You are connected to event: CFI-IGF

Connecting Human Rights: Emphasising Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
for the Internet

Connecting Human Rights: Emphasising Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
for the Internet Connecting Human Rights: Emphasising Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights for the Internet

Connecting Human Rights: Emphasising Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
for the Int

>> Let me share an operational message with  you.  This workshop will be
translated in six languages.  You can grab your translation radios outside.
Outside on the foyer.  Also we remind you all sessions are being live
streamed and translated.  We invite you to go to to the IGF website and the
IGF YouTube channel to watch and share.

>> Good morning, everyone. The session will be interpreted into six
languages.  Please get a headset at the lobby.   All sessions are live
streamed and simultaneously interpreted, please share the IGF's website and
IGF YouTube channel.  This session will be interpreted in six languages,
you can grab your transition radios outside in the foyer.  Also we remind
you that all sessions are being live streamed and translated.  We invite
you to go into the IGF website and IGF YouTube channel to watch and share.
Thank you.

>> YOLANDA MARTINEZ: Okay.  Good morning, everyone.  We would like to
welcome you for  coming. Again, thank you for coming to this panel.  I am
the head of the digital program and Article 19, the Mexico and central
America office.  I will be comoderating the session with Anja Kovacs.  The.

>> ANJA KOVACS: Good morning.  Thank you for being here, both to the people
on the stage and off the stage.  I'm Anja Kovacs from the Internet
democracy project in India and look forward to being here with you this
morning.

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: We will have an opening remarks by our Host Country
Chair, Ministry of  Public administration.

>> YOLANDA MARTINEZ: Thank you.  Good morning, everyone.  Welcome to our
third day of activities in Jalisco in Zapopan, Mexico.  I'm part of the
digital strategy coordination team and we're happy to have you all here.
Please be welcomed to our third day of activities of the Internet
Governance Forum.  The main session of today will address the importance of
Human Rights, specifically economic, social, and cultural rights that we
consider to be given the same importance to civil and political rights.
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights describes our lives, we communicate
with one another and earn a living, the Rights provide us a certain quality
of living.  This space for dialogue is more relevant in the framework of
the 2030 sustainable Agenda and it is my pleasure to have all of you here.
I invite you to be active in your participations, the purpose of the Forum
is to exchange ideas, to be proactive and assertive in the proposals and be
aware that we have a huge responsibility towards our planet and to advance
a multistakeholder model in order to find solutions and to generate better
standard of living for populations. Thank you for being here.  I declare
official opened this plenary session.

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: Let me introduce the panel and what we're going to
discuss today. The kind of conversation we want to have, it is the opening
engaging, deepening conversation on the interdependence in the ability and
disability of rights.  It will engage the discussion on the interconnection
between civil and political rights and the economic, social, cultural
rights.   Through this to facilitate a deeper dialogue on Internet
Governance and it covers a full range of Human Rights.  Anja will give us
the format and I'll lineup the session.

>> ANJA KOVACS: Thank you. We will be dividing the session into three
sections.  In the first hour or so we'll be looking at civil and political
rights and the key issues of the moment and emerging issues going forward.
In the second session we'll be looking specifically at economic, social,
cultural rights as an area that needs to be looked at in much more detail
in its intersections with Internet Governance.  In the third section of
today we will then be looking at the interconnections between these two
sets of Rights.  Something that's not been explored much so far and that's
a debate that we really hope to move forward in this morning's session. In
each -- in the first two sections we will ask first a number of discussions
that are with us here on the stage to make their interventions.   Following
that, we'll open in both sections the floor for the audience in the room to
make interventions as well.  We ask everybody to be short and snappy.
We're looking for 3 minutes from speakers on the floor and one and a half
minutes from the audience. In the third section, the floor will be opened
for everybody to intervene and all interventions will be limited to 1:30.
Finally, we'll also be using Slido for the session, you can go to
URL.com/HRIGF2016 where you can put comments and questions on the session
directly which will be thrive streamed here on the screen. The questions
that are asked we encourage you to focus especially on the interconnections
between the two sections of rights and we would like to come back to those
questions in the third segment of today.  . If you would like to comment,
the url,  url./IGF2016.

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: Thank you. Let's begin with section one.  We'll focus
on civil and political rights. Since 2010 the U.N. and different bodies had
recognized the importance of these rights on Internet, why Freedom of
Expression and privacy specifically are crucial to continue exercising
other rights in the digital realm.  Nowadays we have special resolutions
from Special Rapporteurs aiming to protect and promote these rights in the
online world.  We can also remember how they will developed different and
broader interpretations of the Rights and why we need them to continue to
enable these communities and different spaces to become more and more
democratic and participative. What I want to invite our discussions in this
session, is to answer some specific questions.  I mean, you can stick to
one of them or try to go deeper on the three of them. They are on what have
we achieved in terms of addressing civil and political rights in relation
to the Internet?  What, in your work and opinion, are some of the key
milestones?  What do we need to do to consolidate the achievements and not
lose ground in relation to this work?  What are emerging key issues in the
area that we need to address given the current context?  For example,
emerging issues around privacy and big data or Internet of Things, Freedom
of Expression and association issues on the role of the Internet in shaping
discourse and facilitating the  mobilization of support and counter-support
around rail radicalized expression.  What are some Best Practices or
lessons learnt in this area?  If in  I? I would like to give the mic to Ana
Neves, she's the director of the department for the Information Society.
Good morning, everybody.

>> ANA NEVES: I'm here to share the work that my ministry in Portugal is
doing around this  issue.  I would like to pick up on three components.
The first one will be work on empowerment of the citizens to strengthen
their certain, political Rights, second on privacy and personal data and
the third one on the work on con be tent related to freedom of speech and
Freedom of Expression. On the empowerment of the citizens to strengthen
their civil and political Rights, as we all know, the Internet is now our
central platform for engaging in dialogue about the most important issues
facing a country.  It is where we share our views, speak out against
injustice and express our hopes for the future.  Conversation is
distributed online as well as generated.  The enjoyment of all Human Rights
is interlinked. , for example, it is often harder for individuals who
cannot read and write to find work to take part in political activity or to
exercise their Freedom of Expression.  Similarly, more demanding societies
are likely to be where individuals can exercise political rights such as
the right to vote.  Bearing in mind the need to empower citizens to
exercise civil and political Rights we developed a national strategy on
digital inclusion, literacy and accessibility for the period 2015 to 2020
which will Democratize knowledge and access which has had some very good
results. The second point, privacy of personal data, with the Internet and
growing digital society, it has changed habits, behaviors, aspirations,
rules, jobs, fears, prejudices and the citizens' needs.   Therefore, the
implementation of new privacy standards as is the case in Europe of the
European parliament and of the council from April of 2016 on the protection
on natural persons to the processing of personal data and on the free
movement of such data it is particularly relevant to the various
representatives of the Internet community.  The argument the accusers must
have full control over their own data implies a better preparation of users
and consumers to this process through proper skills and training.  This
will enhance their civil and political Rights and better understanding what
is at stake and how to prevent abuses on the protection of their personal
data. My last point, content related to freedom of speech and Freedom of
Expression:  I would draw your attention to the relation between the civil
and political rights.  There is an example of an recent Portuguese
initiative named Legal Office with two concrete goals, docking of websites
with illegal content and provision of an awareness platform with a list of
legal websites with contents related to music, video, games, books, you
name it.  The initiative was set up by several private associations,
including the ones who represents the national IEPs and from the Ministry
of Culture responsible for the rating of movies, video games and related
media. The initiative, more than 250 websites were already blocked.  The
initiative has been be subject to a great deal of criticism.  First and
foremost because it could undermine the right to Freedom of Expression,
secondly, because we can have here a lack of legitimacy since we don't have
a court decision to support the block of the websites but only an
administrative decision from that public entity.  Civil and political
rights are being challenged.  In the case of websites that include
undoubtedly illegal contents, blocking does not necessarily translate an
infringement of the certain right of the Freedom of Expression.  There is
always -- there will always be a clear conflict of Rights because political
right, free and open access to courts will be limited each time that the
website, the content is blocked even if illegal.  They're limited by an
administrative decision from the public entity. Here is something that we
have to deal with in Portugal in the very short and immediate terms. Thank
you.

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: Thank you for sticking to the time. I want to remind
you all to please stick to the time limit. Thank you very much.  I think
that legitimacy in these measures, it is an important point.  we need still
to address.  Now I want to introduce Hernan Vales, he's a lawyer that works
in the rule of law and democracy section at the Office of The unHigh
Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva where he is responsible for the
democracy portfolio.  You can help us to answer what in your opinion are
the key milestones that we're addressing right now?  Thank you.

