You are connected to event: CFI-RPC7 YCIG-Youth Coalition on Internet-room 7 >> Hi. I will wait another five machines before we start. So just -- I know that there's something going on upstairs and maybe people up there are waiting to come down. So we will start in five minutes. YCIG-Youth Coalition on Internet-Room 7 >> Hi. Thank you again for coming. So my name is Bianca. I'm not necessarily a convener. I am a member here. Right here so thank you so much for coming. So, I know there are some new faces and more familiar faces that are probably faces who know much better than I do. Because of newcomers, let me give you a background of YCIG and how you participate. There will be a mailing list starting with the background and introduction of everyone at the table. Again, we love new faces here. It is super important that everybody knows who you are and then we will go to the appointment of the in term committee. There's new criterias, which I will go through a bit later and besides the roles and committee. We respect the mailing list and that's really where our conversation is. So we will suggest names for the mailing list and then for the mailing list to approve. Starting with the background of WASAJI. We have been involved with youth and people who are really active on the mailing list, we have a mailing list that's on Google that is open to everyone. Particularly youth how we define it is under 30 years old. So in the past what we have done, we pull off quite a lot of things as a group. For example, we have organized a workshop. There's also the fact that we put together reports, but in the last year, we in terms of coordination, we had a very clear person or role for people to take on for the YCaircraft G to move forward. We were discussing the charter last year which had some issues on proceeding. So that's why we think this year it's a good idea to start with appointing the interrum committee here and then approving in the mailing list and have people agree or disagree to kind of get is that started and then we can start with -- we can then finish the charter review. So before I go on, I will pause it. >> Yeah. Nothing much to add. We want to welcome you all here. And no one is -- we need all of you to take initiative. No one is being paid to do this. It needs every one of to you take initiative and make sure your faces were to the highest corridors possible. Thank you. >> BIANCA HO: Okay. Does anyone have any questions before I proceed? We will just discuss. So let's start with maybe inrodeucing ourselves and then we will pass on the mic. >> Hi, everyone. Can you hear me? Yes. My name is EFRIN. I walk on the researching low tech human rights and I'm pushing about young people. That's why we are pushing that young people's voices are heard to the highest level. That's why we want to thank you for trusting us and being part of the community and being very active and keeping us in check and remaining us that we need our voices heard at the highest level. It's an honor to solve as the youngest member in history. My time is almost over. Very soon, we need more young people to be one. So we need next time 12. A 12-year-old, a 13-year-old for the mark and I can't wait for that day to happen. >> My name is Vanessa. I come from Hong Kong. This is my first time to come to this IGF. >> I'm Jenny. I'm also from Hong Kong and we're youth representatives and this is my first time as well. >> Hi. My name is estel. I'm from Brazil. This is my second IGF. >> Hi. My name is Pedro. I'm also from Brazil and this is my second IGF. >> I am Abelo from Brazil and this is my first IGF. >> Hi, everyone. My name is HENNA. I'm also from Brazil and this is my second IGF and rime I'm a member of the university observer toy. >> -- youth observer toy. >> Good morning. I'm David there Germany. I'm 21 years old. Second IGF and I'm organizing the use youth IGF. >> Good morning, everyone. I'm Joe from Vietnam. Welcome IGF. >> Good morning, everyone. This is my first time at IGF. Thanks. >> Good morning. My name is EFaircraft and I'm fromise real and which is my first IGF. >> Hi, Krishna from India. This is my second IGF. >> Hi. I'm Flooren from Austria. I am here second time and I'm a student in Austria. >> I'm from good morning. Second time. >> Hi. I'm Natalie from Hong Kong and this is my first time to go to IGF. >> I'm elvin from Hong Kong and I'm 14 years old. I'm from Hong Kong. Sorry, sorry, sorry. Hi. I'm Jamie. I come from Hong Kong. This is my first time to IGF. >> I am the coordinator of IGF chart. >> Good morning, everyone. This is Fred from Hong Kong. I'm a teacher, but today is a lit bit different because I'm a babysitter of my lovely students. >> Good morning. And I'm Oliver from America. And of course this is my first time at IGF and I am student. >> I'm ocean from the United States. This is my first IGF. >> My name is JOSIAH and I'm from Hong Kong and this is my first time here. >> Yes. Good morning, everybody. My name is -- internet 26 years since a lot of you were not born yet. I still keep my first e-mail from 26 years ago. I would like to see how the new generation has carried on the Internet. >> It is my third IGF. >> Good morning. My name is Michael. This is my second IGF and I'm currently based in Serbia. >> Hi. This is YANISlee from Hong Kong. And I haven't counted how many IGF I've been to. I guess four or five. >> Hi. My name is David. I'm also from Hong Kong and also coordinator of HKYGF. I think this is four or five IGF more me. >> Okay. Great. >> BIANCA HO: Okay. Great. We got everyone. Oh, okay. Can we have the remote? >> Hello, everyone. >> BIANCA HO: Yes. We can hear you. >> I'm from Sudan. This is my third IGF. >> Hi. I'm Larry. I'm CEO of Connectsafely.org. We work a lot with young people and with the United States hosts of safer Internet day. >> I'm Patty Regear. >> Cynthia Livingston. I do research with young people. >> >> BIANCA HO: Okay. Great. Now that we have gone through the room once, it is nice to see who is here. Sometimes you e-mail so much on the list and finally you see a person's face, which is fantastic. So we will start -- we will start -- yesterday a smaller group of us discussed the agenda and I wanted to see if anyone has any questions on the agenda. So the agenda today will start with appointment of an in term committee and that we have a few criterias. Number 1, they have to be under 30 years and now we have five people representing each of the different regions. So that's kind of like -- a basis we'll start off with. Again, we will use the mailing list as an approval. And then the second would be deciding the roles and responsibility of the interrum committee. So, does anyone have any comments on the agenda? Please, Martin. >> Martin: Just for the order, it makes sense to discuss the responsibilities of the comedy before the elect people so they know what they're running for. >> BIANCA HO: Good point to switch it up. Okay. Yeah. So starting with the roles and responsibilities. Yesterday we had some ideas. So maybe around the table, I wanted people to kind of have some suggestions towards what do you think an interrum committee would do. What happened is our charter does not have any statute for having -- a leader per se for YCIG which is much needed. The reason it is needed is there's a lot of reporting that needs to be done. We need to participate with other Dynamic Coalitions, which is super important. So I think that that's in a basis of where we wanted to start with the interrum committee. For myself, I think that is super important to finish the charter review. I wanted to open up the floor for anyone who wanted to comment on what is needed for the responsibilities for the interrum committee. >> Hi. Michael here. So we definitely need contact people. We need points of leaderships. So I think that probably the YCaircraft G sufferd most is not actually a lack of commitment or lack of involvement. It's from a lack of knowing who is going to be kind of the final word of accountability, I guess you can say, the final authority on things. In the past few months, I've been very impressed with how we come together and get some things done; however, had there been a little bit more encouragement and coordination, we could have even done more. Yesterday there was the D.C session. We submitted our report and we weren't represented at the D.C session. For instance, if any of you were involved on the list, I try to be as involved as I can especially with editing documents and what not. For instance, there's a lot of points where people had invested the time in having a discussion even if it's something micro about the wording that we're using. That's important. These are official statutes that we should be abiding by. With that said, it was kind of like I often would turn to Bianca as the mag member. Since you're the mag member -- and, you know, are you the authority on this? Is it David? Because he was the one that started the document, et cetera. So having that set in stone would be very helpful, but then aside from that, then being proactive. So it's not just about being that authority. It is also being proactive to understanding how we're going to continue to be involved through the IGF and the wider government system. Not just youth that are in college or in young professionals, but also youth that are in not elementary, but secondary or high school, et cetera. So that's probably the hardest part because that takes time, work and creativity. Thank you. >> As you go on, I want you to recognize the presence of Rafik. Can you pass him the mic? >> Rafik: So happy to see kind of the representation of the youth coalition. I hope that you are not going in the same discussion we had for many years regarding what that means, what means to be youth or if youth is a stakeholder and to folks really more on the issues. So I'm just here likely to see what you are doing, guys. I'm happy that things are moving on. Just want to maybe respond to Mike. I understand we'll talk about the charter. The charter is just to give you kind of guidance or clarification about your mission, but you should not really spend much more time on that. My understanding is there was some -- in the beginning some kind of confusion about the process. So if you just set out that quickly and then move on, another comment just may be my last one. Please don't focus just on IGF. In the beginning when we started the youth coalition, one point we had about Intersessional work. And also looking about others where Internet Governance issues are discussed. So please have that in mind and see how you can use the coalition as a space for that to coordination and create synergies between all members. Also think about recall stakeholders. I think the limitation is hard to find young people in the private sector and the government. But there is always possibility to have those sympathetic from those stakeholders that they can have and join you. Okay. That's it. >> BIANCA HO: Okay. So that was really good good guidance that we had. I am going back to the discussion of the rules and responsibilities of everyoning committee. Michael mentioned the point of contact. And then also how can we get youth more involved with this space. And I think, you know, getting more involved might mean intersession work. Is there anyone who wants to comment? >> I can totally agree with Rafik. As we discussed yesterday, I think it's really important to do the charter review as swiftly as possible. And make sure the interim committee so that members can focus on the Intersessional work and producing official statements, documents and keeping up the contact charter stakeholders. So I really think revising the charter should be the main focus and then we can probably be very quickly with the steering committee and keep them working. >> BIANCA HO: Any other comments? >> As we also discussing in group about the steering committee and things, I do think they got another important point in the steering committee or steering committee should just do the administration work, but not doing the (inaudible) making work. Just referring to what we're managing about being contact person with IGF and make sure we got session over the years. Yeah. And also on the papers and also sharing some information from several things. I do think that it is some of the area focus for the working group. The steering committee. Thank you. >> BIANCA HO: Those are great ones. Please go ahead. >> I would also greatly appreciate if you just focus on the official communication that is put to us, but also try to bring together more of the initiatives insights in YCIG and try to focus on sessions that we can like you did a couple of years back and try to hand the sessions together and look for incorporations with the other Dynamic Coalitions and other actors that deal with young people like ISOC and ICANN. Try to involve young people from other stakeholders that don't necessarily are coming out of civil society. And another point of communication I also hope that we can relay the official information also that they are reached in all the different regions and that through the representatives of the regions, we also have more direct access points of the regions they involve and up to date of what's happening. I hope this will be a more direct and personal contact point there. Thanks. >> BIANCA HO: That's a good point. I felt before we had organized a session with other members of the YCIG, that was very useful because that enhances a lot of what we're doing. And to Martin's point, I focus on the intern communication as well as external communication with the Dynamic Coalition. And hopefully enhance our cooperation and be able to host sessions or also attracting people out the civil society. To that point, I wanted to know if there's anyone who is not in a civil society cap here? Okay. So that was quite true. Okay. Great. So is there anyone else who wants -- >> Just quickly to comment on that point. I do make it clear that civil society is often the most represented here simply because especially most youth members are in the capacity usually to be in other stakeholder groups. Especially if they're younger, they wouldn't be in the government. They wouldn't be in the private sector necessarily or at least they'd be much more difficult. I think that is more -- that is a reality that we need to be aware of, but that's not to say that there could not be especially young professionals from those other stakeholder groups that could be willing to get more involved. >> Just to comment on that in our project, we also have academic and true entrepreneurs that certainly belong to the other sectors, but that have other meetings going on. There is less overlap and I think we also need to sort of create the coalition in a way that is appealing to the stakeholders. So once we are finished with this charter stuff, maybe people aught to be interested in discussing youth issues that are cross sectorrual. >> BIANCA HO: To that point, there was an interesting discussion I had. This is so early in our careers. Sometimes we might want to -- I think he made the point that he wants to join a different sector in the future and that I think that is very much true to mold the bowl because it is required early in the stages of our career and academic. That's a great thing. So just one thing I need to advertise is that we have truer doc that's available right now. It is IGF.asia/YCIGIGF. So yeah. This is kind of where I've been tapping notes and everyone has a point of reference. So does anyone have any thoughts on rules? I mean the people who have been commenting has been active on the list. I want to open up the floor of people that are lesser aware of what YCIG is doing and maybe you have an expectation of what you expect from the group. Is there anyone who's outside -- outside the usual act of participants to comment? Okay. So no. Okay. Good. So any other points with regards to what we have so far is the administrative rules and the non-decision making rule. The second one is a center point of communication and let me ask the official IGF contact, but also access point for other sectors. One thing I wanted to mention is setting out a timeline for doing this all work because I understand everyone has a different schedule and what we have seen in the past is the YCIG list and it kind of dies down. Last year we were really optimistic around -- we will have this ongoing engagement. And I felt like people did engage. There's policy address. So we put together the document super quickly, which was amazing because we had a stance that we shared as a group. But then when it comes to things that are not, it is important for non-urgent than people would know like let's just delay it. So I've been setting up a timeline that's important for this committee because they would need to commit to that people on timeline and help us to push things through. Number 4 is to finish a charter review. Number 5 would be coordinating sessions for next year. Potential other shareholders and the group as well as the organizing a session among ourselves. That's also a possibility. And then number 6 is the outreach part where hopefully we can get more youth involved in the policy space and doing more intersessional work. What I have outlined so far, any comments? >> Especially for the finished chapter review session, you are adding some information on what we have done last year. Last year meetings for the meetings on YCIG and set up a working group working on and reviewing those chapter and things. So there is some outcome documents -- not outcome documents, but some documents taking notes about the community, concerns on different issues. For example, the formation of the group and also how we can run the election. These suggestions were worked by the working group. They can refer the documents to start the work because these were also taking (inaudible) from the communities from last year. So it need not to start from zero to one. You can also start from zero to five. Thank you. >> BIANCA HO: Okay. So any more comments? I think we will again share this with the mailing list, but now we ask have concrete ideas of what to expect from the interrum committee. >> I just thought of something. One thing that I forgot to mention is that whenever we were putting it the report for the secretariat, I was really impressed with how many youth events were actually happening. It ended up being like five pages long and there was something from all over the world. That makes me think that maybe -- like you were saying that involvement is there. We need to figure out how to translate that both offline on to online through the list and then also how to maybe collaborate more within those initiatives. Like David, you were saying we already have to go from. So I think that should also be a key point in terms of outreach for the committee. >> BIANCA HO: That's very much true. I felt there was a Y IGF. Every month and sometimes you're just not aware of those regions and like our mailing list is really big and we have a lot of members and people would forward our e-mails out. So your people get their initiatives on. And another thing that I think would be to -- like Michael did a great work to lead the web updates. So I think that is essentially our face outwards. So I would say the website is quite important in terms of outreach. Is there anyone who else wants to comment? Okay. So great. So we're at the outreach part where youth initiatives. So we will move towards the interrum committee appointments. So not right here, but at least we will have a new structure right now. One thing I wanted to mention is we decided we think that it shouldn't be bindd especially because we don't really know who these people are and what their skills are. We have more (inaudible) when we say this person is running for chair. That person is vice chair when in fact they probably do exactly the same thing. We are going to have a flat structure in that sense. We thought about that yesterday. I want to open up the floor to anyone who.S to comment on the flat structure for the interrum committee. Again for the steering committee it would be decided by the charter review. But we think that we recommend that it would be better if it's flat. So I wanted to see if there's anyone who have any thoughts on that? Do you think there has to be a necessary -- go ahead, please. >> So basically I can repeat what Bianca just said. Keep it as simple and complex and deciding on a chair and vice chair for an interrum committee. It is unnecessary work that distracts us from doing other stuff. The other goal is to do it as soon as possible so we