch of reasons you can't collect data for.  That
list could be better drawn so that, for instance, you could allow data to
be collected, which is what happens when you post something on your
Facebook page, but then not allow that to be used in an advertising
profile.  Because COPA is a badly drafted statute -- that's not fair.  An
old statute, there probably is a better way to do it.  So, to me, it's so
much about age as -- which is important, but not only about age, but also
about those lists of what is allowed.  So it's actually more helpful, I
think, to talk about data use than data collection, because even under COPA
data is collected for improving the services, for instance, but can't be
used for advertising. I wonder if there's a way to say you can collect data
to allow the children to express themselves, which I realize there's a
bunch of safety issues and all of that.  Prevent the profiling that is, I
think, the thing that people object to or one of the things people object
to.  That's worth thinking about.

>> MODERATOR:  I think he wanted another question with Sonia.  Be quick we
have ten minutes more left, and we wanted to wrap up and also go to the
sustainable development goals.  Let's be quick.

>> AUDIENCE:  I want to know why data collection is prohibited for selling
them?  Why do you have to stop company from gaining money in different
ways? Why we should stop companies from selling the data?

>> SONIA LIVINGSTONE:  Briefly because the argument is that children and
young people are too young to defend themselves against advertising,
especially advertising that they know is there or trying to persuade them
of unhealthy or overcommercialized products. Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you for making that clear.

>> MARIE-LAURE LEMINEUR: There's something called privacy, and somehow you
want to browse and to go and search for information without the whole world
accompanying and just monitoring what you're doing and what you like and
don't like. So I understand that the concept of privacy changes when you're
online, but it is still there and you need to think about it. You have the
right, you know, to keep your own data for yourself. If you have, for
example, think about practice Cal problems if you're sick and look for a
job, in some companies they don't give you a job with a particular disease.
So if your data is out there and they can know that you're sick, they won't
give you a job.

>> MODERATOR:  I have two quick notes from us and we will wrap up the whole
session.

>> I wanted to give another example why you shouldn't post data to much
when you're a child.  The information commissioner's office in the U.K.
published a report in 2007 or '08 which issed that employers vet a lot of
employers vet applications on the BAGSZ of Facebook profiles, so we've been
silly at some point, university night looking silly.  I don't want my
employer to see that, and neither should you.

>> SPEAKER:  Trying to reach these comments just to show you that if you do
not restrict the access to data -- to personal data as a whole but
principle in child with the children in Latin America, for example, we are
facing problems about extortion, kidnapping.  So maybe it's a good example
to understand how risky it can be to collect and sell a database.  We're
not talking about financial industry.  We're talking about cyber crime and
illegal activities.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you so much.  I prefer the positive approach, but I
think it's necessary to talk about these dark sides and to make the
parents, the children as well aware of all these dark sides. So I think we
need to come to an end, and the session should be related to the
sustainable development goals. One thing they say is the purpose is to
ensure an inclusive and sustainable growth by enforcement of children's
rights, and I think I would like to go back to that Sonia mentioned that
it's not only the children that have these shadow personal outlines, and we
all have that and it's built up from the information we give away when we
express ourselves online to the Internet.  Children's rights are something
very special.  They are human rights, but they are given to them regardless
of age.  Up to 18. It's not that it starts when they might be 10 or 8 and
go to Facebook and have the right to express themselves.  All these rights
of information, rights of freedom of expression, rights to be protected
from violence, from sexual exploitation are given to children when they are
born.  So we need to keep that in mind, I think, and I would like to invite
my PARNLists to have a very short, final statement keeps in mind the SDGs
in this world want children's rights. Thank you.