>> HERNAN VALES: I'll focus on that. Thank you. The question was about the
-- about what we have achieved, the key milestones.  We have achieved a lot
in a very little amount of time, a relatively short amount of time.  It
doesn't mean that we are naive or that there is room for being compliant,
the situation is serious on the ground, but it does not negate the fact
that there are some very important achievements of the U.N. -- in the U.N.
on Human Rights field.  I think in 2011 there was the first report that
Frank La Rue, actualliy sitting here with us today, issued on Freedom of
Expression and the Internet.  That's only five years ago.  It's very
recent.  Since that time, there have been many important reports, decisions
and here I would like to mention, for example, the Human Rights council
resolution that you mentioned in the beginning on the promotion,
protection, enjoyment of Human Rights on the Internet.  If you think of
that resolution, the first time it was adopted was in 2012, four years ago.
It was a very short resolution, only two pages and had five imperative
paragraphses, it was very succinct,ty mid if you wish.  The latest
resolution, adoptedded in 2016, with -- we have five pages including issues
of Human Rights based approach to access, Internet policy gender divide,
access for Persons with Disabilities.  We see a lot of progress was made in
this regard. Also in terms of privacy, you know, after the revelations in
2013 that accelerated a lot of developments on the U.N. plane.  We had a
couple of resolutions from the General Assembly and the last one is about
to be adopted by the end of this year.  It will include issues like
transparency, for example.  All this to say what, this develop -- this
milestones, these decisions, jurisprudence has two consequences, States
know they're being scrutinized, particularly on Freedom of Expression and
privacy.  States, also, governments, they can no longer claim there is not
-- that there isn't a clear international Human Rights law framework when
it comes to privacy and when it comes to Freedom of Expression and other
political Rights.   I'll leave it at that.

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: Thank you very much. I would like now to give the
word to Patrick Penninckx.  Thank you.  I think this panel will go into the
records as being the largest panel and, therefore, enter into the Guinness
book of world records.  It is a session of speed dating it feels like.
I'll be short and snappy as requested.  I'm -- I'm Patrick bennings a and
the council, they have been strong in promoting Civil Rights, Freedom of
Expression, data protection, that's a traditional way of entering into the
discussions also in the Internet. (Patrick Penninckx) the rights and
values, it is not a linear process, what we're facing today, it is that we
sometimes feel that we're either going backwards than forwards.  You want
to link it to present day developments in our societies, I will not focus
on any country in particular, but we're facing more challenges with regards
to those political and Civil Rights. We can question ourselves, whether we
still have a judicial security when States delegate, for example, their own
responsibilities to the private sector.  Let's look at, for example, the
takedown of Internet content.  I want to say a few words, nevertheless,
about the social, cultural, educational Rights, our social Rights are based
on the industrial relations that date back to the 19th Century and the
instruments that are developed to protect those rights basically go back to
before the digital age.  I can tell you for example our European social
charter has many difficulties to ensure that these rights in the new age
link to how work is organized, how surveillance is organized in the
workplace, so on, they have difficulties to implement the new Rights in the
digital age. Cultural rights, I believe we're still at the age of wishful
thinking.  Unfortunately until now there is some generic reflections about
how to integrate the digital culture into the cultural heritage but there
is a number of open questions that remain. I think on the educational part
there is also one of the bigger challenges, that's namely to do with
everything that we deal with digital education, education to use the
Internet today.   That would be my key input. Thank you.

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: Thank you very much for explaining that. I now -- you
mentioned that you feel we're going backwards than forwards, we have a lot
of challenges.  That's why I want to give the mic to Luis Fernando Garcia
who is executive director at the digital rights defense network of Mexico,
he will highlight issues related to privacy in  Mexico, sick lateral
surveillance.

>> LUIS FERNANDO GARCIA: Despite Human Rights rhetoric has gained space in
our Internet Governance Forum, the translation is far away from reality.
Companies -- the users of the Internet privacy in some countries basic
principles of protection of privacy have been incorporated in some
countries in terms of which authorities and under which procedures can
surveil citizens.  In some cases not even that is included in legislations,
but in respect of basic principles and practice, it has in on the happened.
In Mexico, for example, we have placed on record how authorities with no
jurisdiction to surveil the population have done that.  We have records of
phone tapping and tapping users data has been performed without a warrant,
we have confirmed that the tap, the telephone company has not rejected any
of the requests to access the data of telecommunication service users,
Mexico is one of the biggest buyers of sophisticated surveillance malware,
most of the authorities purchasing it do not have the jurisdiction to
oversee citizens, it has been used against journalists, Human Rights
advocates and Civil Society members in the State of Jalisco where we're at,
where this Forum is taking place, the government spends 700,000 euros by --
and the purchase of this equipment and only report to have requested a
judicial request two times in three years.  That means each tapping would
cost 350,000 euros or the Jalisco government is spying on its population
illegally.  In a country loo I can Mexico and a state like Jalisco where
the difference between the state and organized crime does not exist
surveillance out of the judicial control compromises the citizen security
and also the dialogue of multistakeholder interested in Internet Governance
is compromised.   How do we make sure we're on equal footing?  How can we
make progress in this conversation? When I point out to this fact, it is
perceived as an offense or I'm being rude and that one stakeholder in this
panel spies on other members of society and should be neglected, not
discussed, I believe if that's the case we won't be able to see this
conversation moving forward and this is what I have to say.

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: Thank you foregoing to that level of detail. Now I
would like to introduce Will Hudson.   He's senior advisish for
International Policy at Google where his work focuses on Internet
Governance, Google's relationships with international organizations like
the United Nations and other International Policy issues.

>> WILL HUDSON: Thanks so much for that introduction.  It is a pleasure to
be here. I think one of the things I'm excited about this panel is the
amount of time we have for the discussion later.  I think as we'll go into
in my remarks an important thing on making progress on this issue really is
the kind of multistakeholder engagement that is provided at the IGF.  I
want to talk about three things, one, the importance of free expression to
Google, two, need for transparency on the issues and three, the vital role
of multistakeholder engagement.  To start quickly, free expression is key
to Google since we were founded.  As we all know, protecting rights and
promoting free expression is not something that's static in time because it
was there at the beginning doesn't mean it is there forever.  We're always
looking for ways to engage and adapt as the world evolves around us.
Google has a belief in the fear of expression, it is a tenant of free
societies but more information means more choice, power, more economic
opportunity and more freedom.   At the same time there are limits, in some
cases as Freedom House on the network highlights which you're aware of, a
if you're not, look at it, the limitations are without merit or legal basis
but it is generally accepted there are exceptional case where is the
limitations are permissible.   The question is how you work out these
pieces of the puzzle.  Rather than talk about content -- we have talked a
lot about that over the course of the week in different sessions, we can
talk about it later, I would rather go to the question of how we actually
use technology and the power of free expression to continue to protect it
online. A promising way we have seen is something called counter speech
which tries to promote tolerance and understanding by building up new
voices to express themselves.  The basic idea is that positive voices can
and will drown out content promoting violence, hate, promoting fear.  We
want people in need of community to be able to find helpful messages
online, not just just harmful ones.  A small piece of this puzzle, in
September we launched creators for change and I think we're providing
equipment, education to content creator it is, announcing a charitable fund
giving grants to non-profits to build cross cultural understanding and
investing in local programs which is critical in countries so that this is
self sustaining in communities. That leads to the question of how do you
know if all of this is working, how do we make progress?  That's where the
important role of transparency  comes in, it is important for activist
users, governments, others to understand the many ways that free expression
is used online, that's why Forums like this is important so we can talk
about it together. With that in mind, I'm glad we were one of the first
companies to do a transparency report and we have reiterated on it ever
since, we have gone further in recent years by doing things like reporting
on European requests for removable and the right to be forgotten decision,
we removed pages from search which is generally sacrisanct and we do it for
a legal order, we post an order on that and we report on the realtime
availability of Google products over the world to help us and users track
disruptions and shut downs.  Quickly, I'm out of time, I would like to
mention again the importance of multistakeholder engagement.  In addition
to the IGF one important Forum that we found valuable is an initiative
rebecca will talk about later, as a founding company Google sees the
benefits of engaging with partners from all sectors on this important
issue. I want to say in close that I don't think -- I hope you never have
the impression that Google thinks I know the answer to this stuff, I don't.
I'm looking for further discussion later to see how we can do betterment

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: Thank you for remembering while multistakeholder
models are important to continue discussing this kind of things. I would
like to introduce Paz Pena.  She's a journalist and independent consultant
on Human Rights in digital technologies with a specialization on gender
approaches and is part of the coding rights Brazil.  For eight years she
was the director of advocacy.

>> PAZ PENA: Thank you.  Discrimination and hate speech have not just
increased in the public opinion but, in fact, have got electoral and
political results in many, many regions of the world talking about civil
and political rights on the Internet is an extremely complex task.  As an
advocate for Human Rights on the Internet there is no doubt for me and our
communities that the Internet has been a powerful tool for political
organization and participation for those, of course, who have the privilege
to have a decent, affordable access to the whole Internet. Without a doubt,
civil and political Rights on the Internet are in critical danger
especially when we think about political participation in a data society
that is increasingly shifting to hate  speech, et cetera. Digital
technology, particularly Internet today is conceived as a tool for
companies and States to harvest irrational amounts of personal data, data
they say is not only the key for a business and the digital economy but
also for control and SURVEILLANCE.A perfect example of that is this  State,
Jalisco, where the government has illegally bought surveillance hacking
software to collect information to avoid the exercise of their civil and
political Rights. In this data society we are in a critical point where
Internet will consolidate as a enabler for the exercise of Human Rights or
will be a smart tool to control subjects through process of documentation,
profiling, criminalization according to activism, occupation, gender,
health, condition, social class, race.  This is the war in fact we have to
tackle.   This disproportionate impact of the data Society of  The
oppressive groups, oppressive groups not only suffers surveillance from the
States but also social and economical control.  From a gender and
intersectionality perspective, ask for transparency and accountability to
know who has our data and what they do with that data is not enough.
Basically because that will only legitimatize a controlled society where
Internet is a smart, modern harvest tool.  We need to do more than that, we
need to reclaim our democratic oversight of a society leaving ethical
decisions to data algorithms handled by fifth parties.  Today, more than
ever, as a community of consumers, users, citizens we have a responsibility
in our every day life to fight against the model of Internet as that
control tool from fighting against Internet monopolies to look at the
logics behind the Internet of today. Thank you.