don't need a chair and vice chair. >> Michael here. I ask also say that for instance, I do a lot of work with the southeastern dialogue Internet Governance. They work incredibly efficiently. They work closely together and they have that kind of open executive committee structure where there's no set leader per se. Each of them takes what they are good at or they work well together. Kind of more like a council. So I definitely agree with Lori and them. >> Hi. I wanted to voice -- yeah. I just wanted to add my voice and say I agree to this kind of structure. It's good given people are busy as I mentioned before. This is a paid role. So it is dependent on how free someone is and walk in a specific time and just to ask everyone to feel involved and don't feel intimidated by your age or your agenda. We want more diversity for these roles. Thank you. >> BIANCA HO: Great. Anyone who wants to comment on the flat structure? Okay. Okay. So we have that. The criteria right now is under 30 years old. So there is a limit. We were thinking of five people representing each region. With regards -- under 30 years is something we already agreed on the earlier charter review when we collected all the comments. We wanted to see what people think about how people are representing different regions. Is there other type of diversity measures that we want to put for this interrum steering committee? >> Can you also mention the five regions specifically? Yeah. >> BIANCA HO: I'm not very good at geography. So I think there's Asia, America, then Africa, Europe. I mean, Asia Pacific should include. That's a good point. Yeah. >> (inaudible). >> BIANCA HO: Martin put up his hand. Please go ahead. >> Martin: Western Europe and USA. Eastern Europe Mina is Asia Pacific, Africa and south America. I don't know what happens to Australia. [Laughter] It's Asia Pacific. Thanks. >> BIANCA HO: That's North America and MENA. And then Africa, Asia Pacific and south America. >> Again, I think it was basically North America and western Europe. Eastern Europe in the miss east and north a flicka and then north Africa, Asia Pacific. So it's five. >> Okay. Looking at the U.N. in regional groups as of May 2014, Africa group 54 member states, Asia Pacific group 53 member states, eastern European groups with 23 member states, Latin American and Caribbean groups and the west European groups with 23 member states. So that's how the U.N. in classified them in May 2014. >> BIANCA HO: Even better so I don't need to test out my geography skills. So is that clear now? >> Yes. >> BIANCA HO: Good. Good. That's a great clarification. Yes. Okay. Is there any other criteria that we want to say interrum committee would have? Any diversity measures? We're good with this people representing different regions? One thing I wanted to ask is what if in the likelihood event that we think more people will run for this committee, what if it happens to be two people or three people who run for the same region? Should we go through an election? Should we just talk it out? What do you think? >> We also talked about it yesterday and probably read unconventional solutions or suggestions. Talk it out. Because it simplifies the process, if there's a real initiative to be on the same region when they run for the interrum, we would have to do an election which probably takes time to set up a proper election system on the mailing list. Just please follow the regions to talk it out before running for it. If that's not possible, then we have to do election. Maybe they can do it with other. >> BIANCA HO: Are there people who were for the election? Okay. So I'll take that as a taxid agreement for now. Let's move. So again, I think I know an objective we should bear in mind. This is such a small part of the progress and we really want to actually do actual work on policy as a group and youth. So what I really want to do is spend most of our time on the policy addressing, engaging with other stakeholders and dragging all on this charter. So I think that is great that we have this consensus towards the different regions as well as a flat structure and talk it out among different the same people who are running for the same regions. Okay. Please. >> This is YENA speaking. So we have a criteria that we need five people to represent each region. I just want to raise a concern that what if we don't have -- what if the region is missing people to run the positions? Then what we will do? Understanding that we want to push this interrum as soon as possible so that we can start working. >> Can we also put a timeframe for talking it out? I don't want it to stretch over and over. >> BIANCA HO: That's fair. Is there a suggestion on the timeframe for talking it out? >> We don't even know yet if there's a need for talking out. Maybe they have been talking out already for the people who know auto going to be about see and collect the list of willing people and if you face the issue of multiple people from one region, we can give them 48 hours to talk it out. >> Okay. In terms of process, one thing I'm getting concerned about. We have tasid agreements and they might be considered transparent and accountable. If we think out this process, we would still need to get it approved by the list. So that's something to take into account. The other thing is I'm going blank now. I'm tired. >> BIANCA HO: Okay. I think the timeline should be more important on when do we get an interrum committee up and running. So I suggest one month from now. We can go back and have enough time to recoop. We have enough time to discuss and we have enough time to get approval from the list. What do you guys think about the one month from now to set up the interrum committee? Okay. Good. Okay. So great. So I'm just going to briefly wrap up on this appointment of interrum committee. We have a few criterias. On 30 years old, we have eastern European, Caribbean, Latin America and other groups. We have sent the list. We agreed to a structure. We heard people can reach a consensus if there are more people running for one region. And the timeline is one month from now. Is there anything that I missed that we discussed that is important? Okay. So we have like 40 minutes left, which is great. So we can either say there's two things. You know, from myself one from the mag, if there's anything that we can improve next year in the IGF youth involvement, we can take noteds and that's something that's interesting for me. Or we can say start with people who want to nominate themselves for this interrum committee. You guys can discuss that. Or we can say, you know, talk about different youth initiatives and see how we can collaborate among ourselves. So I just wanted to open that up. >> One item on the agenda that I would also be interested in seeing if anybody would like to explore is especially since we have, you know, very young youth members here maybe to kind of brainstorm with them ways that we can maybe solicit their involvement more. I feel like that's a group of the sub-group of the stakeholders that we don't really hear from very often. I think it would be a good opportunity to capitalize on that. >> BIANCA HO: Oh, yes. So before I move on, I realize that we didmis YANIS question. That was not addressed. >> This is YANIS speaking. From my perspective, I think if we really are just missing one person from specific region, I think we should just let the other -- if there is any candidates that would like to run for it to go for it because I don't think we should let these criteria to delay our timeline to move on since this is just interrum. That's my perspective. So if we only have volunteers from four regions, but there is more -- there is more than one person interested to join the interrum committee, then we can just let that person to join. >> BIANCA HO: Order things about this that we did not have somebody running for one region, what should we do? >> The proposal is that if -- I know there's four people and one slot left who will be deciding and who's got the slot. You would probably have to do an election or something similar. Again talking out, but then it will be from all the regions. It's also an issue to keep it at four people because of deciding something. An even number would always be better. I don't have another suggestion just to raise the awareness for this problem. >> What I said earlier about the communication back to the regions, for me, it would be quite important and we see that we have youth initiatives in other regions. So I would hope there's at least one person from each region that would run and try to reach the region as soon as possible. I would certainly pledge that we should have five people on the board of in case of split boards and create an open process in the end piece still to forward it to the list and people on the list can also speak up and there still might be somebody from the region. So if you don't find people here, you can forward it to the list and see if you have people there. In the last case, we can still have an open word because that would be a procedure we still have to figure out. >> I just have a short note to agree the terms. If we got five regions, it should be a very (inaudible) case. If we just got four region representatives, it should be fine because it is just steering committee. We would like one for one years. You don't need to put too much limitation on the whole work. This was the criteria is, of course, for wish list for the five people reaching and representing different groups is just a wish list, but not a (inaudible) in a sense. It seems it is somehow consent. I do think. >> BIANCA HO: Okay. So we will agree with that way of proceeding with the five people. And then we will again get -- we will get more input from the people who are on the list sense you know this is a very small majority among the list. So we will again need to go through that anyways. Okay. Please. >> And any suggestion to mix of things run in a faster rate, I would like to suggest maybe we can first get the name out from this room that we would like to be the representative for the steering committee from the region that we just shared out to include the other person that would join as steering committee in a sense that first they will get a name from the group in the room at this first. This was my suggestion to see how we think about this. >> BIANCA HO: That's good. If people are more interested, they should have kind of made up their mind by now. Again, go back to the list to approve. So maybe I should start with each group and then people put up their hands. Yeah? Or do we feel intimidated? So, let's start with African group. Who wants to be an interrum committee for African group? You have zero interests? Yes, yes. Is there anyone who wants to run for Asia Pacific group? Okay. Great. Great. Great. Great. Nice. You already have one to start with. So Samuel, you came in late, but can you tell us about yourself? >> I'm Samuel from Hong Kong. And I'm representative. This is my first time to IGF. I'm really interested in the Internet issue and also I want to promote in the Internet Governance for the world and SLA for Asia Pacific first. >> BIANCA HO: Great. Do we have volunteers? Okay. Instant European group. Okay. Great. Great. Great. We have another one. So Michael, he's been super active and he's been amazing. The documents are -- fantastic. Fantastic work. Latin American and Caribbean group. Is there anyone from that region here? Latin America? Latin American group. >> I'm Pedro from Brazil. I'm not a candidate, but I would like to highlight a problem that you have three youth sessions going on right now. People are scattered all around. Maybe there are Latin American youth who would like to be here, but they have to be models. I guess we may have a problem with that concerning legitimacy of whoever you choose here. I would like to raise that question to be discussed or considered. >> Can I say this? That actually is aeral good point in terms of -- just because we're here, I don't think we should have any preferential selection over anyone else. I think ultimately even though yes. I am happy to nominate myself and I would be happy to be a part of this, I would want approval from the list. I would want people to be involved in the decision making. I actually, you know, I actually motion that we just table this or that we just move this to the list and we ask there who would want to be involved. Of course, we can go through this process. If we need to have an election with statements of interest like for instance that many other internet governance-related groups do, I think we should just do that because that's the most transparent and the most fair. >> BIANCA HO: So I want to address Pedro, that's something we need to address because I think there are a lot of parallel sessions for a certain topic. I think that's a matter of scheduling. I am super thankful that we had one. So there's that restriction that we have, but again, we will have everything through the less. This is somebody putting up their hands now. But if we put it on the list and somebody says oh, I wanted to run for it, that's totally fine. We have one left and we can go through that and then move to of the agenda items. The thing I wanted to lay out is a more concrete timeline than one month. I felt it was more fate. Go ahead, Martin. >> Martin: About we speak about transparency and we move on the list, people in the room are not on the list especially with first timers. So I would also encourage all the groups to motivate the participants they are here with to join the Dynamic Coalition and take part on the list. Of course they can also promote themselves and put themselves forward for the steering committee. >> BIANCA HO: That's a really good point. That's something we need to reach out. That's a primary source of communication among all of us who are in different regions, different time zones, different everything. Go ahead. >> MIK from the U.K . government has something to add. Really good to have young people who are part of the government, part of the private sector listen to us. >> I am not sure I qualify as young anymore. [Laughter] Terrible depression kicking it. It's just an observation. I can increase the participation in the U.K . and without sort of telling you guys what to do because just because some observations around your sort of processes. So I'm on the government advisory committee at ICANN and we have been laughing because we had some elections for our GAC leadership committee and some of the issues that were coming up. The government committee on our website we have our sort of operating principles and they set out the process for elections to the leadership committee. As you can imagine, that is very extensive. But it might be quite useful. I can't see the process listed on the YCIG website. I'm just thinking if there's people in the U.K . that might want to sort of participate, it would be helpful for them to know the process through which they can nominate themselves, even if they're not here at the moment. I came in a bit late. I apologize if you haven't already discussed timelines and the GAC principles, we have a clear set of timelines to have a sort of window by which people can nominate themselves and then a window by which if it has to go to an election, the other members of the committee or the (inaudible) can make their selection. It might be something if you haven't already considered that in terms of process which will support that idea of transparency. >> BIANCA HO: So we don't really have the operating principles because we don't have the charter who has that information. So what we are trying to do is set up the interrum committee to do the charter review. I think our timeline poll is relevant. We would just say let's do one month and people do agree. I think setting up specific milestones like maybe in two weeks you have everyone nominate themselves and then in two more weeks, we appoint the interrum committee member. Yeah. So that's -- >> I'll share the link to document. It may be helpful or it may not. >> BIANCA HO: We can also put it on the charter review as a reference document. Thank you so much. Okay. For the timeline we just set out onemont, but we will break it down in really timely comments. One week, two weeks? How much time do we need for the nomination for each of the regions? >> This is YANIS speaking. I think two weeks should be fine for a nomination period. I am wondering if one month would be a good timeline because considering the holidays in December and January is probably like everyone might not be very attentive to e-mail. Yeah. >> BIANCA HO: Yeah. Please. >> So we already had the point of timeline and a month was okay a couple minutes ago. For the issue of holidays, if you don't -- if you're not working for participation full time, it is even better holidays because it is more spare time to attend to e-mails, which is probablyd bigger part of the mailing list. That's more of an advantage for me. >> Just -- yeah. I think I totally understand, YANIS. I do sympathize, but at the same time, Nick, one of our biggest problems is we're in a situation where it's the chicken and the egg problem. We need to get a charter out, but we can't do that unless we get a leadership team and we can't get a leadership team if we don't have an interrum process. Once we have a charter set, we can then open up it for a noninterrum committee, an actual appointed term and what not. It's not this is supposed to be a charter steering committee. I think it works for now and the sooner that we can get working on this, the better because these processees around internet governance are happening and the last thing we need is to not have youth involved. I think we need to stay focused on what is our point and what are we trying to accomplish overall. >> BIANCA HO: Anyone not on the table that wants to comment? >> Well, if that's the case, if we have to reach the one less timeline, then why don't we set one week and everybody nominate themselves if they want to use and we'll use three week for consensus so that can talk about it if there are more candidates in one region. >> More than three week. >> BIANCA HO: More than three weeks work. >> Yes. One week for the record. I have to run out quite soon, but I want to leave the issues -- I think you have this kind of interrums. So it would be great that we would know what the expectation is in the regions for participation. You want to have the participation cross. Otherwise you have to wait until IGF in the next meeting 2017. So I would try my best to coordinate with the government. The host country is coming from government and I need support for the youths specifically apart from the AIP. So that's the main proposal I would like to hear also. You can Connect intersessionally what you would like to have the support from the host country. So I will coordinate for sure with the team. That is for sure, but I just left the issue for the other regions who would be actively working in this. I like to hear what you like to have the support. Do you like to have meetings then, a meeting to formalize this new IGF. Please feel free to communicate and see what we can do there. I hope to see you. >> BIANCA HO: If people ever interested, how do they get in touch with you? >> I will coordinate. I still have to announce the working committee who will be here. Because they support by the Telecom, telecommunications and if you come up with idea first, first come, first serve. What youth is required and maybe it would be very interesting to see the youths more reasonable I would say. We should be pushing this selftimes and you can see how important we have members here in government. I don't know if it's from Sweden, UK and Thailand. Come see the importance of youths and tell us what you need and see what we can do to really make it visible. >> BIANCA HO: Thank you. So someone is remote? You got the mic? I can read it >> So, hi, everyone. There was a small group and it would be good to announce this meeting and have the nomination and election of the mailing list. I agree that it is better to have a clear timeline process in the meeting now first. What is the detail of the upcoming month then to get approval from the mailing system to form the coalition. Also have one suggestion. Currently apart from the mailing list is a major communication and no place to store our documents, which is available to everyone. That's a good point. So as a lot of online and offline initiatives like the meeting now -- sorry. The document would be good to have an overall database in the Cloud to record all the documents or activities