>> NAIR ABHILASH:  I think this is a very engaging and in --

>> SPEAKER:  It was a very engaging and informative session, and I was here
and it's to see how parents look at how we do it and access the Internet.
I think the few examples that were given about why we as young people or
why children need to be very cautious about words they post online.  I
think these type of examples really need to remind our children and
brothers and sisters about why they need to be cautious about what kind of
information they put online because of all the examples we shared here. I
think when we look at this sustainable development goals the way I see and
the way I see Internet goal is when it's to make sure children access the
SGER net or young people, but you need to make sure they access it in the
right way or proper way so that we don't -- we don't -- so that they can be
safe in the future.  In one of the examples that I'm VRT enough because my
parents are educated and my dad is on Facebook, and so sometimes he watches
what I'm doing.  The thing is -- we had an issue with my younger sister
because of the time she spends online.  She was fairly young, and she was
not yet being able to use a mobile phone.  Most of the time she would
borrow my phone just for -- she says it's just a few minutes and just want
to check on my Facebook.  My dad was really, really mad at him all the time
because he would -- she would spend the whole evening in her room and she
was always on her mobile phone and using the Internet.  My parens said if
you use Internet, please don't use it -- please monitor the time you spend
on the Internet.  IJ that's also something interesting because if you don't
have a lot of time on the Internet, we'd be probably putting less material
which will compromise our life in the future.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  Ellen, would you go on and then then we'll go around the
table.

>> ELLEN BLACKLER:  So here at the IGF I think we talk a lot about how the
ICTs and use of ICTs really underlie all of the SDGs and other able to
achieve them.  I think the same is true with young people.  So if we don't
have the young people engaging on the SDGs, we don't reach them, and if
they don't are access to the ICTs to do that, we don't reach that. That, I
think, is why this really focusing on the right of children to access the
Internet is really credit -- critical to make progress on the SDGs.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you.  It's always difficult to fro nounce.

>> NAIR ABHILASH:  We need to bear in mind that cyberspace is no longer a
virtual world.  In the early days of the Internet the debate was about is
cyberspace real or a virtual world?  It's not anywhere.  It's part of the
real world and affects our lives in many ways. It's important that children
benefit from the full use of the Internet and the benefits of the Internet,
in that sense.  I don't think the focus should be to shield children from
the Internet per se but to make them smarter, keep them safe, and find a
balance in the process and how to do that.

>> MODERATOR:  Wonderful message.

>> SONIA LIVINGSTONE:  I heard a term it's a visualization of the real
world.  It's moving into the real world and ILTS not something separate and
we keep that in mind.

>> MARIE-LAURE LEMINEUR:  What we talked about today in parenting in the
21st century is making business in the 21st century.  So far there are more
questions than answers and a lot of gray areas, so this why kind of forums
are very important so we can keep of sharing and discussing and challenging
ideas and MOOUFL on forward for the sake of the children.

>> MODERATOR:  Sonia, your final statement.

>> SONIA LIVINGSTONE:  Something Ellen hinted at some time ago, which is we
have taken many years, in fact the whole of human history to work out ways
of managing and shaping children's offline lives in way that enable them
according to their age and maturity in different ways and in different
contexts with different kinds of adults providing guidance and help.   The
Internet is just happening so fast and developing so quickly, we don't have
any of those norms, and I think that's why we have this kind of intense
feeling of context being lost and rights being in conflict and responsible
agents feeling disempowered.  I don't know that things are going to get
better over time, but I'm glad there's a lot of great minds here and
elsewhere trying to focus fast on this.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you, Sonia. Arda, you have the last word.

>> ARDA GERKENS:  Oh dear.  I thought about the right of privacy for the
parents, right? Thinking my son, who was like every time I tame take a
picture of, you don't put that to SnapChat or Facebook or whatever, because
they don't want to.  It's really funny because isasmuch as they want to
control what's on the Internet, they don't know that they actually don't
control what's out there and what information they give.  So I think what I
would hope that would be in the future is that young children and
youngsters will get more engaged with what they want to control for
information being out there, because they can push the industry to set --
to do it the way they want it.  That's what we saw with the doll Kayla. It
wasn't the consumers, but SKURLs rights organizations. That's a good thing.
The other thing I really hope to happen is that parents would get more
engaged and I think that should be done via schools together with the
teachers to see that they also get a great acknowledgment from what's
happening and what's out there. In the end these are the ones that should
be guiding the young people up on the Internet.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you so much for all the participants.  Thank you to my
panelists for today. I think it was a very productive and fruitful
discussion, and I hope we move a step forward in implementation of the U.N.
convention of the rights of the child in the digital world. Thank you so
much, and see you again.

( Session concluded at 13:34 p.m. CT ) Copyright © 2016 Show/Hide Header