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: Thank you very much for your insights.  Now that
you're talking about not only States but companies I would like to
introduce Rebecca McKinnon.  She's director of ranking digital rights,
which evaluates ICT companies on the extent to which they respect Freedom
of Expression and privacy.  She is also cofounder of the citizen media
network global voices.

>> REBECCA McKINNON: Thank you very much. You know, we're in a difficult
time right now.   As a Brazilianer journalist that teaches in Texas, they
often say prior to the Internet we lived in an information desert.  Our
governments, information systems were based on scarcity.  All of our
government systems have been built around the assumption of information
scarcity.  Then the rain came, the Internet came, we have a rain forest.
Our governance systems, are mechanisms to prevent the abuse of power and
the mechanisms for exercising power or holding power accountable are not
fit for purpose in this new ecosystem.  This ecosystem is crossing borders,
it is not something that you can just resolve the problems in one
jurisdiction and we have countries, governments trying to address problems
within their own jurisdiction and then causing more problems for Internet
users elsewhere.   We have, of course, companies exercising power globally
in various ways. It is so important that we have this community here at the
IGF, these people pointing out where the system is not working, where the
government mechanisms and regulatory mechanisms are in some cases doing
more harm than good.  I have been looking specifically at the role of
companies in this ecosystem, but it connects very much to what governments
are and are not doing. The ranking ding tall rights project evaluates the
ICT companies on their policies and practices effecting Freedom of
Expression and privacy specifically.  We found widespread incoherence in
companies, transparency or lack of transparency, how they inform users
about what's being collected, with whom it is being shared, how it is being
used, that even companies that do disclose a lot are not disclosing things
in ways that people can make decisions.  There are efforts of transparency,
there are companies making commitments, we have found a direct correlation
between company membership in the global network initiative and the
telecommunication industry dialogue and whether they're doing Human Rights
impact assessments, whether they're making efforts to be transparent about
their policies and practices, but there is a very, very long way to go and
we have a lot of work to do to get companies where they need to be.  I
welcome the resolution that's come out of the third Committee of the
General Assembly that we just heard about, which is calling on companies to
abide by their commitments but also calling on governments to abide by
their responsibilities to respect and protect Human Rights and not to do
things that prevent companies from meeting their responsibilities.  In our
research we have been finding that many governments are compelling
companies to do things that are not in keeping with a Human Rights norms or
preventing companies from being transparent and are not being transparent
themselves about what they're demanding of companies.  Unless we build a
system in which we have much more transparency on all sides we have
mechanisms for accountability, we have Human Rights impact assessments
being conducted by governments on how they're policies are effecting
Internet users everywhere, not just domestically, and we have agree vans
mechanisms and -- grievance mechanisms, recommend dip mechanisms that work
for the people being effected. We're going to have problems.  I'm
optimistic with this community we can gradually work towards solutions.
Thank you.

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: Thank you very much. That's a complexity of this
ecosystem and why Internet is not finished, something that we have to
remember. Now I would like to introduce Anita Gurumurthy.   She's executive
director of IT for change, an NGO that works at the intersection of ICT and
development combining practice, research and  conscientization for a world
that is socially just.

>> ANITA GURUMURTHY: The first question, what's being achieved, key
milestones.  First, the span of digital rights, it is clearer, and acquired
some legitimacy.  Second, more recently we have seen shifts that
demonstrate a new phase of civil and political rights that move away from
cascading protests and rebellions to experiments it deepening democracy
through a public discourse, individual freedoms come together with civic
participation for the promotion of the common good in which the Internet is
centrally implicated.  I would point to an example, the -- this is a
movement for citizens right here in Guadalajara.  The free software
companies contributions, the freedom box project launched in 2010, 2011, a
critical milestone to reclaim privacy, control over data, freedom to hold
and share opinions.  What's evident in the practices not only suggests
ideas for the appropriation and use of the Internet but ideas about the
Internet itself and the radical and the potential for Human Rights.  What
to do to consolidate the achievements?  Firstly, we need to look beyond the
off line,  online, violations are in the very real hybrid spaces where
embedded life meets the network.  The digitalization of governance for
example has far reaching implications for those that don't own any gadgets
as they become subjects of a new data-fied regime.  We have to look at the
idea of rights in the different sociality in the digital age, this is about
future proofing everything, David case talks about the mechanics of holding
opinions have evolved and I would submit that the mechanics of everything,
all institutions have evolved in the digital age. What are issues to
address, emerging, first, ethical, political issues rising from the global
network data complex, thanks to the data complex that drives on and the
globalization, the rights and freedoms in relation to the Internet, it is
cast in a game where the right to connective means loss of privacy and
public notion, this is ironic given that the paradigm is able to nurture a
sound game but even as others have said, for more freedom we may have to
give up the pursuit of economic value we get out of data and close the
pipes to save our  societies and save rights. The problem is that the
globalization is increasingly shaping jurisprudence at many levels this is
paramount.  We have to think of how data government regimes promote
collective intelligence and collaboration. The second, the absence of
international jurisprudence to look at the Human Rights issues in the
digital age and the third, the issue of emerging development data that's
pushing the world on to a new colonial path.  With connectivity slowing
down, half of the world is not connected and the decisions by the
government are not likely to be represented, the loss of sovereignty, it is
high for the poorest countries who don't have the capacity to manage their
data.  The result is a transfer of national governments to citizen leader
to transnational  queerer cooperations and with that the duty of the state
to safeguard people's rights and interests.   We must bring the power
structures to account. Thank you.

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: Thank you very much. Now, all of your inputs have
given us a complete landscape of where are we in civil and political
rights.    d sector more challenging to go to the next section. Right now I
would like to open to the public for the Q and A section.  We'll be
presenting the Slido over there for the remote participation. I would
kindly ask you to stand up and say your name when you raise your comments
or questions, please.

>> Brian, I would like to thank all the speakers.   I feel the term digital
rights went missing from this discussion.  The digital rights I believe is
a new set of rights, they are Human Rights that will allow people to freely
and easily use access, use create and publish digital media without
harassment from government or non-state actors.  I have a list of bloggers,
others that are in prison just because they post a tweet or a Facebook
post.  Now I think it is in the heart of this, especially the IGF,
anywhere, to protect the digital Rights of those people.  We have to
remember those who are in prison because they enjoy their Freedom of
Expression on the net and I look forward to see how we could protect
digital Rights of people who are trying to use the Internet to promote
peace and freedom in their countries.  Thank you.

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: Thank you very much. We have two questions from the
floor.  There is one.

>> Good morning.  I'm going to speak in Spanish.   My name is Fernando, I'm
from Guatemala, central America.  The topic, it is of great importance in
terms of the exercise of Human Rights. We often go on at news Jim
discussing how governments control the population and society but I think
in countries we have the mechanisms to a greater or a lesser extent to
surveillance  mechanisms to control society.  The question is, what's being
done in other countries in Guatemala we're not sure how this is happening,
we're trying to find out, but what is being done to control companies,
private sector, where the data is coming from, and the data is used to
control citizens.  For instance, right now those of us taking part in the
Forum, beginning to get quotations via the Internet for hotels, food
services, we open the page, and the first thing that we get is an offering
of hotels,  Tequilla, et cetera, it is almost harassment.  What are we
doing to control the private sector, the companies, governments at the end
of the day are undertaking or using a mechanism for surveillance or
supervision. I would ask if you could perhaps clear that up within your
fields.

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: He was asking about other practices in other
countries and how countries are making it comfortable on how they're
gathering data and using it. I would like to mention one of the remote
questions, it has more awareness of Human Rights on the Internet by
governments resulted in more respect for those rights or more laws that
legalises violation of those rights? Someone wants to answer?

>> LUIS FERNANDO GARCIA: It is a bit of both.   There is more awareness and
governments know --  (Hernan Vales) they know the rights and how they need
to respect them.  The framework, it is there and they know it is there.
The thing is that they are more sophisticated in ways to go around it and
we have seen States that adopted the draconian, repressive Internet laws
giving an apparent -- going through the process, it lig Ma advertises the
law, it is a law that's bad if it is so -- I think it is a bit of both.
Thank you.

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: Thank you. We have another question up there.

>> Hello, good morning.  I'm Eduardo Royaz of Bolivia, I'm the author of
the digital oppression concept that we have seen in international fora. One
of the things that we have seen in Human Rights in the Information Society
is lack of  clarity, with a we're going to protect -- if we're going to
protect a database that are owned by different owners or the -- the legal
ownership of individuals we have to put at the core the defense of human
begins, the concept of digital protection focusing on people, not machines
or ownership of infrastructure.  Talking about cybercrime, cyber war we're
often emphasizing the assets infrastructure, setting aside the respect and
protection of the people which is where our emphasis needs to be.  We have
to look at the negative impact of the technologies, that's what we're
looking at rather but we also need to pay more attention on the negative
impact of those technologies on people, on the subjects of the Rights, not
on the assets, per se. I would like to see, for instance, what the opinion
is of panelists in terms of creating a standard so as to enable a dialogue
at the same level of comprehension of the legal protection of people and
not get confused with the protection of the assets, the databases, the
infrastructure per se of private memberships.