we've created. Even the meeting minutes today would be good for online efforts to keep track of the existing one and better planning in the future. >> BIANCA HO: Yeah. I think that was a really good chron create suggestion and that's something the interrum committee can put together. Okay. Great. Great. So, continuing with -- for the timeline, we haven't had any agreements so far. Are we okay with the one week for a nomination and three weeks for consensus development? Do we think that's sufficient? Okay. Okay. Great. Great. >> Especially for the consensus reach part. Of course we do agree by one month doing the consensus. May I suggest we may have an actual date to be set up that we can have a check on which day. So I think maybe we can set one month 10 January. >> BIANCA HO: Yeah. I agree. That's clear. Good. Good. Okay. Are we set with the -- with the interrum committee,d timeline and everything? Is there anything that we missed? Okay. Okay. You know we have 15 minutes last right now. So again, there are a few agenda items that we can discuss and we can kind of come to an agreement to what to discuss. How to better involve young people, maybe like teens on this, improvement of youth involvement in IGF in general this year and the collaboration we can do among this group. Is there anything we want to discuss right now? >> I just think of some of the logistic work we can do on coordination. Maybe if we're in a group, we can have someone and volunteers to be the coordinators or the coordination group for the one week -- the one week we comment on the interrum committee that is generalizing the list and sending e-mails of these meetings and also (inaudible) of what should be done. So I do think maybe we should celebrate a working group. One person to be. >> BIANCA HO: Somebody is a time keeper. It's not that they have an interrum committee position. Just to be clear. So I suggest David to do that because he has been doing an amazing job so far. Is there anyone else who wants to help in that process just to keep us on track? Done. So, again, near the next 15 minutes, what do we want to talk about? How to engage younger participants? How to improve youth involvement in IGF? Then the collaboration among us. Is there any specific topics that would be interesting? Particularly I want to engage people who have not spoken yet because I think that's important to get everyone speak. So maybe we can pass the mic to the kids over there and see what they want to discuss. Maybe a way to start is -- young, but you're a new participatant and one you have seen in IGF and maybe that's a good way to start. >> What I see in IGF is that there are many young people like us. In my opinion, I think we should tell the people from outside like the young people outside that us are participating in IGF and let them know that people can participate in something that's big and to let them know that if we can do it, then the young people can do it also. >> BIANCA HO: That's fantastic. I think it has to do with the promotion of other stakeholder groups. I find it important where a multi-stakeholder and everyone can speak. In a lot of U.N. in conferences, most of the time you have to be (inaudible) to get outward. This is an equal participation form. Anyone else who wants to comment? >> I think one of the things that can be improved and one of the things I notice is there are only youth participation in youth forums. Some of the older youth might be interested in other issues. But in those forms, there are let's youth speaking out because there are a lot of adults and professionals in those forms and I think that we want to involve more youth in other issues order than building capacity, we can maybe encourage them to speak up in those forms. Another thing is to promote youth coalition or a youth participation in these forms, education is very important even though a lot of times we think education takes a lot of time and it might not have the effect we want. Sustaining youth participation really requires a promotion in schools and we lack that in Hong Kong currently. I think that's a good way to do it. >> For example, go to act concession. There was one about the IANApost session ICANN. So if people start talking in to try not to use Ibriefiations, they're using a done of abbreviations. It is just really difficult to forward and it takes time to get into the process. So maybe there is a lack of a good way of how to educate yourself as a young person and for the more complex topics and also maybe there is -- we have to rely on people to just speak up even though -- give them directive. >> Always discuss some issues and we discover money problems, but without action plans or conclusions, the -- wa we can do after wards. I think youth not as complex as adults does. So they can have more innovations and give us some point that can change the world but not adults. So you can have more discussions of what we can change the world, but the issues that were happening mainly about youth. Thank you. >> BIANCA HO: That's a good point and sometimes I go to sessions and very frustrated because all I hear are problems and no solutions. I think that's a very good point that was made. I think Pedro wants to make a comment. >> Pedro: I vote for encouraging people to participate even though they don't consider themselves experts. My advice is we might know more, but they can't know everything there is to know. Win they start, you can already ask a lot of help to the conversation. Never feel just because you're youth you can't help in a way. Just by thinking differently and being young, you can already help. As I said, start knowing what they don't know because they don't know everything. You are already pretty much ahead. >> So these are all great interventions and I completely agree. One idea that I just had was -- forgive me if this is somebody else's, but we're obviously the biggest barrier is that many youth are in school at this time. They obviously can't get off to come far away or to even participate remotely during the day because they obviously have schooling. So what I'm thinking is I wonder if somehow we can work with a pilot group of teachers, for instance, especially those schools that are involved in this process to maybe have a teacher pick a digital issue that is relevant to them or to their class and then basically that teacher then -- I don't know if it would -- this is a very -- we set up a remote hub and get them participating online during a specific section relevant to that issue. Let's say ITHA a tenth grade class about one thing, we can have the -- we can do a project about net neutrality and that teacher working with the schools and working with different aspects of the IGF, we can maybe get them involved in that discussion at the IGF. At least they can be participating in that way. Just an idea. >> BIANCA HO: I love how -- at the end of the table, you already see a school teacher who's nodding his head. I'll let him comment. >> All right. Totally agree, but one thing that I'm concerned is all are such good ideas, but when you pass this idea to school, as a teacher, we have to break it down. That's more pieces like promotion. Just say promotion and the students may not have any ideas, but if I break it down. If I want to promote IGF, any ideas that you are going to do? Videos? Articles? Anything? >> Yeah. To promote this IGF, you can do a lot more ways than just a Powerpoint and a screen. Maybe we can share it through a video and for me, I think -- I'm not saying I'm very, very good at doing videos, but I mostly make videos. So I think they'll also make it more interactive and fun for the children at school because they'll be bored like just with the Powerpoint just staring at the Powerpoint and a guy sharing. Their reaction if we show a video, everyone will go wowing and then when they show a Powerpoint, they'll just clap. >> Or maybe animation. Then after we have that idea, we will help them to script it out or maybe as a teacher to talk about censorship or anything. Then we can upload and share with each other. >> BIANCA HO: Good point. It's like we have very broad timelines. It's better to break it down and make it more concrete. So I see a few hands here. Martin, you still want to comment? >> Martin: I wanted to -- I like the comments and I also hear a lot that young people are not experts or cannot do as complex as grown ups in the forums. I'm a youth worker and I believe that young people do and can and that young people are experts. They make better videos than I will and that's already cool. Don't undersell yourselves or to believe that you can speak up or you have something to contribute because your experience are experiences simply missing in the forums. That's why it is important to have young people here. I would like to make a distinction of what you are talking about here and what we do in terms of youth participation because what we do here is sort of a matter discussion on how to get more young people involved and I think if you want to involve young people, the young people should come with an idea of what they want to accomplish, if they want to talk on IANA cybersecurity, whatever. Then they should be in the forums and I don't mind if not all young people are here as long as the people here are still trying to create more spaces for people in the use IGF and try to make sure we create more possibilities to others outside of this room to IGF and get more young people here. I think it is an important tool, but it is not necessarily the tool where young people should discuss the issues, but really more of that matter debate. >> Yes. Thank you. I am really pleased you have come on to this discussion point because this is something I've been trying to work on in the UK in terms of increasing the participation. I've been working with Flora. Following the point, I would love to hear from yourselves how you -- what the best channels are to reach out to young people. So I've been working with an organization called Child Net. Our steering committee has. I should get them in a panel. I remember when I was in school. I didn't pay a great deal of attention to some of those afterschool clubs. I went down to the park and played football. It didn't mean I wasn't interested in the thing. I would love to hear about the best channels. Someone mentioned to me, mentioned to IGF that youngsters these days they don't use Facebook anymore. They use Instagram. I would love to hear what are the best channels to reach out to young people in your regions and I will start to think about. >> I think young people who are participant if they can have a word to a decision or being -- or (inaudible) to discuss or solve the Internet program. We'll have more interest to started that meeting. If we have educate children, it is not a best way. >> Now in Hong Kong, it is only less than 1% people who know IGF. I hope when I come back to Hong Kong I can share the information and my experience of IGF from social media to let more people know more about IGF. >> BIANCA HO: I love that energy that's going around the room. Again, you can talk to each other offline. You don't need to talk open mic. I am so glad to see so many people, different ages, different cultures and nationalities that speak up today. So I will let one more intervention before I close. >> Okay. Thank you. Oh. It's okay? Okay. I'll do it quickly. I am Sabrina and I come from France. And what I wanted to say it was in France, I don't have numbers to present you, but it's very difficult to make youth in France get involved over Internet Governance issues. What I've heard here was almost exactly what I felt. It's very hard to go to the youth and to make them take part of IGF to make them realize how it's important for them because yes. I used to think it was not important and it was difficult for me with all the matters to me wasn't around -- sorry. Around internet. So I joined the point here. And the use is not the fact you make a video or to present them. This is important. You don't realize it, but I can tell you that it's important by making video or articles or so on, but just -- we -- it's -- we maybe have here everyone have to do something like activity and let them see by what we do that it is important. I have the ID in France to create an annual open forum and at the beginning, it would not be known. They will not be interested at the beginning, but little by little they will become to realize that it exists and know about it and maybe this time they will get involved like we want the youths to be involved this way. >> BIANCA HO: That's a great point too. Soify admint traitive items and I will send out what we discussed today to the mailing list. For those not on the mailing list, please join. It's a Google group. So you can also see it in the document that we share which is IGF.asia/YCIGIGF. So please join the mailing list and then we will convene from there. Just as a wrap up, today we have thought about the roles and responsibilities for the interrum committee and then there's also the interrum committee where somebody put up their hands and we will let the list decide. The time most importantly you will end in 10th of January. So the nomination is for seven days and consensus is another three weeks. You will pick out who the five people would be. And David would have the time keeping. I think Michael would chip in as well. That was super helpful. There's a lot of energy we heard from how to engage younger participants and I bring back to mag as a whole IGF organization, but there's also more things we can do individually in our own countries or regions. Again, I would like to congratulate all of you for a really interactive session. It was really fun. I love seeing everyone speaking up and we're looking forward to see you on the list and continue with intersessional work. Thank you. [APPLAUSE] Workshop ended at 10:34 a.m. CSTTest test test. IGF INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM JALISCO, MEXICO FRIDAY, DECEMBER 9 WS149 FINDING WAYS TO BUILD CONFIDENCE IN STAKEHOLDER LEGITIMACY (CAPTIONING WILL APPEAR HERE) >> There's still a couple of chairs free, so if anyone's sitting behind that would like to sit at a table. (Laughter) I might be looking in a certain direction, but -- >> (Speaker off mic) >> Okay. I think we are ready. We just have to wait until it's ready to live stream. Sorry. We are just waiting for tech. Hi. We'll start now. I'd like to welcome you to this workshop, which is looking at how we can increase confidence in stakeholder legitimacy. I have some slides which someone will now switch to, just to give a brief introduction. We do have slides. Anyone? Slides. Here we go. Slides. So why are we doing this? I can't see that screen, so I just have to look on this one. There we go. So just to give some context about the concept of what is legitimacy -- because often people talk about legitimacy, but what does it mean? There is a paper which I have a link to in presentation file which you can find from the shared page about this session from our information that describes two types of legitimacy. There's input and output legitimacy. So output legitimacy is the concept that the output is good, and so you know, because it's robust output, peel feel it's legitimate. The other issue is how the process works, so the input into that. Is to does everyone believe that they have the ability to participate fairly in the process? So that's the part that we are looking at today. Right. Sorry. I am looking at this screen and wondering why it's not changing because it's that one. I work in policy. Okay? (Laughter) So where does this link into the concept of increasing stakeholder legitimacy? Legitimacy is fine in a small situation where everyone feels that the output of the process is legitimate. People kind of have a lower threshold of understanding what legitimacy is. But as Internet Governance has become more complex, the issues have become larger. There's more risk that the outputs are not considered legitimate or that the other participants are not considered legitimate. So basically what I just said, in the original days of the Internet, it was a very small cohort of people who generally had the same culture, they all knew each other well, they were all volunteers, that sense of understanding who each other were, what their positions were, that they trusted that they were all doing this for the good of the future Internet worked well. But now we have many, many processes, many, many issues, many, many people, and it's hard to track it all and know from one person to another if you trust a person, another group. This's also so many positions, which means that it's harder to say that the output of a process is necessarily going to be agreed to by everyone. So it's easier to question the legitimacy of -- sorry. It's a Friday morning. The legitimacy of the stakeholders who led to that output. Also, there's increasing professionalism in Internet Governance. Most of you are here because your work paid. It's not like the early days where we were volunteers and paid for yourself. We still have a mix of individuals coming as volunteers and people who are here as professionals. So what does this mean? Because you have more people participating, you have more issues, more diverse issues, more diverse needs. You have no longer those informal trust systems that helped in the original days. But the whole point of the multistakeholder model is to ensure that no one actor, whether that be an individual or entity, is able to capture the process. Now, trust is used to help ensure or to feel that an individual or entity is not capturing the process, but if you can't have that trust with someone in a personal setting, then it's easier to not necessarily see that their input is legitimate and, therefore, that the output is legitimate. So today's workshop is looking at how can we reestablish trust that is starting to disappear as the Internet Governance arena becomes more complex and it's harder to have that trust. So today's workshop was originally going to be four breakout groups, but this room isn't particularly suited to that. And we don't have many people, so we are just going to do it -- we are going to use the UN process of breaking out a Plenary into a breakout group that actually consists of everyone. So we will start with Group 1, which Roxanna is going to take. If you like, if you have your laptops and like doing stuff at the same time, you can follow the Google docs that we are going to be inputting the information into. It's from the shared agenda page for this session, and then you can click on one of the four links, and it will take you through, so I will hand over to rocks San in a. >> Thank you, this is rock San in a from DiploFoundation. The discussion on multistakeholder legitimacy is both timely and much needed. I think we all agree there is a very strong normative dimension to it. So in breakout group 1, we will be exploring a little bit this normative dimension and also some of the practical ways to go about it. So the question we want to look at here is the following: Is there a need to prove the legitimacy of stakeholder groups and their members? And if so, what are the ways that legitimacy can be established? So first, is there a need; and second, how do we go about it? Any input from your side would be greatly appreciated. As Sam mentioned, we will be adopting a practice very common in the multistakeholder framework, namely this working group style where we have a document, we can input things directly, and we would welcome your contributions, either directly on the document or comments at the microphone that we can later on type. Any ideas on is there a need to improve the legitimacy of stakeholder groups? Looking at Internet Governance process as it is right now with this multitude of subprocesses, and also thinking about the organizations you work for, the kind of meetings that you attend, is there a need to improve the legitimacy -- to prove it and to improve it, maybe -- of stakeholder groups? >> JIM PRENDERGAST: This is Jim Prendergast. I may answer your question with another question. That is going back maybe to something Sam touched on, you know, how do you establish legitimacy? In this space, it's showing up and doing the work, I think. That at least is my impression. And I think you can -- by the time, energy, you put into the multistakeholder process, you might overstate your legitimacy by being the organization or individual that's every place at every time. It seems like you are taking over the space. But I think a track record of accomplishment, a willingness to contribute, a willingness to see and recognize differences of opinions and positions and appreciate those, and you know, accommodate them. I think we all know that the multistakeholder process is not the most beautiful thing in the world. It's ugly. It's messy. It's long and drawn out. But I think at the end of the day, it does produce some results that, generally speaking, everybody seems to be satisfied with. Some people will walk away dissatisfied because they didn't get what they want, but that's the nature, I think, of the whole process. >> Thomas from the German federal office, I am the government stakeholder in this group. Just one observation concerning the first slide. When you introduced the issue, you talked about input and output legitimacy, and all of a sudden with the next slide that you just gave us, we talk about a completely different category, namely, the legitimacy of players. That's not the same thing. And concerning your proposal, those are legitimate who do the work and show up, I mean, then we are back again to who can afford to come and do the work? And then you are professionalizing the process because some small NGOs don't have the resources, can't show up, even though they may have legitimate concerns or may have a legitimate role. Or it could be the Mafia Microsoft who pays people to come here and influence the process. So presence and involvement in the discussion can't be the only thing. In our discussions back home when I talk to, for example, parliament, about legitimacy of NGO when they participate. They are not democratically legitimate. They may have an issue, may be smart and good and everything, but we are elected and they are not. They are just representing themselves; whereas, others have been elected to present issues. So that may also be a little background on how we can assess the legitimacy of organizations as such or people or those who they represent. Because just doing the work is maybe not enough >> JIM PRENDERGAST: Yeah, you pointed out something I said, and I just want to clarify it, and it came up in a session earlier in the week, and that is physically showing up is not required to be legitimate. So being at this meeting does not -- you don't have to be here to be legitimate. I think we all know and have been on those 3:00 a.m. conference calls, no matter where you live, that a lot of the work in the multistakeholder process takes place outside of formal meetings like this and between them and throughout the course of the year. >> But I think you brought forth a very important issue. We are trying to merge the two to get to the ways in which the process can benefit from having some sort of a clear idea of how it works with the different stakeholder groups. So we will get there. I think we are just doing a longer loop, and then we will get to that as well. Because our next question will tackle the ways in which the legitimacy of stakeholder groups can be assessed, and there we go into transparency, we go into inclusion, and so on. But we will get there in a bit. Please, you have a comment. >> I am John, one of the strange beasts that was part of the original people, although an outlier of the cluster that Sam was referring to. I think there's yet another dimension in addition to the issues about legitimacy by selection. And that dimension is legitimacy by having any idea what you are talking about. And one of the things that caused me to drop out of IGF about nine years ago was a large number of people who were standing up and making rather profound statements about the Internet and how it worked and how it intereracted with their particular interests without any idea about what they were actually talking about or, Al termtively, with alternatively expressing views which were both accurate and legitimate in some alternate reality. And I don't know the degree to which that connects with your ideas of legitimacy. But it certainly connects down the road and with inter-community legitimacy connections. It's connected in a different way with some issues that in other contexts we used to vies a having skin in the game. So there are two separate issues. Is there enough knowledge in what we are talking about as a group, and is there enough investment in what's going on that one should appropriately be taken seriously by people who have very large investments in what's going on. >> Hi. Thanks. My name is Kevon Swift. I am making a comment in my personal capacity. I am from the Caribbean. I just want to put another consideration for this legitimacy question. I am glad that I have my other Caribbean compatriots here, who can probably add to the comments I am making. I am taking into consideration the gentleman from Germany, his comment in terms of how we started. We had a frame looking at input and output legitimacy, and then does -- do we have to prove it, or should it be improved? It does need to be improved. And I will give you exactly what happens in the Caribbean. We are working with numerical limitations, and we are also on the other end of not just global divide, but also a knowledge divide. So whereas we can easily say it's just a question of showing up and putting out work, in real practical terms, that is somewhat difficult. When I say so, if that's the baseline that we are all supposed to use, it doesn't really take into consideration the reality that many of us are faced with. At this point in time within the Caribbean, we are very well familiar with the players in Internet Governance processes. We could probably count them on our fingers. And the fact of the matter is, is that, again, because of our realities, we don't have discussions about Internet Governance in our own countries. We don't even have education on it, we don't have dialogues, we don't have forums at times. So we -- the few people who are there, when they are exhausted, we come back to this huge leap back or this huge step back at any particular moment in time. So I don't think it's useful to say it's just a question of showing up and doing a bunch of work and then everything is okay because the restrictions and limitations that are there just naturally just doesn't accommodate for that. Now, on the other hand, I am not really saying as a suggestion that we should make special categories for it, but it's just to understand that the realities or the baseline needs to be defined a bit more and accommodate a lot more realities than the folks who have resources and have the time to come and participate in processes every day, every night, and still do their day-to-day job. So I will just hand over to Carlton to continue. >> Thank you, Kevin. Carlton Samuels. I am from Jamaica. I teach at University of West Indies. I want to just jump in a bit about -- started out well, input/output legitimacy, I understand that very well. But then it comes to how do you measure and where do you exercise that legitimacy? Let me give you a practical example. Kevon told you there are only a few of us in the Caribbean that are really invested in this, and we are volunteers. I have a day job. I participate in the ICANN process a lot, and I have a great investment of time and energy and knowledge in that. I have been on review teams, I have been in working groups, and so on. Here is the thing. It is multistakeholder, but the guy beside me who is on the review team, that's his day job. The guy beside me who is on that review team is paid six figures to be there. Nobody pays me to be there. But the quality of my input is expected to be just as much as theirs. And that's where I have a voice. Sometimes being in the room is as important as having the knowledge elsewhere. Because in a lot of these multistakeholder organizations and the way it works is that you try to influence outcomes for legitimacy, and oftentimes being there physically is the way to get that done. So we have a conundrum. And it's not easy -- I am not suggesting at all that it is easy to solve, but I wish for you to at least understand the challenges that some of us have in being legitimate. Thanks. >> I could have put my glasses on. I am Kathy handily, and I am with the American Registry for Internet Numbers. like John, I have been -- and Carlton -- I have been playing this for a long, long time. I was doing Internet Governance before it was a term. And people would -- you would say you were going to do Internet Governance, and they would just look at you like huh. Then I had a large group of people who thought it was great because you got to travel and see the world. Consequently -- and this is maybe not going to be very nice -- but consequently, the field of Internet Governance has grown exponentially. And my question back to -- and Sam and I have talked about it before -- is what is legitimate in I don't know anything about building highways and roads, but I can go complain about them. I don't know it would be -- they would take that as being legitimate. And particularly coming from the technical community, that's something we are really struggling with is people who want to represent themselves as being legitimate and short of saying what makes you think you are legitimate to comment about the way we do things? That's tough, and that's something I think we all need to look at or think about is not just what constitutes legitimacy to the German parliament, but what constitutes legitimacy to sitting around a table discussing various Internet issues. Thank you. >> And a quick clarification. I don't have any problem with people complaining about roads they don't understand how to build or even about Internets they don't understand how to build. I do have a problem at the boundary between knowing what one knows and knowing what one doesn't know and crossing that boundary in the process of discussions. >> We have another comment? Yes, please. >> I am Lori Schulman from the International Trademark Association, and I have a number of thoughts about this and also a response to the comment from our colleague at the table. I am sorry, I don't know him personally. I am going to do it backwards. My first comment is -- and I have been thinking a lot about this. I am one of the privileged ones. I represent the private sector. I represent an association that pays me to come to meetings. So I am that person who you wish there may be a little less of and maybe a little more of someone playing on an equal playing field. But there is a place for the interest I represent, so I am not here to argue that. But I do agree that there is an imbalance. And one of the things that I started to think about and suggested in a workshop earlier this week is maybe we need to start thinking about tiered engagement. There are some of us for whatever reason, because perhaps we have more skin in the game -- you know, I heard the term "Mafia Microsoft" here, and while I understand the intent of that, I also feel in some way that de-legitimizes the private sector interest as well using terms like that. So to be careful about saying maybe there's underrepresentation and everyrepresentation, how do we balance representation. But the more money and the more interest that way economically is in the process, the more you are going to see engagement, which is a big issue at ICANN in terms of where does the money go, registrars and registries, so you are going to see the balance of power there. Even in ICANN, the business constituency isn't a balance power. It doesn't have the same access and strength as the contracted in ICANN. Then getting back to if we are thinking of a new paradigm, particularly post- Diana, when an organization is large as influential as ICANN on its own, and where does IGF now fit in that? Do the policy issues now level out a little more? Does the leveling change? I don't know. But in all these scenarios and thoughts, if we don't find a way to have levels of engagement and all those levels are in some way legitimized, then we are just going to be running around in circles again. So where I think it's important to become creative and I don't have the answer is, is there some way where those who are taking the deep dive, it gets to a certain level, and then we have communication means, and pardon the word "marketing," but I don't have a better one now -- marketing means where we can then sort of push out sort of that ripple effect, that butterfly effect, because yes, particularly in the developing nations, people do not have the same resources we have in the developing nations, but they clearly are legitimate users and have an access reliability to be safe on the Internet. So sometimes I think we might approach this the wrong way saying how can we get more in using the model we are using now. Let's think about perhaps turning the model into a different paradigm. As I said, with these levels. But I don't know how they work, but I think they are worth talking about it. >> As is typical, park that idea because in the session I will moderate, we will talk about sort of tiered or weighted participation, so it's pa good topic for us to come back to -- a good topic for us to come back to. >> ROXANA RADU: I think we have heard so far about legitimacy by selection showing up in a room for a selected number of people. Doing the job, expertise is one important element when it comes to that. It's not just anyone who shows up to the discussions, but also their input counts. We heard about intercommunity legitimacy, which might be something to explore further on. The quality of the work that counts. The self-asserted membership. Establishing who should represent what stakeholder. We also raised the issue of money, who would be able to pay for these processes. And of course, we had the umbrella question of what is legitimate in the end. And in thinking about this workshop, we've laid out a few dimensions that might be interested to explore as we move further in the discussions. The first -- they are all related to the process, so we included transparency, maybe transparency of membership. Here we could look at conflict of statements, statements of interest, endorsement by other members, participation in different activities. Then if we look at transparency of deliberation, there's also multistakeholder input to be assessed there. The inclusiveness of deliberation; does everyone get the chance to participate? Are we representing also the vulnerable who cannot be in the room with us? And also where the money comes from, when we plook at funding, at the travel support, at -- when we look at funding, at travel support, at income, it might be an important dimension to take into account. And I think with this, we can move to the second discussion that will go to the specifics. >> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: I can't turn the on/off button by myself. So it was interesting that first discussion talking about the difficulty in resources which impacts on how people can participate, so that brings us to the second document, which, if anyone is looking at the shared, you can click on. So here we are looking at how stakeholder groups are composed. Are the current configurations, permutations right for now? So if you look back to the Tunis agenda, the main groupings were -- and I hope people can hear over the very loud people next door. Is that okay? Can you guys down the bottom hear okay? Okay. Great. The original Tunis Agenda talked about having governments, civil society, and the private sector as the main -- and I think IGOs -- as the main group. Academia and technical were actually considered part of all of those groups. But we've kind of pushed the tech and academia into a group that is now separate within the IGF context and the CSTD context. But there are also other permutations in other organizations. If you look at ICANN, you have governments, you have two versions of civil society, you've got the NCUC and the alack. Business -- ALAC. Business is kind of distributed via the GTLD or the GNSO thing. You've got business constituency, the intellectual property constituency, so different Internet Governance processes and organizations group their stakeholders differently. Which can make it difficult when you are moving from one group to another or if you wear multiple hats. So there's a couple of questions we are looking at in this section. So do you think, for a start, looking at the overall WSIS groupings, are they still relevant? Is it difficult -- and I think civil society would probably say yes -- to manage within such large groupings? So you look at civil society, and it's such a diverse group, but it's labeled "civil society." So when, say, governments look at civil society and they hear multiple conflicting views or -- it makes it difficult for the civil society group to perhaps appear legitimate to governments because it seems so fragmented. Is it useful to relook at those groups? Are there groups worth keeping? Should they be updated by stakeholder groups? Can they form their own groups within that? How do we do this, or do you have any thoughts? Anyone? >> This is Lori Schulman. I would be a little careful about necessarily following the ICANN model because there's a lot of questions within ICANN whether or not that model is really what is the best model. The problem with redefining stakeholder groups or building silos around certain interests is that's exactly it. It's silos. So instead of looking at issue areas, we all get lumped in some bucket, whether it's civil society or private sector or technical or academic when, in fact, some of the interests we have completely overlap. And I would argue too, even looking at the ICANN model, now that we have the new GTLTD program and we have dot brands -- brands -- which traditionally have been buyers of domains are now becoming registries rather than registrants. So even those lines are blurring. So my personal view about this is I'd like to see less clumping together by business or civil society or academic and more toward issue- based areas, real issues, issues about access, issues about crime, issues about privacy, you know, and then it doesn't matter where you come from. It's that you have a collective interest to solve a problem. >> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: So you are talking about moving more away from stakeholders and just being completely issue-based? >> Yeah, I think issue based in the long run might be the solution because as you know, those who are involved in the ICANN process know, well, we did come together for the IANA transition. We now seem to be treading back toward our old sectors and silos, and I have a little fear that we won't have the same level of cooperation and spirited engagement that we had over the last two years. >> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: That's an interesting concept. I am wondering -- because I attend a lot of UN-related meetings, so I mean, that's interesting, I think, within the ICANN concept, but if you were going to the UN and discussing, say, the Human Rights Council, and you said look, we are talking about privacy. We are -- all of us who are interested in privacy will talk together, I think some governments would find it very difficult to say, well, we are not going to distinguish that you, sir, are from a private sector having a say versus someone from a government wanting to have a perspective. So I think it may work in a more level playing field forum, but it may not work in forums where governments are participating or the issue is more within a governmental environment. >> I will note, though, that the WSIS did try this a little bit at the WSIS Forum in Geneva, where it was more participatory and more conversational, which I thought worked well. That was only the second WSIS that I had been to, but compared to the first, I did feel more engaged. I will disclose I was one of the high-level facilitators, but I think there can be, though, sort of this understanding that governments are governments and will always be governments. But when you are talking about policy, to have more open dialogues at the WSIS level makes sense because at the end of the day, the outcomes still are going to be reliant on implementation, either at the government level or the private sector level, and then that's when you might split out implementation. But the actual discussion and formulating an idea about solutions, I don't see why you need any sort of delineation at all. It's the implementation phase where I think it matters more. >> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: I think that's interesting. I think the discussion as issue based is interesting. I think the complication comes when it comes to decision-making. That's potentially. So I will be really interested