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: I would like you to remember the question if you can
answer.

>> PAZ PENA: I'm going to speak in Spanish so as to answer the people who
pose their questions in Spanish.  In terms of the responsibility of
companies, with respect to our data, I think here the work done by Rebecca
McKinnon is very important in terms of having accountability, in terms of
companies. I would also like to underscore the responsibility of users,
consumers, citizens, the view we have of the tools online.  We can be
reluctant and resist to a certain extent.  We need to think about whether
we want to continue to use the tools of companies that are -- that have
monopolies with our data.  For instance, we're talking about Google,
Facebook, as users we need to be able to decide what tools we use and
resist usage of other tools. Now the importance, for instance, of open
software, how open software can be an instance for resisting to the
management of our data and control of our data, not just our data but of
our lives through that.

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: We have another one, it is how does Google draw
limitations on sexual speech as a champion of Human Rights and do they take
right to sexual health and info into consideration.

>> I should answer that one, so very briefly, on products like Search where
the general operating parameter, the operating principle of those are it
should be an index of all information on the web  (Will Hudson) with few
exceptions, we generally don't try to become a filter for information on
any content that people might find controversial, may be offended by
whatever it is.  You know, whether it is information about sexual health,
sexual identity, whatever. On search, you know, that won't be -- that won't
be effective. On products like YouTube on -- on search, I want to say
another thing, there was a health component.   On search, if you use Google
and you type in a search result about a medical condition or an issue like
that, you get results about that condition that's been cure rated by
doctors and verified for accuracy, the idea is to help you ask more
intelligence questions of your doctor, whatever.   That's an had area where
this concept come noose play.  Back to the power of technology, what I said
before, reaching new people, building up voices, a thing we saw on YouTube,
maybe you're ray wear of the it gets better project, it was a -- aware --
it is a massive project on YouTube basically to help, you know, give voice
to people that were struggling with sexual identity because they were being
harassed, experiencing hate, being rejected by their communities, friends.
We found in that experience that, again, you know, technology, the problems
we see online in terms of harassment reflects real world problems, that was
something that was mentioned earlier today too.  You can use technology to
start, you know, fighting back and being a part of the conversation and
maybe the same on this  issue. That said, on more specific questions on it,
it is not my area of expertise, whoever asked it, email me, we'll figure
out how to get that information.   I'll be happen to follow-up.

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: Thank you. Rebecca McKinnon, you wanted to add
something?

>> REBECCA McKINNON: Quickly on a couple of questions regarding company
practices and collection and sharing of data and use of data.

One step is obviously you need good data protection laws.  One of the
things that we have seen in our research is that in countries that  haven't
gotten around to passing data protection  laws, companies tend not to
really bother adhering to Best Practices.  What we're trying to encourage
and we have a whole set of questions in our  methodology that we use to
evaluate companies and we're actually encouraging groups in Latin America
to apply the questions to more companies operating in Latin America, there
are questions like does the company allow you to download all of the data
they have on you.  You can see what they have collected.   Does the company
allow you -- enable you to opt out of use of data -- use of your data
that's not central to providing you the service?  Does the company give you
any control over under what circumstances your information is used.  We're
seeing particularly in the case of telecommunication companies around the
world not very good practice in that.  In countries where particularly
where the law is not requiring good practice it is -- I think it is
important as Paz said for users, for investors, consumers, you really need
to push, and there is a number of NGOs doing good work around Latin America
starting to do research to expose, including Luis Fernando Garcia's
organization looking at Mexican telecommunication companies and their
practices with data and a number of other organizations around the region.
I recommend really pushing companies to do the right thing.  Pushic the
government to enact better laws.

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: Thank you. We have one question here, and someone is
raising the hand there and here.

>> Good morning.  My name is Cali from Venezuela.   I work on rights in
that area. I would like to bring up a couple of points, that is that in
Venezuela the Internet has been the window that we have had to express
ourselves given the huge censor that exists in other media.  There are two
major challenges, one is access to Internet because the die investment of
technological companies and infrastructures, it is very important and
increasingly smaller number of people have access to the Internet in
Venezuela.  Unfortunately. The second point to bring up in terms of
personal data, in Venezuela bio metric data collection is a very highly
used for buying food, medications, we have to provide our fingerprints
every time we want to buy flour for instance. We don't know what the
companies do with that information nor what the government does with that
information and whether they can use that information to spy on the private
lives of people or to use it for any other effect that has an impact on the
privacy of our lives.

>> AUDIENCE: I'll speak in Spanish. What I want to say is access to justice
for  women, online violence against women and the repercussions this has in
terms of the self censorship that women live and how the authorities and
companies are reacting bluntly and effectively and sometimes they don't. I
would like to share that what we have seen is replicated in other
geographies like India and that it is a global trend that we can draw from
the experience.  There is a generalized climate, the generalized climate we
see of the women rights violations in the offline world is replicated
online and the lack of mechanisms to have access to justice I believe that
we're living the same situation. My question is, are you aware of other
experiences, accommodations, what it is -- what is the State of things
right now and what we can do to react to this, in spite of the fact that we
have exchanged ideas with the government, we have had conversations with
companies but it looks as though when there is a rape threat for a women in
the platforms, they don't act.  But when they censor content, feminine,
activists, on those platforms, they immediately act on them to block the
pages and censor.  We see that the online world functions at a patriarchal
world. That's a question for us.

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: We have four minutes to answer the questions, so only
another question. The another question from the remote participation, can
we put it here too?  There are a lot of questions.

I will take one and it is the first one, many of the violations that people
face is attributed to social media -- this is not a question -- no focus on
the people behind it creating using and  providing, we have a question,
manipulation of algorithms by social media and certainly engines affects
our abilities to live outside an echo chamber, what can we do to push back?
I'll leave it at that, keep that in mind.  I want to take the two last
questions from the floor.

>> AUDIENCE: I have two questions.  One is about access to knowledge
because I have stopped a long time ago to use Google as my search engine
since it is clearly profiling me.  Maybe I'm dumb.  I know that the search
in itself is not so neutral as it pretends to be and there are different
information.   This brings to the fact that we do not have really true
access to knowledge because we don't get all of the information, the
information that could happen, they happen and they appear in the ranking
also related to what the Google engine, the G mail engine conveys as to
what I could probably be interested  in, that's one question.  The second
is listed to the harassment online, there is an interesting reflection done
a long time ago about the Internet and the amount of money spent in spam,
how to control spam.  Investing from company to control spam
technologically but in moderation.  Why the harassment, the garbage that we
have against women cannot be considering the same way and invest the money
in the moderation and that means a lot of education on the cultural and
educational framework.

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: Thank you. We have another one, over there, please.

>> Good morning.  My name is gonz alez, I come from Mexico.  My question is
the following, what are where he doing to integrate Indigenous communities
to Internet in what are we doing to protect the integrity and the Human
Rights of Indigenous communities?  On the Internet we have seen different
activities and we have participated and we have to go beyond real access to
the information that Indigenous groups have access to and I believe that
Latin America is the continent where you will find more Indigenous
communities but what are we actually doing to protect them?  Thank you.

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: Please. Is there a Association for Progressive
Communications, one of the speakers Luis Fernando Garcia talked about
surveillance, buying surveillance equipment and how it is being used, this
is a global problem.  What can be done about that?  In my country there are
-- the government actually out sources surveillance to commercial
companies.  There is no transparency around that, there is no monitoring of
that. Is it actually possible for us?  Is it possible to have a regime of
oversight at national and global level that can create more accountability
and more transparency, or is this practice already out of control and
there's nothing we can actually do about it?

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: Thank you very much. We have responses which --

>> LUIS FERNANDO GARCIA: A few.  I can't answer all of the questions.  What
I want to say, I need everyone to understand. First, I think when we talk
about different -- for example, the problem surveillance, we develop the
principles to control it, I think that the experience in the global South
needs to be understood, it is different to have surveillance in a country
that has institutional checks and balances and when it doesn't and just
importing the  principles from the global north and trying to just put them
in your law, everything will be fine, it is not going on.  It does not --
that's not happening and the evidence shows even when, for example, in
Mexico, there is a law and there is judicial warrant requirement, the
authorities, they just don't comply with it. We need to take that into
account.  Also we need to take into account and be weary of legal
colonialism, for example what is going on   with the take down of the M it
CA copyright provisions that are being basically exercising censorship
around the world because of the law of countrior one country.   That's a
problem and when authorities in Europe are demanding for content to be
taken down globally and that's something that's a problem.  It is, as I
said, a form of illegal colonialism.  Also companies should understand that
they have Human Rights responsibilities, particularly those that have the
largest share of certain Internet markets that just because they're private
companies and they can establish certain rules about how we use your
service, this possibility, it is not unlimited, you have limits especially
if you have a bigger share of the market, if you make rules about your --
how the community is going to use your platform, you need to be consistent
that the rules that you establish need to be non-discriminatory and
respectful of Human Rights and I think that's asked, the companies are
starting to take and make decisions that impact even more people than the
decisions that the governments make, they need to take that into account,
that they also need to be accountable about how they develop their rules
and how to implement them and how that harms Human Rights, understanding
also the local context, particularly of the global South. Thank you.

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: Thank you. We have Ana and Will Hudson, we'll close
with  you, thank you.

>> I thought I would take a stab at the question we had -- --

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: Excuse me.  Can we stick to one minute each, please?

>> Yes.

>> I want to talk about manipulation of information by algorithms and here
it reminds me of being in school, I stew teed history and you study
sources, ask where does this document come from, who wrote this document,
looking at the origins of information, it is not a new thing, we need to
consider strongly getting to the point of immediate information, literacy,
digital skills training  (Stuart Hamilton) we have to use library why is to
bring that to peopleful older ages and move beyond the discussions having
here and think about how to rollout big programs on this subject to help
people to tackle the sorts of information.  I'm not certain there is a
technological solution in this, we have to invest in the human capacity to
understand the question.

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: Will.  Will Hudson.

>> WILL HUDSON: One, on the -- the related question on the echo chamber,
the data that companies are using to provide results which are somewhat
related.  One, on the echo chamber, you know, as rebecca pointed out, one
of the a great strength of the Internet is that you can get more
information from different points of view.  This isn't just something that
I'm saying, there is data out there to show that people consuming online
media sources, online news sources are seeking out more kinds of content
from different kinds of viewpoints than they were before.  Again, this is a
historic problem but we're of the belief that more information is better
and that the more information you put out the better people will be. On the
data that companies are using to provide things like search results, one, I
think for Google at least, we found that the quarry itself is the best
indicator of what people want, searching for today's news, you know, if
you're signed in on one account for today's news, signed in on another
account, doesn't produce dramatically different results, at Google this
goes to the transparency and user trust issue to get online and you can see
the pieces of information that Google has about you and you can see how we
collected it, what we're using it for and you can delete that information
or you can download it and take it with you and delete it.  I think that
the user trust piece is important.

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: Thank you.  Ana Neves.

>> ANA NEVES: From what I heard, I would like to make three comments. I
think the strategies for digital inclusion, literacy, the accessibility,
that's key, number one. Number two, users and consumers in parliament, it
is crucial as they must have full control of their own data. Finally, it is
-- I think it should be required, greater responsibility and accountability
of actors who provide services and products over the Internet so by design
and default principles should be the private sector priorities which could
reduce eventually government regulation.  This is my final comments before
I part. Thank you.

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: Thank you. Any final remarks?

>> YOLANDA MARTINEZ: Okay. I believe that the challenges are clear.  It is
clear that these are common challenges, our colleagues who made reference
to Indigenous communities, I believe we have two major tasks and that is to
be responsible in a multisteak hold were community to fight for the
communities and to advocate for them, we need a clear legal framework in
terms of what should be done. In Mexico with we have a specialal act on the
protection of data in the hands of private entities and having data is an
enormous step forward but we have to make sure we have a clear strategy to
educate on the use of the Internet.  We need to identify the possible
partnerships that can take place with Indigenous communities and in the
case of Mexico every year we have 31% more users and in 2018 we'll have 98
million people using the Internet and we have a huge responsibility as a
community not only in Mexico but in Latin America, the region of the world,
with he have to make sure that in this inclusion process in the Internet,
the rights, they're fully granted. Thank you very much.

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: Thank you. 20 seconds.

>> ANITA GURUMURTHY: I wanted to point out that the discussion on data
should also account for the fact that you're not only talking about
individual data, because to reduce the entire data phenomena to a question
of personal content would be incorrect, data is also a social phenomena and
we know that in the nexus between states and corporations, if we allow the
data to become an individual question we will lose the whole idea of the
democratic social ownership of o you are communities and societies.

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: Thank you very much to the public, remote
participation, for all of your  answers and insights.

Let's continue with our second section where Anja will be moderating.

>> ANJA KOVACS: What this section made clear  (standby for new captioner).
Ouch

captioner

ic # questions are back on the Agenda, what we wanted to do in this second
session was to look in more detail at how the economic social and cultural
rights are already addressed in Internet Governance or not and how they
should be. What it would mean to have a rights-based approach to Internet
Governance specifically from the perspective of economic, social, cultural
rights, what are some of the key issues in this field that we need to look
at.  Some have been mentioned, there is more.  What are the practices and
lessons we have learned in this area and that we can draw on going forward.
We'll follow the same format as in the previous section and I'm going to
ask, again, everybody to try to stick to time as closely as possible so
that we can have a are I have discussion.  -- a rich discussion. I would
like to ask Juan Fernandez, a senior advisor in the minute is it industry
of communications of Cuba and a MAG member to share what's going on in his
field on this subject.

>> JUAN FERNANDEZ: Good morning. Madam Chair, dear colleagues, first of
all, I would like to say how satisfied I am to set foot in Mexican land.
Mexico and Cuba are neighboring countries that are united with deep
historic cultural, friendship ties I would like to thank as well the
organizers of this session for having invited me to participate in this
section devoted to economic, social, cultural rights and also to point out
the pertinence of carrying out this debate in Mexico since it was one of
the first nations in the world to enshrine such rights in its Constitution
in 1917. Before moving on to specific questions raised by the moderator,
allow me to express some general considerations. In a if you days, the 50th
anniversary of the adoption by the General Assembly of the United Nations
of the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights will
be celebrated which commits the parties to work for the concession to
persons of these Rights, including labor Rights, the Rights to health, the
Right to education and the Right to an adequate standard of living, also
two days ago, the 30th anniversary of the adoption in the United Nations of
the declaration on the right to the development took place which enshrines
the right to development as an inalienable Human Rights by virtue of which
every human person and all  peoples are entitled to participate in an
economic, social, cultural and political development in which all Human
Rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized. The reality is that
in today's world it is far from achieving the goal of addressing the
economic, social and cultural rights and also the Right to development on
equal footing and with the same weight as the civil and political Rights.
In the case of the latter, today virtually no one questions its rightness
and there are international mechanisms for examining individual grievances.
However, in relation to economic, social and cultural Rights some even
question their own existence and refer to them as ideals for the  future.
.  I therefore con great late the  organizers of this session for having
granted a great importance to the principles recognized by the
international communities on the universality, indivisibility,
interdependence and interrelation of all Human Rights.  Nevertheless, it is
necessary to point out that the effective implementation of these
principles constitutes a challenge not yet surpassed in the allocation of
resources by the international community, in the existing international
instruments on the subject and in the performance on the United Nations
Human Rights machinery itself.  I turn now to address some of the questions
raised by the moderator.  From previously expressed remarks it is clear
that are economic, social and cultural rights and the right to development
have not been incorporated with the pre-eminence they deserve in the debate
on Internet Governance.  On the other hand, I believe that the adoption by
the international community on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
constitutes an opportunity to put the attainment of these Rights at the
heart of the Internet Governance.  In this sense it is necessary to
recognize that Internet, like any other technology, it is not an end in
itself, but it is a means to the satisfaction of the needs of persons and
peoples. We must reject the concept of Internet  exceptionalism and begin
to treat it as its fair value within a set of necessary and enabling
technologies for the provision of basic services such as drinking water,
electricity, food, housing, education and health. I would like to conclude
by emphasizing that if the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development and the
Sustainable Development Goals are to be fulfilled, a fairer, more equitable
international economic order will have to be established.  The right to
development exercised and direct participation and leading roles of the
countries of the South in decision-making at the global level, including
Internet Governance must be established. Thank you very much.

>> ANJA KOVACS: Thank you for the opening remarks and for reminding us of
the history of these rights. And the challenges that have sometimes
surrounded them both online and offline. I would next like to turn to Sally
Wentworth, vice President of global policy development at the Internet
Society which leads the organization's public policy activities and guides
the development of public policies that support a global, open, trusted
Internet.  Sally, with he know that ISOC has worked on looking at the
intersection of Internet Governance and especially the SDGs for a while now
and really tried to put that issue on the Agenda.   How do you see the
intersection between the  economic, social, cultural rights and the
Internet Governance and I would like to again request all speakers to
please stick to 3 minutes. Thank you.

>> SALLY WENTWORTH: Thank you very much.  Thank you for including the
Internet Society on this important discussion. As you said at the Internet
Society we have long believed that the Internet is a force for empowerment,
it is a technology that can really strengthen the ability of individuals
worldwide to exercise their economic, cultural rights and to express
themselves and build communities in ways that have never really been
possible before. We believe quite firmly that the issues related to access
and the Internet are quite linked to the issues related to Human Rights,
we're pleased that this issue is high on the Agenda of this panel. As one
of our colleagues I think in the audience noted, the gentlemen from
Venezuela, there is people in his country that see the Internet as a
crucial medium open to their expression and opportunity and there is
inefficient access in their country for all people.  These things are quite
linked, I do want to point out that from the Internet Society's
perspective, we look into the future and we note that it is not sufficient
to bridge the digital divide in terms of technology.  We have to be looking
forward to the other kinds of divides that start to emerge.  We don't want
to see a world of the Internet where some people are only consumers and
don't have the opportunities to create. We in our community, we're seeing a
rising concern about different kinds of divides that are starting to emerge
where people don't have a quality in the nature of opportunities that come
from the Internet.  It is not sufficient to simply have access, you need to
have access that's empowering, you need to have access that creates
economic opportunities and you can't have the kind of divides between
different levels of income and status in a society that determine your
right to access. One issue that's starting to emerge that I think is quite
interesting is -- and concerning, perhaps -- of course we know to further
the Internet we have to trust it as a technology.  There are concerns that
there is divide emerging between groups that have access to high levels of
security, high levels of encryption that have the digital skills to utilize
those tools versus others that do not.  You could see a divide emerging
between individuals who can secure transactions, secure interactions online
and those that don't.  That creates a whole new level of vulnerabilities
that I think is particularly important when talking about Human Rights and
Human Rights activism online. Those are just a few issues that I thought I
would put on the table linking the economic development to the exercise of
Human Rights. Thank you.  You

>> ANJA KOVACS: Thank you for putting on the table some of the new
vulnerabilities that misplaced Internet Governance can create and I would
like to next insite Carolyn Njuyen director of technology policy at
Microsoft, she focuses on the policy  issues related to Internet Governance
and the digital economy.