hearing from a government at this point. Is a government willing to? >> Sorry. I was just supposed to hear and not participate, but I am from Chile, from the Government of Chile, posted in Geneva, but I work in the International Directorate of Economic Affairs. So I was just thinking that there's a lot that we can do at our national level because I also yesterday in the panel of trade and Internet, there was this discussion about funding and how can we make the participation more sound and people be there present in the negotiations, but where I come from, a developing country, so obviously for us that's more difficult. But we do move forward in areas that probably were not based in multistakeholder model, but we have transparency laws. We have a civil society council in our directorate. And everyone participates in the same level here in these councils, that we meet regularly based on specific issues to discuss. The interested parties meet with the negotiators, for example. We have side rooms for the trade negotiators and trade negotiations. And I think that this is important because everyone is considered the same way. There are a few requirements, just to be a nonprofit organization, so you need to create one if you don't have one, and have an interest in the issue, and then different specific tables are created to discuss negotiations or topics in particular. And this helps a lot for us as developing countries and as a government to have the input of the interested parties to then bring this to the international negotiations without having the struggle of the funding. I think this is an important tool that probably it's not emerging from the multistakeholder process, but it definitely adds in an input of participation in a very important way. I have to say as a negotiator that always these inputs are welcome and we use them. Well, a different level is WIPO, where I currently work, that we do have also participation of civil society, business in the same level, and that they can be there present. We also have these same kind of technology with the transcript and the video streamed in time in the same moment through the Internet for people that can't travel to Geneva. So that's what I can say at this point, and it's very interesting to be here. Thank you. >> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: Any other comments at this point? >> Hello. I am from the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Division of information society. During the whole discussion, I heard this talk about legitimacy of actors and legitimacy of processes. But one thing that strikes me that's also relevant or could be considered relevant is the legitimacy of goals in the process. Because this is one thing that has changed a lot in the Internet governance a bit because when Internet Governance started, the impact of the impact on the world was much smaller. So the goal of developing the Internet in itself would not so easily be seen as conflicting with other possible goals, like protecting national jurisdiction in cases of cyber crime or fighting terrorism or whatever subject governments typically are concerned with. So I think somehow, if you think of the contribution that the multistakeholder model has to offer, solve different kinds of problems that are getting each time more complex as the Internet gets more complex and more relevant to the society as a whole, I think we at some point have to accept that there's no one-size- fits-all solution for the multistakeholder model. The way it works for certain problems, to solve certain problems, would not necessarily work when try to go solve other problems, like jurisdictional conflicts and things like that. So I think we also need to have this broader perspective, and it may be frustrating in a sense because it makes certain problems more difficult to understand and to treat, but that's reality. >> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: Yeah, I think that's really interesting about the one size doesn't fit all, and that is not the purpose of this workshop. The idea is just to get ideas generated. There is not going to be a solution coming out of this workshop. The idea is to get people thinking about this and then applying it to their own processes and forums. Any other comments at this point? Yes. >> Yeah, I think as you just mentioned yourself and also my colleague from Chile mentioned the processes, I wanted to continue my argument that I made before about legitimacy. My answer to, for example, parliamentarians who wonder about the legitimacy of NGOs, is almost always they don't need legitimacy. You have to be legitimate in the very moment that you have a competence to decide something, when you are involved in decision-making. But as long as we are talking about getting a feel for what a democratic society wants about input, technical input, expertise, then governments or anyone, whichever organization takes a decision, can listen to just anyone and then decide whether they listen to those persons or not. But the moment that decisions are being taken, then you really have to ask about the legitimacy of actors and process and output in all of this. And of course, when we come to Internet Governance, there we have different players who really can decide. It's not governments to decide. No way. That's why we have all the structures that you have been working in for so long, because we have a decision-making capacity of your own. And that's when legitimacy comes into play. >> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: Kathy. >> I want to go back to the comment that the gentleman from Brazil made. I think it's important, the piece about one size doesn't fit all. We are still running on a multistakeholder format that came about 2003 and 2005, and we're being multistakeholder on something that's totally different than what we started out with. The point of national issues is huge. More and more countries -- I happen to know Carlton is extremely active and has been in the Caribbean, which is extremely helpful. But it's not a one size that came out of WSIS. I think you need to look at what the issue it. I look at Regional Internet Registries. We have great input, multistakeholder input. And we write our own policies. But we live in a very different world than almost everybody else in this room. And that makes it -- >> (Speaker off mic). >> Yes, thank you. Thank you. >> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: Any other comments at this point? >> My name is Andre. Would like to tell a couple of words of multistakeholder model. For my personal opinion, the multistakeholder model is the most (Inaudible) for the whole Internet Governance process. That's why it made legitimate of establishing this model. And I believe not now but in any kind of period, the multistakeholder model will be resulting in decision-making, maybe in the format of this Internet Governance Forum as it was happened over the International Labor Organization. It's the example of the organization which has not only governmental representatives, and it has decision-making capacity. The same will happen with the IGF with multistakeholder model in the future. Thank you very much. >> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: Thanks. Is there any more comments? I was going to go back to the WSIS Forum and just make a point about the issue-based discussions. One interesting thing is -- and the governments not here -- there has been some push-back to the organizers of the WSIS Forum about the way that the high-level panels are composed. Some governments feel that -- feel very uncomfortable that they are on the stage with, in their point of view, some random civil society member that doesn't necessarily -- they don't see how they are representing a large group; whereas, a government may be representing millions. So that is, even within the context of the WSIS forum, they may not be saying it publicly, but you do have some stakeholders thinking why is this person here? Why are they on the same footing as me? That's where I am kind of looking at the groupings. How can we find ways that help other groups who are perhaps suspicious of where someone else is coming from? Yeah, okay. >> I have a question to that statement. If there is push-back but it has been public push-back, I could understand that. I mean, governments are who they are, and they are top down. There we go. But at the same time, I guess what I am feeling a little curious about is, again, WSIS is about discussion. It's not about decision-making. So where I don't understand, then, is where I'll use the word "threat," but it's probably not diplomatically correct. But where that tension might arise. Why wouldn't -- it's just a question of this sort of traditional sense of hierarchy? >> (Speaker off mic). >> Okay. So how do -- okay. That's fine. So we understand that. So then a different question would be if there is a general agreement -- and I am not going to say consensus, but some sort of understanding that discussion may be a better way to go in the future on some issues, how to we socialize that with governments in a way that at least in a forum by the nature of its name is a forum should be facilitating discussion. I mean, that's been a big criticism of WSIS all along, that it's government, ministers standing up and talking for half an hour with no opportunity to engage at all. And if we don't figure out a way to kind of dovetail the need of the government with the need of, I would say, a greater popular Internet interest in movement in multistakeholderism, we will be here ten years from now having the same discussion. >> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: One more comment, then I'll wrap up, and that actually works very well into Jim's section. >> I am not sure if it was covered, and I apologize for being late, but I think just on your point, there's an issue around forum and institutional legitimacy as well that I think needs to -- that goes hand in hand with stakeholder legitimacy and individual legitimacy, and I think that might be part of the tension, even though it's not outcome based. I think some governments want an outcome anyway, right, regardless of the sort of format of it as well. So hopefully we'll talk a little more about the institutional aspect of it. >> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: I did have a really great thought for summing up, but then in listening to Dominique, I've completely forgotten it. That's fine. But I think this segues very well, though, into the next section, which is looking at levels of stakeholder participation, that we have an interesting environment in which -- well, it's mixed across Internet Governance processes, but in some processes people speak on behalf of an entire stakeholder group or an institution. In other places like the IGF retreat earlier this year, people were encouraged to speak in their personal capacity. If you have the working group on enhanced corporation that's happening at CSTD, the stakeholder groups nominate their representatives, but do those representatives, if they are speaking in a personal capacity, have some sort of requirement or do other stakeholders expect them to be liaising back with other stakeholders so that that is a stakeholder group-wide legitimate participation rather than one person and their personal thoughts? And so this moves into Jim. >> JIM PRENDERGAST: Great. Thanks, Sam. Jim Prendergast again. So the way I would sort of kick it off is stakeholders come in all shapes and sizes. You know, even sitting in this room, we have active individuals, we have active associations, we have active governments. When those three people line up at a public forum and make their comments, should their comments be treated equally based upon the fact that they have legitimacy in their own right in who they are representing? Or does who you represent imply a greater or lesser level of legitimacy? And does that legitimacy change when that individual then takes their hat off and uses that phrase that we all love "in my personal capacity." So that's sort of the questions I want to throw out there and kick them around. Lori, I don't want to put you on the spot, but I have heard you say I know this is a personal frustration of yours. I'm not Lori Schulman. I represent 6,000 association members of INTA. So maybe I'll get you to start it off, and I am sure others will weigh in as well. >> You pretty much said it. I will say I have been active in this space now probably over a dozen years. I have sat in different aisles, so to speak, civil society, working for health and NGOs, working for corporate interests, and now for a trade association that has Fortune 500, NGOs, academics, and technical members but who are focused on the issue of branding and are interested in the Internet is, of course, a safe and reliable Internet as most people want, engaged Internet, and thovs are the issues that we shall -- those are the issues that we work on. I do have a level -- I am extremely seeped in the ICANN process, and over the last few years, become more involved in WSIS and IGF and learning to expand our horizons because one thing I did note in the open sessions for MAG this year, it was noted how there used to be more private sector participation than there is now and encouraging more private sector participation, how that would work I don't know, but I would like to think that our organization could help in that effort to bring more private sector voices in an economical way through me. Which goes to my point. Yes, there are times when I am speaking for 6,000 members who have an interest, an interest in supporting healthy, safe, consumer goods, services, products being traded over the Internet. That's why I'm here. At the same time, I do have this personal expertise and interest in how do people know when to separate the two? But I think when you say "in my personal capacity," that does make a difference. I think it does anyway. I've said it myself. I have stood at ICANN and said there's not enough women in the leadership. And I say that in my personal capacity because a trade association that's devoted to branding probably is not going to have an opinion one way or the other about the composition of the leadership of ICANN as a human issue as much as I am here to advance industry issues; right? So there are times when having that personal hat makes a world of difference. But other times I will say that in working groups, particularly working groups that are devoted to issues that are very near and dear to private sector, like rights protection, access to information for enforcement purposes, you'll have one voice maybe on a call, my voice, and then you have six others chiming in in opposition to whatever is being discussed, and the perception is it's 6:1, so we don't have consensus. But that's when I feel like but I am speaking for 6,000 and we've developed a position, and this is our position. And why? Because there's six of you and one of me. Why do those six count more? That is a problem. >> JIM PRENDERGAST: Let me phrase that conundrum a little differently, and I am not going to ask either of the two people whose names I used to weigh in on this first. What if Carlton disagrees with the position that you have, as an individual? You, on behalf of 6,000; Carlton as an individual. For the folks sitting around the table, is there a difference in legitimacy? Should we add weight to one opinion or another? Or does it not really matter in the whole debate of ideas? You can't go first, either one of you. >> I think it really depends on the forum that we are in. Here at IGF, the very idea is we all come to the table. I don't even know who you represent. If you have a smart, intelligent point to make, I listen and find it interestin. Of course, I have no other legitimacy or anything than anyone around this table. That's the point of IGF, that we are all here to exchange ideas. But of course, if you and I go to the UN to a commission on whatever, CSTD or -- you make a statement and I make a statement, then, of course, I would be representing government, I will be responsible back home if I speak nonsense, my Minister will have to go to Parliament and justify what the hell the German diplomat has ton at the UN; whereas, you maybe confronting your own people, but it doesn't have a public at this mention. In that sense, legitimacy also has to do with responsibility. And whether you are -- whether you can be held accountable for your positions. >> JIM PRENDERGAST: That's a really good point. >> In one line, could we say, then, legitimacy is contextual? That would be something that we would have to consider in terms of tackling these issues of multistakeholderism. >> JIM PRENDERGAST: Carlton is over there giving air quotes. (Laughter) Roaming microphone. Is it that disappear? Okay. And if you would, just -- I know some folks have already spoken, but just restate your name for the scribe feeds and the record, that would be great. >> Hello. Great. Thanks again. And I am going to state it. I think -- well, first and foremost, Kevon Swift. I work at LACNIC, which is the Latin American Caribbean Internet registry, and I am talking in my capacity. (Laughter) >> JIM PRENDERGAST: Which capacity? Is >> My personal capacity. And really, I agree fully with the idea of legitimacy needing to be contextual because Internet Governance process is completely different from a UN-based process, just based on what -- who you are representing and what the interests are. But I just wanted to put another light to this in that, as mentioned before, because of all the prevailing conditions or differences that happen outside of this forum -- and I am going back to the example of the Caribbean. You don't have Caribbean people here. But at the same time, you have someone who works in the Internet in a completely safe area, as Kathy mentioned, a completely different area, which is the RIR community, but it's also involved in here, these are the discussions, both at the global level and then back home. So when I say "in my capacity," these are opinions that are formed from discussions I hear from back home but from people who really just cannot participate. They don't have time, they at no time have resources, and they don't have context. So it's just to say that there is still some validity in making that contribution in my personal capacity, although we can't probably afford to attribute to it the same amount of legitimacy, depending on the exact process. >> JIM PRENDERGAST: All right. So let me twist it around a little bit. So one of the things we have heard a lot about, at least in the ICANN space, and I think you could argue in the IGF space, is the volunteer burnout, you know, fatigue. How do you encourage and grow participation amongst newcomers and at the same time help them grow, develop, and build legitimacy so that they feel comfortable participating from a standpoint of, you know, of power essentially or respect? How do you bring people along the legitimacy scale in an environment like this or elsewhere? >> (Inaudible) Samuels, I am from Jamaica. That's a big problem for us. For those of us who are engaged in the Caribbean, it's a small group, and we are increasingly worried about burnout and not having anybody to take the baton and move it on. Here's the thing -- and my friend here said it earlier -- this is knowledge-based interaction. Knowledge required. And to acquire knowledge, it takes time and it takes effort. And that takes an investment. When you are volunteering, it's an even greater investment. For us -- Kevon will tell you -- we try to recruit people. Everywhere we go, every opportunity we get, we try to recruit people. And the biggest bug there is, well, the investment of time that I have to put in, and then somehow to feel I am making the contribution, the legitimacy -- again, back to the legitimacy argument. We are struggling with it in the Caribbean because of the knowledge gap. So you have to build capacity to engage in the arguments and the issues that Lori was talking about. And we even go as far as saying, okay, well, just take one issue. Take privacy. Or take access. Or take governance. And just focus on that and let us help you to move up the tree. The other problem is when you get into international fora because this is kind of cliquish, to tell the truth. I know Kathy for a long time, and I have worked with Kathy for a long time. So Kathy has my trust. Kathy has my trust. It's just as simple as that. She has my trust because I have worked with her for a long time, I have known her for a long time. Somebody new coming into this