>> CAROLYN NGUYEN: Thank you.  Thank you to the organizers for putting this
issue at the forefront and for including me -- enabling me to participate
in the panel. I wanted to start my comments with the response to some of
the previous questions with respect to responsibility of corporations.
Since 2016 Microsoft is a significant tore of the U.N. global come packet,
from that perspective we look at both civil and political rights and had
the economic, social, culture rights and in 2013 we release our own Human
Rights statement and since then follow-up on it with our privacy principles
that look at privacy, security, transparency as well as development of
technologies that would have to benefit the individual user. As a leading
technology provider, we take this issue very seriously.  For example,
through participation at appropriate U.N. organizations and in dialogues
such as this.  Others have mentioned already the criticality role that the
Internet access plays in achieving economic, social, cultural rights.  I
want to go back to the point of the fact that the WSIS process has, now,
aligned -- the outcome document has now aligned the WSIS process with the
SDG so that as one mentioned, that makes the economic, social, cultural
rights really at the heart of the discussion of the Internet and Internet
Governance. I think it also has an additional, practical effect in terms of
broadening the discussion in Internet Governance and bringing to the table
ministries and government agencies that are dealing with economic, finance,
education, health, creating as such additional pressures for enabling
policy environment and furthermore and more importantly, a more holistic, a
balanced discussion on the impact of the Internet with Human Rights being
an integral element of that discussion. Regarding key issues related to
enabling  economic, social, cultural rights, at Microsoft we look at this
through a three-pronged approach,  firstly it has to do with enablement
through connectivity.  This has to do with connecting the remaining 4
billion that are still unconnected.   From that perspective it is essential
to maintain an open end-to-end secure, stable, resilient Internet
infrastructure as the Internet continues to expand and also enable
affordable, ubiquities access to the Internet globally.  Secondly, we
believe in empowerment through education, throughout efforts such as UNESCO
putting forth information literacy and more importantly creating motivation
for the individual users and everyone to care about education and access to
the Internet, for that we believe the Cloud is an important enablement
platform serving at the basis of our trust and responsibility and inclusive
Cloud policies anded a had vow cacies.  We believe in transformation
through employment for this we work, for example, with refugee
organizations around the world to enable refugees to apply for settlement
as well as employment opportunities online. Fourthly, what's important
that's been brought up by others already, it is the important of
multistakeholder participation to enable well, informed policy stakeholders
to fully understand the impact of ICT in enabling ESCRs rights and are then
motivated to develop policies that are well intentioned. Thank you.

>> ANJA KOVACS: Thank you. I think it is an important point that you put on
the table to say that actually we need far more ministries, other
stakeholders in rooms like this to actually have this conversation properly
and had then in turn the entire Internet Governance system will likely
benefit from their participation.   Nanjira Sambuli is from the web
foundation where she leads efforts to promote digital equality in access to
and use of the web. You have worked a lot with marginalized populations,
people who are particularly vulnerable.   What are your insights from that
work for this debate?

>> NANJIRA SAMBULI: Thank you. Starting with where we are right now, we see
that there is acknowledgment that the Internet is a very enabling tool for
women everywhere.  We have seen this in the SDGs and specifically 1.4 had
talking about digital equality and how that is enforced for women.  We have
seen in the broader United Nations system through the Secretary-General's
high level panel on women empowerment, the ownership of assets is just as
important as financial and property assets and the idea is to catalyze more
commitment from all actors we're talking about in the room to actually do
something about it.  The situation on the ground as we found so far is that
income and equality is effecting how women own the digital assets and had
how they access and use the web in a meaningful way.  Working with
affordability reports, it highlights this clearly.  Advanced social norms
are also effecting how women are owning property and had in this case
digital property and digital  assets.  We're seeing that gender blind ICT
policies as we're seeing them now, they're leaving women behind.  If we're
talking about, for instance, universal access,   what 9C calls for by 2020
it, the rate we're going, we'll miss the mark by 22  years.  Something that
was brought up by someone in the audience about blocking and filtering of
content, also what we're seeing with this trend of introing Internet is
keeping women specifically from accessing meaningful information on sexual
reproductive health and that's a ground we're looking at in the framework
on these issues.  Where do we go from there?  There is a question around
the Human Rights council resolution 2016 calling for comprehensive rights
based approach to accessing the Internet, how we see it at the web
foundation is that it entails what we call a react framework, it has to
cover the rights, education in this case, digital skills that are taught
not just in primary schools, secondary schools and for education for women
and others to get digitally empowered, we're talking about affordable
access talking about more ambitious affordability targets over and above
what we have right now we're talking about investing in public access for
women and others.  Really the community at large to engage.  Gender
responsive policy, something we're working specifically on, by trying to
bring in governments to understand that, you know, this is not just about
putting out ICT for policies but gender responsible policies, gender
desegregated data, others, last but not least I want to maining mention
when we talk about multistakeholderism in this order we have to make sure
that it is not justly service as with the SDGs, we have to make room to
acknowledge who is not in the room and their perspectives are not covered.
This will be very important for us to understand that maybe our
perspectives are not sufficient and had we have to bring those in.  That's
how we're trying to work out the issues.  I hope to. Could back next year
and to talk about more solutions and not just the challenges we have. Thank
you very much.

>> ANJA KOVACS: Thank you so much. Many challenges, the questions then, it
is how do we resolve them.  Carla Reyes has worked on governance by design
and done research in that area as well.  I would like her to share her
comments next.  She's a visiting assistant professor of law at Stetso had n
University college of law and had also a member of the Dynamic Coalition
for blockchain technologies in the IGF.

>> CARLA REYES: Thank you for inviting me to participate this morning. I
would like to answer the question posed by the moderators as to whether
ESCRs is on the Agenda, from my perspective the question may actually be
whether we have good tools to incorporate the ESCRs in the Agenda in a
meaningful way.  What is my perspective exactly?  As a member of the
Dynamic Coalition on Blockchain technologies and a law professor, my
background is on law, technology with emphasis on blockchain technologies
or what is called commonly as distributed ledger technology. With that
background, it is possible to see blockchain technologies as a possible way
for further incorporating economic, social, cultural rights in the Internet
Governance Agenda. Specifically blockchain technology offers opportunities
for rethinking governance models to allow for a rights-based approach that
focuses on Indigenously designated rights and needs of the community at
question.  At the core, we see blockchain technology as representative of
transformative potential for peer to peer based granular control -- -- and
0 knowledge proofs, -- the idea in a nutshell is that blockchains can serve
as a tool to enable large-scale distributed collaboration and more
participatory decision making in turn could change it's way we think about
governance.  It could enable us to change the way that people experience,
defend, enjoy their  economic, social, cultural rights. It is a tool that
would allow communities to basically organize themselves and to build into
their organization, into their own governance structures their values, the
values and economic aspects of economic, social, cultural rights that are
important to them, not that we're telling them should be important to them.
It is a way to bring as the last speaker just mentioned other voices into
the conversation, Indigenously from their own action. My colleague actually
has worked extensively on this idea of governance by design and she
envisions blockchain as a tool for developing governance  models that are
flatter, more participatory and transparent, there are challenges to
implementing the blockchain technologies as a tool for this sort of
realization of the economic, social, cultural rights and in particular the
challenge that's probably most relevant for this Forum is that even within
distributed governance models there is be a opportunity for accumulation of
soft power through control of the building of the government  structures,
the question may be for this Forum becomes how to prevent such soft power
from the -- the accumulation of the soft power from stopping the potential
of blockchain technologies to help folks integrate more thoroughly their
exercise of their economic, social, cultural rights. Thank you.

>> ANJA KOVACS: Thank you so much. Thank you for putting on the table a way
of moving the debate forward on these issues.  Sally Burch, you have worked
on communities on the ground as well, participation is a core concern.  How
would you respond to this proposal and Sally is with Asociacion
Latinoamericana de Informacion and with the JustNet Coalition from Ecuador.

>> SALLY BURCH: Thank you. Just a correction on the program, moo I
organization is Latin American information agency.   Internet Governance
under the multistakeholder model was essentially designed to deal with
mainly technological issues.  Today there are more levels of complexity by
far covering a vast array of areas of human society that can't be governed
through a technological approach. In fact, both the terms Internet and
Internet Society are rather vague terms with different interpretations of
what they actually include.  This leads to dangerous and often unperceived
slips or displacements from the level of connectivity and access to that of
content and interactions. Often it is governed by untrans parents
algorithms, the platforms we set up, to facilitate the content sharing
things like that, it often takes on a role of mediators, of data bank
managers,  media,ing of sensors, of libraries, of markets and many other
functions that often end up overriding the government city governments that
societies have built over decades to regulate the areas in the public
interests. The implications for economic, social and cultural rights
include the fact that although these have been recognized in many
international declarations they mostly are ensured by national legislation
and public policy.  The Internet platforms operate globally, they become no
longer applicable.  Human Rights by essence must be guaranteed in the
democratic frameworks. The present international government frameworks,
they need mechanisms -- have mechanisms that are inadequate to deal with
this.  Whether it is Internet Governance per se or other areas of
governance that are not adapted to address new challenges such as in labor,
women rights, Indigenous Peoples rights, disabilities, education, et
cetera. As challenges, this means among other things that we need to
develop first of all international binding instruments to ensure Human
Rights and transnational spaces. Secondly, the mechanisms related to those
that both individuals and States can have resource to when their rights are
violated.  This means working both in the realm of Internet Governance
itself, but also incorporating the Information Society in other existing
areas of global governance.  Thank you.

>> ANJA KOVACS: Thank you.  You put important attention on the table, the
one between national and international frameworks.  We see that in other
areas as well. Burcu Kilic works with public citizen where she's the legal
and policy director relating toic a single end-point server to medicine,
innovation and information issues.  . You have worked extensively on the
Internet as it relates to international trade agreements.  How would you
look at this issue from that perspective.

>> BURCU KILIC: Thank you. Before I came to this session, we had a session
-- one of the negotiators oen the basketball of the TTPN and when we first
started to discuss the TTP he said something -- I think we should all
remember this, to ourselves, trade agreements are trade, they're not about
to be memorized, not about Internet Governance, we shouldn't expect trade
agreements to protect Human Rights or Internet Governance because that's
how the tradier craters see -- now how to the   negotiators see the
agreement, the trade agreements and the TTP, we're popular nowadays among
the politicians and everyone is talking about the TTP, so the Trans-Pacific
partnership agreement, the basic, it is negotiating for five years among 12
countries, including the United States, Canada, Australia, Chili, Japan,
many others.  . Serious concerns are raised about the TPP, it is the
impacts on Human Rights, civil, political, social, economic rights, last
year during the negotiations, they were coming to an end, the Civil Society
organizations, 150 Civil Society organizations from the TPP countries, they
filed a special -- they made a special submission to the special procedure
mandate holders about the TPP because we were asking them to fake action
against the TPP and all the issues that the TPP will be effected.  We
attached the 150-page analysis in order to show the potential for
significant Human Rights impact due to the TPP, it is available online if
you like to check, but some of the rights -- some of the issues we
identified among all are like cultural rights, education environment,
privacy, freedom of speech, health, food, many other issues, the special
procedure holders, thankfully they took our request seriously and they made
some recommendations such as the Human Rights impact assessments and row
boast safeguards for Human Rights.  The issue is like we're talking about
trade agreements and it doesn't really make sense for trade negotiators to
think about this issue unless we bring -- unless we bring the issues to
their attention.  All those years I have been coming to the IGF and raising
the issue on the trade agreement and this year I'm happy to see that there
are many workshops about the trade agreements and maybe we'll have what
main session on trade later this  afternoon. It is very important for all
Human Rights and as IGF community, we have a very important duty to raise
the issues and to bring the issues to the trade negotiators attention.
Thank you very much.

>> ANJA KOVACS: Thank you so much.  Thank you for this important remainder
and also call to action. Finally, I would like to ask Stuart Hamilton to
take the floor.  He's the director of policy and advocacy and Deputy
Secretary-General at the international Federation of Library Associations
and institutions where his brief includes all issues relating to access to
information.

>> STUART HAMILTON: I'll frame my remarks in the content of access to
information and knowledge. The libraries facilitate the right to access
information in the community and we also defend other rights such as the
right to privacy wherever we can.  With so much of our work being digital,
it is essential to us that the rights are included in the Internet
Governance discussions and are they here?  Yes, they are in part.  There is
useful progress on the right to sort of basic Internet access, that's
increasingly accepted as basic infrastructure and we welcome this.  When it
comes to content, what's accessed, we have to do more to support the
information rights online, the freedom to access the Internet means little
if you can't get to the culture and innovation there and the Special
Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights  underlined there is a right to
culture and the fruits of research which is extremely important to
libraries, let's put this in the con telegraphs of the SDGs, target 16 is
calls for increasing public access to information, but libraries finding
challenges to meet the target as we don't have the legal and policy
frameworks we need to access and preserve information. Many libraries and
membership, they're saying that the current situation we have is not
sustainable. This is where I would like to bring in the issues I think we
need to pay attention to.  I really draw our attention to the changes in
ownership of information to the shift of digital that's developed and I
think that rectifying this situation, it is essential for fulfilling all
SDGs.  This situation is getting worse every year.  In the eBook market,
Amazon, Apple and Kobo control that, scientific publishing, we have five
companies that control more than 50% of that environment last year the
journal publishers earned $10 million and the biggest 5 companies there
have profit margins of over 30%.   These are earned through consistently
rising costs of information, huge titles costing between 2, 35,000 for
libraries, to the point where Harvard University can't afford to pay for
them anymore and has called the situation untannable, if you look at costs
of textbooks, since 78 the prices have increased 812% and the consumer
price index was only up 250%.  Is this sustainable?  I think not.  The
Sustainable Development Goals is for 15 years, with he have to think longer
perhaps.  We suggest that we need to think very clearly about Best Practice
around long-term sustainable information  environments and we need legal
frameworks at national levels talking to each other at international levels
and they need to address the creation of information, use of information,
preservation of information, and favorable conditions to the public
interest when it comes to accessing information.  To finish with one
concrete thing we need, we need to reform a global copyright system, the
current one we have is outdated for libraries archives, built for a had
print age, not the digital one, in many countries, particularly the global
South have no exceptions and limitations that would help preserve and
access information.  We need a better system that will carve out exceptions
to help us exercise the rights I have talked about and we need a system
where commercial interests in particularly licenses and contracts cannot
undermine those rights. I'll stop there.

>> ANJA KOVACS: Thank you so much, Stewart. Thank you for the discussions
on the table. I think what this discussion has shown is that it really is
an urgent issue.The overall picture is actually fairly grim and worrying
and clearly needs action. We have about 15 to 20 minutes to take comments
from the floor as well.  Try to is it I can to about 1:30.  We'll take
several in a row and then go back to the discussions. I see one over here
and one over there.  . We'll take these three to start with. Maybe start
here.

Just please stand up.  That's easier for the cameras and introduce
yourself.

>> This is the Association for Progressive Communications.  There are some
governments that are trying to make us believe that if there are some
efforts in place towards the realization of ESCRs we should not reclaim
civil and political rights, particularly if they are to be fully exercised
in their online sphere by using the Internet.  I would like the panel to
let us know their views on -- what they would tell the ones that want to
put certain, political rights and economical and social and cultural rights
on a separate relationship by -- you know, by exerting arbitrary and also
the disproportion control over the Internet

>> ANJA KOVACS: That's a question for the panel later. The gentlemen in
front.

>> AUDIENCE: Brian from the center for Human Rights. I think it was Sally
that mentioned the need to not just have access to the Internet, but to
have a quality access to the net.  That's very good. Then we have to face
realities on the ground like in our had countries, about 60% of our
population have no access to the Internet due to the lack of social justice
V corruption, other factors.  Now could we do something for the people?
What is the role of the big companies?  For many years we heard a lot about
for example -- just an example --  Google, free Internet balloons.  I
wonder where they are flying?  Probably in the U.S. where there is no need
for them. I mean, could we just -- could we adopt an initiative to support
communities who have no means to access the Internet?  That's a question we
need to address. Thank you.

>> ANJA KOVACS: Thank you. One more question in the back.

>> Hello.  I'm from Hong Kong, China.  Actually I really appreciate the
first speaker from Brazil about the decision making process at the
international level and the national level of the Human Rights treaty. My
question is actually many companies, you know, the Internet company, social
media company, the governments, they're coming from society which has a
relatively weak Human Rights discourse or  traditions.  My question is how
can we invite the organizations, the companies, the governments in this
society who call the South parts of the international society, they need
more engagement in the Human Rights debate at U.N. level and also at an IGF
program. Thank you.

>> ANJA KOVACS: Thank you. Just to check, is there a question from remote
participation? We have one more comment here now and then we'll take the
other two in the next round.

>> AUDIENCE: My name is Carlos Francisco, I'm from the University of
Guadalajara here in Mexico. What I'm most interested in as well in addition
to what you were mentioning in terms of the gaps that currently exist for
having Internet literacy in many communities and peoples where it is
required, in addition to literacy on usage of the Internet, how are we
assessing the literalcy of the Internet but not even that, actually even
basic literacy in terms of basic knowledge whether efforts in literacy
projects are actually being successful within this context or not. That
takes me to what we were discussing in terms of libraries, all universities
such as the University of Guadalajara have very expensive data banks --
extensive data banks, a great deal of money is paid for that information --
while neither  Google, other types of companies that are  privatizing, if
you will, the information, they're generating junk information as was
mentioned previously. It doesn't contribute to admissions or students and
they're using it.  That's what challenge.  A low income student who doesn't
have access to the Internet basically, which is one of the hugest Chapel
lengths in my opinion, and subsequently once that student has access the
information is not as accessible or it's discriminated and the student
can't generate a good paper or Article.  What can we do so that that can
happen so that there becomes a Google -- I'm using that reference because
it is easy for me -- but so that there is good information provided in that
search engine. Thank you.