environment, you've got to build that trust. You've got to build that before you get accepted. And it takes time. There is no easy way to it. I am just telling you. The structural problems, the structural challenges that you face that are separate from the knowledge ones, the acquisition knowledge, acquisition challenges that you face, or even the participatory ones, the ability to participate, whether remote. Here's the other thing. We get people interested, and then we say we have remote participation as a way of capacity building in stuff that's happening. Then you have to use the technology, and the technology fails. And the technology fails, and they get demotivated. And then we have to go the long road again to get them remotivated. Simple things like that turn off people. I mean, just getting on a platform, you can't get onto the platform, it's a big thing. Language issues. We've had situations in the Caribbean where the first time they have to listen to a translation, they say well, it's just too much. And they bow out. So these are practical challenges. And they are structural. That is very hard to negotiate. But I don't know how else to do them except keep plugging along, just keep plugging along. >> JIM PRENDERGAST: I think one thing you just highlighted, not to short- circuit it, it's a lot more than just money. And we forget that all the time. >> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: Okay. We've got two more, then we really have to move on because poor Dominique rushed from another session, so I want to make sure she gets time to do hers. >> I am having strange feelings here because by my standards, everyone in this room is a newcomer. (Laughter) I was part of the first IANA transition. Half a dozen people talking to a half a dozen other people. We are dealing with some very interesting scaling issues here. I was part of a discussion about how a network which was self-organized and collaborative on an international basis would come together and whether or not it would work in 1967. So this is old stuff, and part of that gets back to these other comments. And incidentally, I am speaking in my personal capacity because it's the only one I have left. (Laughter) But when we are talking about process legitimacy, we are creating a problem for ourselves that directly connects with what Carlton is saying. Because we can force people out or at least disillusion them and push them out simply by making the processes and things which are going on so long, so complex, and so repetitive and in so many venues that people just simply get fed up. Unless, of course, they are being driven by the traditional motivator, which is how can I make money off of this. And I fear that that's becoming part of our problem. Again. And And in is a same light, I am very, very cautious about using ICANN and how it operates as an example, not because it's a good example or a bad example, but because I came back here after nine years in the hope that after this last transition we can be discussing Internet Governance, not what ICANN does and how it relates to everything else, because that turns into another legitimacy problem. Thank you. >> I am sorry, I have to run, and I apologize, but I want to stick in, I am so happy you are here and to meet you as a baby. I love it. (Laughter) But that's where I'd like -- I have my card here. If there's some sort of working group around this or some follow-up, I am extremely interested, and my organization is interested in this topic. But I want to get back to I think how do you bring people in? Based on what this concept about multitiered, I think there's got to be staged involvement. To say just dive in, find something interesting, I think that's the most intimidating thing in the world. You have to get used to the water. So I think we have a responsibility to figure out how to help people acclimate, so all of a sudden next week if I decide I am interested in privacy issues and I go on to a working group, no matter where it is, but let's say ICANN, and now all of a sudden I have at least one hour a week of phone calls, five hours a week of reading and prep, I mean, that's not going to encourage anybody. And yes, I am one of the exhausted ones. (Laughter) >> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: Thank you. I still can't turn the button on. We are going to transition into the final section which I thought we might have come up with this earlier, but we haven't. I will explain why we are moving into this concept. It goes into John's discussion about processes sometimes being so disheartening that people drop out. And there have been stakeholder -- well, and this happens often in large stakeholder groups that have lots of conflicting viewpoints, that they may be dominated by one or two voices that, because they have the resources, because they are loud, because they don't care what other people think of them, are able to dominate processes, which can make even that stakeholder group feel that its final positions or inputs into another process are not legitimate. So now we are going to move on and look at how do we deal with that within our own stakeholder groups? How do you kind of sanction those misbehaving members who may affect your whole group's reputation? >> DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI: So I get the last ten minutes, maybe, not even? And we should summarize as well. And sorry for being late. So far, by the way, what I have heard has been really, really interesting because I think in our exhaustion and travel, we don't get a chance to take a moment to look at and reflect what we are actually doing and why we are doing it. For those -- most of you know me, I think, but for those who don't, I am Dominique Lazanski, and I work at the GSMA, so I represent another trade association for -- with many, many diverse members who have very conflicting ideas about Internet Governance and other issues, so it's a challenge. So I guess just to follow up on what Samantha said, this is sort of the last phase of this discussion, and it's interesting to think about how do we exclude or sanction was the word you used or, you know, whatever kind of language we want to use around that for people who are not necessarily acting in perhaps the way we personally think that they should be acting or professionally think that they should be acting. To throw it out there, just to hear your views, much more interesting than mine, should this be like a social contract? Should this be a more formal process? Should this even happen at all? So I just wanted to open that up, and again, if anyone who is left wants to kind of come in, even you guys, I hope that works, I hope that helps. And I am exhausted by the way, so if I sound incoherent, I apologize. Yeah, I am illegitimate. >> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: Part of the reason we wanted to talk about this is there are actually public, informal ways that multistakeholder groups handle this. But the problem with having these informal, nonpublic process sincerely that it can be seen as a way of preventing present pation. So the reason I am talking about this is because -- participation -- so the reason I am talking about this is because we want to have these processes kind of public so that people can go yes, this is a process that we are all aware of and that we can -- if we don't think it's relevant -- if it's being used illegitimately, we can then push back against it. But at the moment, things like, to give an example, some forums may know that some members would steer the discussion off into ways that are, you know, disruptive, shall we say. Some may organize the agenda in a way that doesn't give any space to discussion or the particular topic that they know one member is going to hop on about. And so those are things that, you know, if you are looking at a general agenda, you are not going to realize is happening, but it's a way of dampening down participation of certain members that they view to have less legitimate input into the process. So that's why this is the discussion. It's not about trying to limit legitimate participation, but to find legitimate processes to ensure that there's greater confidence in processes so the end product is that everyone feels that the participation and the output, the input is legitimate. It's not about sanctions for the sake of sanctions. >> So I think one thing you brought up is there's a tension, perhaps, in perception between different groups. I think this is one thing that happens -- this is me speaking in a personal capacity -- is that some of us know each other for a long time, so we do create those trust networks that was mentioned earlier, but also that means that we tend to self-select, too, which is not necessarily a good thing. I am just making a sort of statement. In the sense that we know certain individuals that we struggle with or we may not think is legitimate or we may not even, in a transparent way, that funding or whatever the background may be for them to attend these meetings, that makes it quite challenging. So I am going to stop talking now and see if anyone else has any other ideas. >> As a government representative having worked at the UN, of course, government representatives act on instructions. So it's hard to assume, well, I like or I don't like this person or can I get rid of it? That person will be around because they have a position, is being sent there on mission and gets instructions. Here I don't have instructions to say because my superiors didn't foresee any of this. So I am relatively free to talk. But of course, at the UN, one way of excluding stakeholders and participants you don't like is to set up (Inaudible) procedures. That's why a number of countries, including my own, when defending this multistakeholder process at UN or UN-related processes, we always say we don't want this procedure that we have at ECOSOC, for example, where an NGO needs to be accredited, get status, and certain rights follow from that status because the checking of an application is always difficult and controversial and politically unpleasant. So but one way, of course, would be to set up procedures that a person or an organization would have to climb up the ladder even to it get into the body that is where a certain type of negotiation is taking place. That's why multistakeholder is different from observer status. Observer status is something that the organization confers upon you, whereas multistakeholder is a different concept. And that's why it has different procedures for accepting people into the process. Which is important to keep the difference. The moment you talk no longer about multistakeholder but about multilateral, then you are in UN lingo, UN jargon. Then that means status and accreditation and observer, rather than being more free and more open towards multistakeholder. So watch the language that is being used. >> Kathy Handly. ARIN. I think one thing that's happened over the years is through peer pressure, we have been able to kind of cull the herd, if you will. And those that are kind of out on the fringe coming in, and it used to be they would be on the fringe and would come in and blow everything up. Honestly, I think the best way that we've managed as participants and members and whatever we are, to kind of keep each other in check. Carlton's comment about trust, if you don't want to go all the way to trust, there's a comfort level that I know -- I've known John a long time. We don't always agree, but you know, I am comfortable with what he says because it's another opinion. That's okay. I don't think we ever want to get rid of that. I think it's the responsibility as part of a multistakeholder group that we do some of that policing, for lack of a better term. >> And part of that is done through not just formal mechanisms, but informal mechanisms; right? So I mean, having those side conversations and lunches and dinners and whatever, having drinks or whatever it might be, having a coffee, actually does increase that level of trust and comfort. Sorry, you are leaving. (Laughter) >> I just want to ask a question. Multistakeholder is, of course, very good as success in promoting the innovation of Internet and also the development. But as for the developing countries, those communities are really very vague. So what's the best way for those countries maybe the representation of governments. So if there's any way, for like the capacity, to be participated as multistakeholders. Thank you. >> DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI: Does anyone want to comment? Yeah. >> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: I think that's really interesting, talking about the role of the government in representing the views of all stakeholders in developing countries because it's difficult for them to do it themselves. And I think that's interesting why this whole legitimacy question and potentially helping -- sanction is such a terrible term -- but dampen, cull the herd, is important because it's very difficult for new stakeholders for developing country stakeholders to be engaged in the process anyway, if they feel there's a bullying voice in the room that's well resourced, they may give up completely. >> Yeah, actually, what I mean for those multilateral processes, the representation of the developing countries is most of the cases are gairn teed because they have representation as -- are guaranteed because they have a representation as a country. But for the multistakeholder processes, for example, the ICANN process, I think most of the voices of the developing countries are not as heard because the communities are very weak in those countries. So I think that is also a problem that we have to face during the process of multistakeholder involvement. Thank you. >> I think that gets back to one of the issues we heard earlier about online and remote participation, quite frankly. It's still not good enough to be able to participate remotely. I feel even though we have the technology for it. It's ten past, so just any other thoughts on this in particular? I know many of you are probably winding up your day already. But does anybody want to jump in for anything else on this? Go ahead, please. >> Thank you. I would just like to add about this idea of the different level of participation and the fact that in these processes, some stakeholders might have more resources to go to more meetings versus others. But in the end, as government officials, will usually tend to look at the substance of the contributions, more than the amount of times we are faced with the same rhetoric discourse or speech. So I would just invite any stakeholder that has an interest in an issue, if the inputs are solid and are substantive, we will take them into consideration. Even if they are sent through an email or in paper form, that doesn't matter. Like, we will look to the substance beyond the amount of meetings that we might have with others because they have more resources to be there present in the rooms or at the side, I don't know. So I just want to invite interested stakeholders to approach governments and participate in the process. Thank you. >> DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI: Thank you for that. I am going to turn it over to you for a summary and wrap-up, but I think one thing that I would like to see out of this is sort of an ongoing discussion. I think we've only just started, and I think some of the trickier issues need to be evolved a bit. But thank you, and sorry, between, that I was late. >> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: Actually, before I wrap up, I wouldn't mind hearing from the other facilitators and just if you've got any ideas or if you thought of anything based on all the discussion we've had today. So I will start with Roxana because she was first. >> ROXANA RADU: Thank you. Listening to the contributions in the room, I think it's important to highlight again the transparency dimension. At the end of the day, if we look at how decisions are made, we end up with very small working groups, informal networks, people that know each other for a long time. So in talking about how more people can be involved, how newcomers can take a seat at the table, it's very important not to have an opaque process and to have this transparency at a level that is good enough for people to engage with. So not just the reports from the working groups, a million transcripts from what has the group discussed, but a way that would allow newcomers to participate in the process. >> JIM PRENDERGAST: I am not going to try and capture everything that was said, but somebody privately messaged me two minutes ago and said this was an excellent session. Somebody watching it remotely said this is an excellent session. It should really be one of those high-interest topic things at ICANN. (Laughter) So Sam, you might not be off the hook in a few minutes. >> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: Okay. Well, we've got one comment, yeah. >> Hi. My name is Susana Herring. I am an IGF Ambassador. Also a youth representative from Turkey. So talking about new comers and how they can participate or represent themselves or their communities, I liked very much the representative from Chile and when she said the quality of input matters and even reaching out to governments. But going from Turkey, from a country which is like Turkey, and I don't think in certain countries the quality of input matters. It's just who is saying it, that's the only thing that matters, and otherwise you are never heard. I want to take back something to my community, but I am not sure how to, and I am not sure if, like, this is my second IGF, and there are certain topics that I am interested in, but apart from being on a panel -- (cell phone sounding) Oh, so sorry. Apart from like participating in panels or even organizing them, I am not sure what the next step is and, like, so I was wondering, since this is such a -- this seemed a good place to ask everyone, like, what would your recommendations be? >> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: Okay. We'll talk about the next step next, but I want to go back quickly to the quality issue. Particularly in processes, actually, that are multilateral but we also saw it to a certain degree in -- I am sorry to refer to ICANN -- but the IANA process. When there are time-limited decisions that have to be made, quality can sometimes go out the win tow. You can get decisions being made by exhaustion. We saw that with the enhanced cooperation text in 2005. If we had thought about that, we would not have that, and we would not be having working groups reriving, you know, from -- reviving from the dead and becoming zombie groups. That is an advantage, actually, of the multistakeholder model that we often have, which is it's a never-ending process that you continue until you reach agreement. So that actually is where quality does work. But if you have a time-limited thing, it doesn't. Okay. So I think this has been an interesting discussion because it's things that we've all probably thought about in our own little heads but haven't discussed. I am wondering if one of the things we could start discussing is the concept of like the policy options or the policy menu for connecting the next billion. We talk about a policy menu for legitimacy considerations. Because not all of these things will apply in all contexts, but it might be interesting to start putting on the table a list of considerations, the different processes with different needs can consider what is most appropriate for them. Would people be interested in that? Yep? One comment at the back. >> Hello. Good morning. My name is Andre, and my comment is not on this point, so I don't know if I can go ahead with that or you prefer just to -- >> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: Is it relevant to the session at some point? Just a random comment? >> It's part of my willingness to come here, the last two comments about the quality and legitimacy. I think that the IANA process traited that the quality of the outcome, it's directly correlated to the legitimacy of the outcome. And so far, in a way, having had the role of the U.S. Government on ICANN with a single contract, in a way underrmined this relationship. We could have lived without that because, in a way, the U.S. Government had the contract. And that's my interpretation, just to share my thoughts. Now that ICANN became independent from this and has to evolve, get into a process of accountability that show that is the organization is transparent, is independent, produce good quality, the participation of stakeholders and variety of stakeholders is essential to ensure that the quality outcome will be there. Otherwise, I think the system won't work. So I think we are seeing here now, the discussion that you had so far, I mean, I think I will go and just look into the transcripts because it's where we need to investigate more and figure out how to go ahead because we succeed in this first step, and now to go farther ahead, we need to have broad as much participation to ensure that the quality at the end will be the highest and the legitimacy for the participation will be there. That was my thoughts. Thank you. >> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: And that goes back to the -- you came in late, but there was a PowerPoint presentation at the beginning, and that's what I was talking about. So if people are interested in this, what I was going to do was leave the Google Docs open for editing until the end of January just so we can start to collect some material. Also if you are interested, I might suggest that you give me a business card or write down your email address and we might try and have a list. And then see if we can develop this over the next year and perhaps have another workshop next year. And perhaps somewhere in between -- I do plan to pull this all together into some sort of document and then maybe you take it back within your own various constituencies to start thinking about how you can apply it there and what your experiences are, and we just do an iteration of this in the next year. Does that interest people? Yep. Okay. Great. Thank you for coming. (End of session, 12:20 p.m FINISHED TRANSCRIPT TENTH INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM JOĆO, PESSOA "EVOLUTION OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE: EMPOWERING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT" November ^ , 2015 ^ ^ AM ^ PM NAME OF SESSION Services Provided By: Caption First, Inc. P.O. Box 3066 Monument, CO 80132 1-877-825-5234 +001-719-481-9835 Www.captionfirst.com *** The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the IGF 2015 Joćo Pessoa, Brazil, meetings. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record. *** >> >> Social Media and Democracy Indonesia open forum: Social Media and Democracy Room 7. 12:30-13:30. >> >> SHITA AKSMI: Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for coming at the end of IGF. We have coffee that you can also bring home as one of our incentive to come here as well. We would like too invite an amazing discussion on our amazing panel. Social media does have the power to empower social movement. Lately we see the current trend of practicing the maximizing of social media. Four amazing panelists here. First is Dirgayuza Setiawan. He's an ISOC fellow. Hamza Mehrez, I hope I pronounced that right. Policy analyst from Internet Governance Middle East North Africa. We also have Mariam Barata, the deputy director of ICT application. Also Tereza Horejsova, project development director of DiploFoundation. We will start with stories from the ground. So we will ask Dirgayuza and Hamza, because they are part of the social activities in Indonesia and the Middle East. Then we'll go to Mariam, who will be speaking as her capacity as government official on how to -- how the government look at the social media in the political scene. Then we'll come to Tereza, who will be sharing with us the international response to this in the international or multilateral organisations. We don't want these discussions to be a monologue, so I hope that every panelist can have, like, seven minutes of discussion and we will open for the floor to have discussion. Yeah? Let's start with you, Dirgayuza. >> DIRGAYUZA SETIAWAN: Thank you very much, Shita. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. I think Indonesia as a unique position to talk about democracy. Not many people around the world know that Indonesia is the third largest democracy in the world. The second largest by number of voters. More people vote in the Indonesia election than in the recent U.S. election. We have more than 40 political parties. We have a direct presidential election and 550 members of national parliament. In total, in Indonesia we have more than 500 parliments and more than 3 thousand members of parliaments. During the election in 2014, we have five-year cycle. We have more than 12,000 members of the public that run for public office. 12,000. So you can imagine the level of democracy that we have to face every five years. In the 2014 election I advised the third largest political party in Indonesia. It's also the second largest political party on Facebook. So I am quite proud of that. Nowadays, if you are not on Facebook, you're not -- you don't exist. I'm going to talk about trends in democracy and civic engagement. I think there are four things that I can talk about. First, decision-making, how the social media is changing decision-making. Then information insemination. Thirdly, political hacking, and participation. As you know, politics is a scientific act. That's why there is a field called political science. In the past, politicians used tools like surveys and focus group discussions in order to understand what the population is feeling. However, these tools, especially in the large country like Indonesia, 250 million people, is out of reach for smaller parties and independent candidates. They don't have the money to actually surveyor do a national survey. So that's why data mining enabled by API, such as Facebook API and Twitter API, really help smaller parties and smaller candidates with not much cash to participate effectively in elections. This is also enable politicians and political parties to make decisions quickly on emerging issues. For example, several times in Indonesia parliament, the parties have to vote on raising fuel prices. I know some parties nowadays, they use data from social media in order to decide whether they will agree or disagree on decisions. They understand the social meted I can't is a good indicator for knowing whether public support for the party will increase or decrease following a certain decision. Another trend that I'm observing as information dissemination. In the past, news and dissemination of information is monopolized by certain TV stations and certain radio stations. Today, it's certainly not the case anymore. More and more people are getting their news primarily from social media, like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. And because of that, positively significances are adapting themselves to social media. So in the past people think about the 24-hour news cycle. Today people think about how can I post on social media effectively. For example, people are learning that posting a lot content on Facebook doesn't work. They have to only post one or two content every single day, because if they don't, if they post too many, their reach number goes down. And I think people are starting to understand that. That's why people are limiting nowadays their talking points to one or two issues maximum a day. Echo chambers is getting real. Especially after a devicive election. In Indonesia, very devicive, just like Clinton and trump in the U.S. That created an echo chamber. People who voted for candidate A are most likely to follow certain news outlets or certain social media platforms and give Web pages. I'm also seeing that politicians now acknowledge that this is a fact. They understand that in order to reach the larger masses, they have to appear and subscribe by the other half of their -- the other side of the fence. It is easier for established media outlets, but I think it's much harder for fake news outlets, because you can't just go there and say your point of view. I'm also looking at the issue of people getting traumatized by participating online. So this is still a topic on information dissemination. A lot of people, yes, they can voice their concerns. But we now see increasing number of politicians are employing cyber armies, be it like a lot of people are using AI to attack people who does not agree with their opinion. For this, I'm thankful for projects like the political bots project. They are shedding a light. This will be a big problem in the future, because people will stay silent because they are afraid of getting bullied on fine, be it by bots or real people. In Indonesia we also see some political hacking going on. For example, in 2014, soon after the election, when the votes are being counted, the website of the election commission could not be accessed for several hours because of DBOS attacks. And I think in the future we're going to see more and more of these incidents. At the moment we don't have any experience yet with getting information on WikiLeaks. Again, I think that's gonna be a trend, because WikiLeaks is getting more and more political. Lastly, I would like to talk about participation. I said in Indonesia I'm not sure, but other parts of the world, political participation is limited to adults. So people who are under 17 years of age, they cannot legally participate in political rallies, but using social media, they can have a voice. They can participate in political activities. I think that's good. They're also building platforms that increase transparency in the social processes. However, I do not see yet an effort to share some of the learning platforms on democracy between what we already have in Indonesia with other parts of the world. And I think it's gonna be the next step. This is a good start. Thanks. >> SHITA AKSMI: Thank you, Dirgayuza, for being so on time. So you are seven minutes now. Hamza, from Tonesiea. >> HAMZA MEHREZ: Thank you very much. This is a democracy. Not only in Indonesia. I'll give you an overview of what's happening in the region when it comes to using social media and use it to consider this notion of democracy in the region. You know that if you take the case now, let me first say that if you go to a politician in the region, they still have this perception and idea that people are using social media. There are these irrational actors who don't know how to use that sphere, online sphere, to strategically mandate, advocate for tangible results. If you go now for the youth population and you talk to them about democracy, they hate the word democracy because they have been fighting for the word democracy for 23 years, in the case of Tunisia, and a regime who censored, even killed and put people in prison. Now the outcome their own revolution is basically they have been deceived. So they have been able to topple regime in Tunisia. People organized very well online and used independent structures, to try to advocate rationally for toppling the regime. That application took only a short time. After we toppled those dictatorships, that's online organising movement vanished, because people now are living in a political vacuum. And they think that democracy can emerge like that. Democracy requires a certain minds and build accountable institutions. So that perception of being politicians and social media activists, that negative perception, is still felt in the region. The other thing that I wanted to talk about is that the case of Egypt, for example, the military has the upper hand when it comes to politics. We have been seeing that. Maybe the outcome in Tunisia was positive. We have been able to topple the regime and we are in the process building democracy. In the case of Egypt, it's a black box. The military has the upper hand on politics. There is no chance now for you as a blogger or as a journalist or activist to use an independent social media to advocate for any economic policy or social policy or political policy. And you, basically, would be put in prison because of the dangerous climate with the military. The thing is that if you see the trend that is happening in the region right now. I feel that people have to organize better. People have to use Facebook and use it -- or social media and use it rationally. They have to do research. They have to educate themselves on how they can bargain and go where they go, go where government are or go where there is a private sector and try to teach themselves on how to strategically advocate for policies. The thing is that one of the trends that you are seeing right now in the regions of the Internet is polarizing or society based on that in Tunisia some of the religious actors that came up to the scene, and people know they are making their choices when it comes to politics, not based on policies and based on the policies deliver in the short or medium or long term. They are making the choices based on a religious party, he's from a secular party, he's my friend, he's my acquaintance, he's -- yeah. So there's some kind of political clientism that still exists in the region. We can see and feel it in Egypt. We feel it in Tunisia. And the thing is that it's really an interesting paradox. Social media activists in Tunisia, they used the online to topple the region e-mails. They did it by the president of Turkey used the what's up application to stay in power. So those dictatorships who were against people organising themselves online and advocating for regime change are using the same tool to stay in power. And if you see what Erogan did, and the What's app application in the society saying we are democracy -- maybe I'm controversial, but Erogan was elected demo grateically. So in Turkey it's a democracy compared to other regions. So he used that tooling to climb down to the independent region. There is a correlation, it said if you want to use social media and you are a dictatorship, you have to be better organized to topple that dictatorship. If you want to use social media and you are a democracy, you cannot change the system. If you want to see a real change, you have to organize better, basically. So for me that's an overview about the region. And I think social media, I will finish by this, social media can be used to be better organized. I think in the case of Tunisia, we are perceived by the west as being a democracy in progress, but we are sending the highest number to ISIS. So we are seeing by the west as being the mother for democracy, but people that can use social media to basically indoctrine ate people and send them where they can use it put positively or they could be used it to be indock rib ated to other phenomenon man, like we see in the space in the region. So I think we have to find a way to better organize and to kind of prevent that social space to be used by other actors in the MENA region for other purposes. >> SHITA AKSMI: Thank you very much. It's very nice insights from the MENA region. So we go to Mariam Barata, coming from the government point of view. >> MARIAM BARATA: First allow me at the outset to express my expression of Mexico, and also stakeholder for the excellent arrangement in this very important fore you know what I mean. Indonesia has opinion participating in the IGF and looking forward to future cooperation with you. In response to the issue, we understand that social media is a platform in which the contents are generated from user and spread through the Internet, making this a technology that promotes improvement, sharing in collaboration almost all sector of public life would not be separate from the use of Internet, as it has also become the main reference for accessing news and information. Indonesia is open for many Internet platforms, such as social media website and other online forum. This is expected to be beneficial for Indonesia in utilizing the great flow of information. Data of 2015 showed that our Internet user have reached around 93.4 million. Some of the driving factor of the development of Internet user is our -- in our country are the rapid development and easy access to Smartphone or mobile device. Social media and online shop contents are among the most accessed contents by the Internet users. Ever since its independence, Indonesia has been a democracy and social media can aid the government around the world in doing public service in more transparent and accountable manner, as well as an effective media to nurture tolerance and respect for diversity. This is why social media platform become very important aspect in strengthening democracy in Indonesia. On the other hand, social media can also be a utilized as a medium to distribute information. We believe not only Indonesia, but many countries are also confronted by this paradox, which can be counterproductive to the democracy. In responding to this development. Government with conventional communication means in order to grab public attention and support in implementing programs, policies, and regulation. The government should take the social media in a productive and effective way to strengthen public services and transparency of information. For this reason, I believe Internet Governance has to be an impetus with the social media to embrace the laws and embrace the norms of good governance and responsibility and respect. Because only by doing so, we can nurture a safe, responsible, and tolerant social media that can contribute positively for democracy. To ensure the usage remain positive it currently has some important mission to meet the need of ICT Indonesia that is growing rapidly, especially in the construction of telecommunication infrastructure, such as increasing the development of programs and the telecommunication industry. Also supporting development of informatics. As well as clean energy in the minutes of ICT base content by multi- stakeholder approach. It is important to know that the implementation of Internet Governance in Indonesia is not really about the issues of technology, but also regarding advancement of the content in the future work. Government of Indonesia has policies and regulation to provide strong foundation to aid or effort in confronting issues of social media or negative posts. For example, just recently the definition of our law on the information and electronic transition has passed several -- the obligation to remove content that is not important for the electronic I can transition operators. This right can be exercised by the person and should be -- and implementing regulation on this matter is underway. Second, strengthening the role of the government to prevent dissemination of negative content on the Internet, which the government is to prevent the dissemination of electronic information and impacts for the society. Third, strengthening Internet Governance in Indonesia, we will continue to conduct and work together with the platform of social media and also the stakeholders in the process of -- the development contents that are being posted in cyberspace. The main role of government is not to control the content, but to strengthen its import to protect the citizen as Internet user from any potential harmful effect of the Internet. Other important things, in order to formulate policies and regulation that are effective and applicable, we also hold various stakeholder process. By this mean we look forward to have balance, positive use of Internet and social media in our society that can nurture democracy and good governance. The past development of cyberspace or Internet have result to a limited communication, by limiting in person meetings and interaction. Yet, I believe that it should not hold up our failures and efforts in our real world, because they also apply in cyberspace. In the use of social media as medium of discussion, public should also consider norms that apply in real world while interacting in social world, such as not to post content pertaining hate speech or against some institution or particular groups, pornography, human rights abuse, and not to the person or particular group. In order that, we need to develop this situation. Whether social media can be used for discussion and in direction positively to increase the tolerance and respect to others. We hope to be able to raise the awareness of our citizen to obey roles and ethics while using Internet, such as to check carefully on any information before spreading or posting it. We also have to make sure information and contents are -- that are being posted are true, and hopefully can be beneficial as well. We should also refrain from posting any content that can possibly cause defamation. The Internet needs to be a safe community for participation by and for everyone. In this regard, I would like to conclude the important role of government who does not only act as a regulator, but also as a facilitator to build capacity, the creativity of the local ICT sector. Most importantly, to promote digital literacy among the citizen. We need the participation of all stakeholder and under Internet Governance. Thank you. >> SHITA AKSMI: Thank you, Mariam. Very interesting to see how government is trying to balance the use of social media in giving democracy. I'll go to Tereza, to give us more incite on the traditional level. >> TEREZA HOREJSOVA: Good afternoon. My name is Tereza Horejsova. Thank you very much for this invitation. First of all, I would like to apologize. Our director, who had to cancel his participation here at the Internet Governance Forum and who would have been the one speaking at this panel. Yovan is a big friend of Indonesia and we have really benefit from having such a fruitful cooperation with you. Coming to the topic of the session, social media, and democracy, just to frame it with what we are seeing in Indonesia, the biggest Muslim democracy, one of the areas where we cooperate with you closely and where we really admire your work is the multi-stakeholder model being implied in the national IGF of Indonesia, so that is one concrete example where we can see these developments happening. Now, I will ask to talk a little bit multilateral angle and the role of international organisations. In a nutshell, most international organisations are built around the three famous pillars, security, development, and human rights, even the United Nations is based on these pillars as well as other region organisations, multilateral organisations. We are also seeing here at the IGT coming to its close, even the discussions here seem to be framed around these three main pillars or angles issues, if you wish. We are saying that also because, as you may have noticed, we at the DiploFoundation, are following closely at the IGF and reporting the daily summaries. We are really trying to look at it from the thematic point of view. This is one observation that we can already make. Most of the international organizations, angle is the one that is prevailing in looking at the link between social media and democracy. One concrete example that we can mention from what we have been observing, for instance, in the meetings of the Human Rights Council, the social media ranking is used for assessing the democracy in the peer review in the countries. In the human rights angle, there is the other angle, which is the security one. Here we are getting to a very delicate balance. One example I'm going to take from the concrete agenda that is being on the multicultural front is violent extremism online, which was discussed in the last few months at various occasions. The last one was just a meeting held in New York last week. And the delicate lines particularly in the fact of how to assure the security and then freedom of expression. Where does this flow into the other? Obviously, an ideal scenario would be to achieving a win/win solution where neither the human rights nor the security aspects would be ignored, if we can get some win/win solution that would be ideal. At this moment it looks more like a zero/zero. It is a very delicate line. I will stop here because we will have discussion. I would then like to react some some points that Mariam has raised, because mainly on the paradox between social media and how it can further lead to radicalization in the online spaces. Thank you. >> SHITA AKSMI: Thank you. I think we can have a good discussions with our panel. I'm opening the floor. You can also sit in front. You can just ask. Are there any questions? Yeah. Sure. Do you have a microphone? >> AUDIENCE: Thank you. I am from Kenya. Just to follow up on the point by Hamza, that in democratic societies that social media cannot bring that radical kind of change. This is a debate that has been made in Kenya, because people say that social media nothing really with would change because all the hashtags and the tweets and all that. There is this feeling that that cannot bring a bit of radical change. The current government, when they are doing the politicking, they are using the thing that social media should no longer -- as you say, the timing, saying social media is not good for development, people look at it too much. We need to look at regulations to limit what these people are saying. We need to regulation and Code of Ethics on bloggers and the likes. My question is what should we propose? From the MENA region, since we are a democracy, quote/unquote, what type of avenues would be available to bring around that kind of radical change? >> SHITA AKSMI: First, is there any question? Yes, sir? And the other one, yes. >> AUDIENCE: Thank you. My name is victor. I'm from Venezuela. Platforms are really important to the democracy we have seen in the latest years. There is an issue with social media platforms that are created by the private sector, because it can be used not only for the people, but it can be used to opress people as well. I don't know how to say in English. The thing is I have been in a lot of sessions that they talk about how governments oppress people through social media like attacks from span bots, direct threat, or hacking their accounts and taking out their personal information to use it against them. So I think there is a need of creating a social media with different values that came from the different sector, Civil Society, regulated by organisations in a transparent way to show that these tools not only benefit, like Facebook or Twitter, because they are made for profit, but social media we have to develop social media for people by the people, controlled by people, in a way that all these attacks, all these things that happened could be avoided. And a social media that really allows us to express things without being threatened, without fear. And social media, we cannot trust all data. That is another issue. How do you think could be -- could we do that platform or like is there any idea about that that has been said before me? I don't know. >> As I understood that submission from the government of Indonesia, you were putting focus on both education for citizens as well as some legislative measures. Can you talk about how we effectively support citizens to do this work? I have a preference, personally, for how we support citizens versus legislation that might reduce freedom of speech. So I'm wondering how in Indonesia we're proposing to do that. Then the second question, which both to Civil Society and for to the government, is in the context of trolls and troll armies? What have you been able to manage this for the other countries grappling with this. >> SHITA AKSMI: I have three questions. Hamza, you speak first. >> HAMZA MEHREZ: Yeah. Thank you very much for your question. Really interesting. The problem that we have in the MENA region is that our state bureaucrats, not all of them, they perceive the Internet as a dark and scary place, where you have to hire a geeky employee and give him, like, an office and he will manage all of the social media of his own bureaucracy or administration. I think us, as social media advocates or as people working with Civil Society, I think we have to try to change perception. We have to try to go and advocate and go to those government officials and say to them and explain for them what is social media. So social media is not only about tweeting or putting hashtags or putting your photos with your girlfriend, it's more a creative engine of a creative content. When it is used strategically by a government official, he can hold himself accountable to his own constitution, and he can hold himself accountable to his voters. So you talked about politicians are using the social media to -- for another set of objectives of when they can come to power and they tend to forget about what they have did with that creative engine. I think we should go and address them and say to them that if you use social media strategically and you get more notice by social media, you can stay in power and you can give incentive for people to vote for you in the future. I think capacity building for government officials is needed. I think that's one of the form of the -- of what we can do on the ground with government officials and policymakers. >> The social media for the people? What do you think the second gentleman? >> HAMZA MEHREZ: I forget. SHITA AKSMI: Okay. That's good. Okay. >> I'm going to address the question on social media by private sector and by people. I think that's very interesting question. In the (Dirgayuza) Indonesia experience I've been seeing a number of politicians and political parties. They actually establish their own social media platform. So they are present on the major platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, but they create their own platform so that they can circumvent the so-called rules that the big social media platforms have. Also, for them to have a more secure and more open dialogue with their own followers. However, since maintaining a social media platform is quite expensive, you have to pay for services and also developing the apps themselves. I don't think we will see in any near future any effort for social media by people from the people, because in the end there needs to be someone who take care of the platforms on 24-hour, seven-day a week. It needs to be done professionally, I think on the question of the troll and armies, it's a very interesting one, because in Indonesia, in my experience, these tools are like the Mafia. Like there's a Mafia selling services. It comes in two ways: One, in form of a roomful of people. I've seen pictures of people with 20 phones and a hundred people in the same room because they control many, many social media accounts. But I also see the AI technology that is actually being created for this sole purpose. In Indonesia the response is two ways: First, awareness. People like me and the Civil Society activists, we bring this issue up to the people in the media. We talk about them. We use some examples, because with awareness, what the response to the public is they will ignore most of the racist and the hateful comments on social media. And when people ignore these comments, in the long-run it will be harder for people who are providing such services to sell their services, because the effectiveness will go down. The second response will be with the politicians themselves actually mentioning on social media and on interviews that, yes, they value social media, but they use it now a lot to organize gathering, to organize offline gathering, and they'll hear from people who actually go through the gatherings instead of listening on social media because a lot of this can be manipulated and played around. Thanks. >> MARIAM BARATA: Okay. In Indonesia we have been working on increasing citizen creativity through training for kids and adults, sometimes for parents and teacher, and for how to use Internet to save and secure. Indonesia have a program, we call Internet smart creativity and productive to increase the youth to use Internet not only for update status, but for making something with the Internet, maybe blog or website or application. And I think because the government with the multi-stakeholder to make the training for Indonesia and Indonesia student, I think it is effective because all multi-stakeholder -- Indonesia have a lot island -- have many island. Government didn't came to planning for Indonesiain. The government with the multi-stakeholder to train the student in Indonesia. There is a handling of negative content by censoring or filtering content that is considered objectionable. That's all. >> SHITA AKSMI: Thank you. Do you want to respond? >> TEREZA HOREJSOVA: Super quickly to react to Hamza, but also to Mariam's original contribution and the elements of training and awareness building. Yes, this is definitely essential for also ensuring sustainable Internet Governance community, and even if the stakeholders are better informed, mean better in a quality way and trained, it would lead to more inclusive and efficient policymaking. >> SHITA AKSMI: Okay. Okay. >> My name is (?) From Thailand. I have some comment. I think this session is really with the current situation in many parts of the world, especially for Thailand. As we know, the social media is just as a tool for promote democracy and we are also aware that there is a dark side of social media. However, I think from experience in Thailand, as a social media is able to be used as a platform by many sector to -- right now we do not be like dominant information from just only the big corporate media or state media control. This is very important point for the citizen to engage and be informed. I would like to send some information in Thailand, letters just a few days ago, there was a people got interrogation and been visit by the police just because they quick "like" to some social media and some threatening and warning for the legal charge. This is already being enforced by the authority. We also need to be warning of these kinds of actions and should not be accept. One thing in Thailand we have the law that try to control the Internet and social media is called commit a crime act. That come from the POS data and the current data, they also try to amend and drop the amending of the commit a crime act already finalized and plan to pass by the national registry assembly next day. Wish for the citizen and the public in Thailand, we try to stop that, because there are at least three serious concern point. First, the new draft -- the amendment draft is like allowed the committee to drop the website, no need to be the legal content, so allow them to request to block the website without any kind of legal violation or illegal violation. The second point, the committee will -- they will set the unit that can block website. No need to request direct to the ISP, which I think is going to make the censorship in Thailand is massive. The last one, also, about the provision that will punish to the citizen if, like, they are caught. Already decide any information supports to be destroy. If they found that information into any citizen computer, they are deemed to be punish. So I think this is -- the current law is bad, but amend one is worse. And doing develop and job and have some kind of attempt to pass, building a democratic government, I know that we are living under the repress ive regime, but the law is still exist. If, like, put some pressure or send a letter to our government or to our parliament would be helpful and in rush because the next five-day is plan to pass. Thank you. >> SHITA AKSMI: Thank you very much. >> AUDIENCE: Mine is more a comment than question. Sorry, I missed the first part, so you may have already described this. But why Indonesia? Have you spoke about that, number of users, etc.? So I was struck that you have the number one users of Facebook at least in Indonesia and the number three of Twitter users of the world, although Japan is number two and the U.S. number one. You guys have already more population. Also, the user percentage of the Facebook of Indonesia is like 10%, maybe a little bit more, but still your very intensive use of the social media as a whole has been seen. Because I talk to -- I talk to the -- there are not too many people using the Internet. And it's just an amazing change, not to mention the connectivity element. However, that's my first observation. But so what? Is another question that of course with all the political and stuff, almost all camps these days are using social media from Obama, Trump, or you name it. Whichever direction they want. Do they listen to it? Yes. They listen to their support, but not the other camp. So what I feel -- my biggest concern is, first of all, we may be seeing some new unknown mode of society from kids to adults, from terrorist to democratic, most all of them are using this medium in favor of the direction they want. But do we have some universal understanding or connections between these? Also very many small silos you're creating, perhaps. It's really unknown. So a lot of young people in Japan feel comfortable with just having some online chat friends or groups of five or ten or doing the work. But from my direct experiences, they all like some form of interaction. China is the same. But to me, as a whole, we might be being divided and divided and divided by diffuse of social media, different cultural regional, whatever backgrounds they have. So are we really seeing what we are heading to? I'm very much concerned that we are making the use of this medium together interest Internet to break our society, global society. >> SHITA AKSMI: Thank you for reminding us of the good old days as well. Is there any response from the panelists about this? >> DIRGAYUZA SETIAWAN: I want to respond to what was raised. I think you raised very well a concern that if we just let this go, it will be actually bad for society. And I think that's why civil societies need to play an active part. We need to continuously educate the people. In the past, in the old days, there's media literacy. Today we need to have social media literacy. I think more people need to know that what they are reading on social media is not the whole picture, that they are reading things that are tailored for them. Awareness in that is very important. In addition to that, I think we also need to push for the social media companies to let people know -- their users know how they're tailoring information to them. This is, I think, one place I agree. People should have a dashboard of information. For example, in my Facebook account, I think it would be great if I can see how Facebook decides what to show and what not to show, what kind of data they have on me that the profile in order for them to tailor that information. And I think another way we can approach this is to push for the social media companies to acknowledge that they're actually not only technology companies, but they are also media companies. When they do that, I think they will have to adopt the responsibilities of a media company, which is being -- I'm not gonna say check every single thing, but I'm supposing they're gonna do more in tackling fake news, in tackling silos, and also getting people together from different points of view. And I think in the U.S. we already are seeing some progress in that, some presidential debates are actually hosted by the social media companies, and I think it would be good if such a model could be adopted in other elections around the world. >> Just a final thing. There is a problem here, because there is no legal definition to an online journalist. There is no -- so everybody knows what is an offline journalist, which is basically someone who got a BA, who works in an accredited newspaper. In Tunisia, we apply the press law or the press offline law to regulate the behavior of online journalists on the Internet. The online journalist or online social media activists, they don't have any legal. You can easily be put in jail. So it's like a legal constitution approach to that. You have to find a legal attribution to give to what we mean by social media activists or advocate. You have to quantify what is democracy. Democracy is good strong institutions, about building the rule of law, and building accountable institution. It's not something that social media can quickly -- I don't know -- create or build. That's really the philosophy or the wrong philosophy that we are living in right now in the MENA region. Because we use the Internet and we use it extensively, we think that we can do whatever we can do and we can change systems. It's just an elusion. I think in one of the questions, I would finish by this, is how (Hamza) how is people work on the field as, how to translate online grassroot movement to an offline rational policy structures. To go from the online structure where people use the Internet to create policy roundtables where they can try to build a democratic environment with policymakers. That's really strategic. >> SHITA AKSMI: Thank you, Hamza. I would like to thank our amazing panelists. (Applause) I'm aware that this is not yet finished. I think this is an ongoing discussion. I think we will go through this for more that, but don't forget we have coffee over there. You can get the coffee from the gentleman wearing orange shirt. Yes, sir? >> AUDIENCE: I can't help but say this. I really appreciate your government, Indonesia government, as well as Civil Society in the industry to continue this IGF engagement, which is rare, actually, after you guys hosted the Bally IGF in 2013. Most of the host countries don't really do that: I was respecting you and I cannot help but tell you my appreciation. (Applause) Copyright © 2016 Show/Hide Header