>> ANJA KOVACS: Let's have one Slido question as well.  Are monopolies in
certain telcos and Internets service pace bad for accessibility and
connectivity and what are Human Rights oriented alternatives to the
monopolies.  Who on the panel would like to take any of the questions that
are raised.

>> On the issue of separation, it is a tricky thing especially with
governments in the global South, (Nanjira Sambuli) strategies  , among
ourselves here, to be clear, while we have to work on them separately, we
cannot have one without the other and to take that message with us.  Then
we go, have meetings with the governments of Civil Society, and it is a
different type of access than private sector companies and that's why
having these principals we adhere to, it is important.  Enforcing it on
this other side of stakeholders, it is really, really critical to help us
get this understood.   There is a culture of fear, the political mechanism,
how it is set up, challenged everywhere, we have to all agree that this is
how we go about it.  No separating one without the other.  To the point
about connecting those that are not connected, yes, we definitely need
interventions of private sector but I'm keen to make sure we don't excuse
our governments.  I come from Kenya as well.  We tend to have this notion
especially sometimes that it is up to other actors because we're used to
bad  governments.  Market forces alone won't get us connected with 2020 by
the SDG, we have to have strong leadership, agitate for it, we cannot
exonerate the government from their job.  When the other sector, many,
private sectors that are he want ared here, they come in, they're ad
hearing to Best Practices so that when they're preparing standards to the
countries, it is not a monopoly to fight when talking about certain,
political rights but because of the rules of engagement, that's how we see
it and how we'll work with all actors to make sure that that will happen.

>> ANJA KOVACS: Thank you.

>> SALLY WENTWORTH: To built on the comments to connect the unconnected.
This is something that the Internet Society feels passionately about.
You're right it is -- we can talk about quality of access, I think that's
important but first we have to speak clearly about access itself. From the
Internet Society's perspective it is not sufficient to bring in equipment,
you have to build communities, local communities that can both build the
technology, use the technology, innovate on the technology and express
themselves with the technology.  That's an approach of building communities
rather than just bringing in technology.   That, we think, is the way to
see empowerment.   We're seeing all over the world with projects that the
Internet Society has supported in partnership with many others to see
community networks growing up of individuals who are passionate about this,
who believe in this and are building it for the futures. I do want to -- I
want to build on something that D -- that Anja said is about -- we cannot
absolve the governments from the responsibility.  They need to create an
environment in which community networks can grow in their countries.  That
I think goes to the question that's online here about the  monopolies, bad
for accessibility, absolutely.  If we don't have a had competitive
environment in which new and innovative services can be deployed and which
new actors can come into the marketplace, we won't see affordable solutions
coming forward.  We won't see local and small businesses come into the
market. I think all of these things are tied. I'm sorry, I have to head out
to the airport. Thank you for the conversation.

>> ANJA KOVACS: Thank you very much for being here with us. There are
several other speakers that either had to arrive late or leave early but
we're grateful to all of you for being here.

>> STUART HAMILTON: Thank you. Quickly addressing the questions from the
gentleman on the left.  Literacy is a target in the SDGs, I'm very keen to
see, you know, that fundamental literacy, connected to all of us addressed.
I can't speak for what search engines are doing on good quality information
but in our   responsibilities as a librarian, an educator we can do a bit
more in our institutions to shift ourselves to open access, to maybe
communicate to our communities just how much money we are paying the
companies, often there are non-disclosure agreements and more and more
countries like Finland to find  ways around to draw attention to where the
taxpayer money is going, that's important to do, then finally to go back to
the connecting the unconnected, the unconnected and very much agreeing with
the government responsibility in this, I don't think we'll get that 1.5
billion online without a public access to the Internet component and there
I think we can use institutions likely bracer more to bring people online
in the community.

>> ANJA KOVACS: Thank you. Before we go back to the floor, yes.

>> I think of economic, culture, social rights, in the history of nations,
societies, we have seen that this is a kind of an evolving kind of
framework.  In India particularly where I come from in the recent past we
have had discussions around right to information, right to education, right
to food, all of these (Anita Gurumurthy) they're legislated.  What I would
like to say to the question, just like Brazil had a Marco civil  process,
we have to think of that as a national level not including civil and
political rights only but focus on the indivisibility and interdependence
of the ESCRs which includes many things because one demand to make with
governments, if you are going digital by default, then access should be by
right.   If digital by default, then access by right. This will include
many things, public  provisioning, public interest content, public  access,
minimum data allowance, digital literacy as a right, community-owned
infrastructure licenses, regulatory, redress mechanisms, the architecture
of the Internet itself, net neutrality and the right to participate.

>> ANJA KOVACS: Thank you. Let's take three, four more comments from the
floor and we'll go back to the panel and move on to the next section.  I
saw one there, there was a question here. There is one more here.And one
from remote.   Let's start with remote.

>> Remote:  Greetings to all.  -- am I on?  (No audio).  The

>> Good afternoon, my question, it is addressed to all of those governments
that have ratified conventions and that have acknowledged access to the
Internet as a had Human Rights.  I would like to know how have you managed
to interact between government authorities and CSOs considering that the
interest of governments and organized Civil Society interests are sometimes
difficult to reconciliation.

>> ANJA KOVACS: Thank you.

>> Remote:  Is is it really possible to protect Human Rights while they do
exist, a lot of juxtaposition is on around the right of criminals, they're
given more respect than the privacy of the victims and sadly it goes on and
on and it is -- is it possible?

>> ANJA KOVACS: Who was the question by?

>> (Remote participation:  By anonymous.

>> ANJA KOVACS: Thank you.

>> I'm Sonya Kelly, I work at Freedom House, much has been said about the
importance of closing gender gap in Internet use and the data we currently
have actually indicates that gender gap has been on the increase over the
last few years.  However, I would like to stress the importance of having
gender desegregated data in order to really zero in how extensive the
problem is.  I'm not really sure whether you all in the audience realize,
only 70 countries provide gender desegregated data to the  ITU, so my
question is how can we ensure that all of the governments actually provide
the data because the bottomline is that we cannot start addressing this
issue until we know how extensive the issue is.   Also we cannot know in
which countries this is the biggest problem again until the data is
produced.

>> ANJA KOVACS: Thank you. Yes?  This will be the last question and then
we'll come back to the panel.

>> Thank you.  As we all know, the ESCRs have very strong relationship with
political processes or to say clearly, with the State. The panelists have
spoken about how important ESCRs are with regard to the Internet and we
know that the Internet is a global phenomena that national policy spaces
are largely helpless with regard to it.  Most small countries don't even
talk about it because they don't see the talk going anywhere in front of
that global policy phenomena in front of which the policy spaces, it is
very weak. I think it is important therefore to talk about the rights, the
ESCRs, without talking about spaces for developing norms and public policy
frameworkics at the global level.  The question to the mantle lists is if
these rights are important what policy pros at the global level are
important?  Let me say the reactive process of Human Rights institutions at
the global level are not enough.  As Anita said, these are areas that are
ever-evolving and we have to interpret first the rights in terms of what
exactly they mean in the digital space and develop the policy spaces and
frameworks and then enforcement mechanisms for it. Thank you.

>> ANJA KOVACS: Thank you. One more question from remote.  -- on Slido, can
we hear about the intersection of cultural rights, religions, sexuality?
I'll read the other as well, rightholders are gendered individuals, how to
ensure the expression of sexuality will not be Morellizeed, punished by the
private Internet.  Who would like to respond?  I would ask you to be fairly
brief.  We have the final session of the day, its completely interactive,
so you will get a chance to comment again. Who would like to respond to
this?

>> LUIS FERNANDO GARCIA: A brief comment.  As the governments providing
services and access to rights through the Internet the happens it is
important that they take in account the language barrier, many governments
are putting money and effort into providing services online but not in
connecting people. This can create even an effect that far from creating,
making it a leveler between society, making it even disparities larger,
particularly in the Indigenous Peoples, peoples with disabilities, they
cannot access information that is provided by the government to access
services and this is a problem. We also need indicators to measure the
progress and it is very important because for example in Mexico it was
changed, the way it was measured how people access and use the Internet so
this can provide artificial results about the progress that's been made
regarding connectivity.  It is important that we have countable indicators
to measure the progress and finally, besides government, also making
connectivity programs that need to be accountable and measured as well, it
is important also that the governments facilitate the communities to -- the
community networks to arise another component that can be together with
what the market can do, what the state can do, what community networks can
do, we can achieve universal access.

>> ANJA KOVACS: Thank you.  I saw Burcu Kilic, Sally, Angela.

>> BURCU KILIC: I want to comment on the question regarding the policy
space.  I have to say, this session, it has been informative for me and it
once again demonstrated that we have so many challenges such as access,
connectivity, gender, digital  divide, and we have to deal with this issue,
these challenges.  The problem is in trade agreements, people that are
already making rules for us, people are already negotiating and making
rules for Internet and Internet Governance without discussing these
challenges.  Once again, the trade agreements become -- the trade
agreements are really important, policy measures.  The global policy --
globally, the countries, especially developed countries, the U.S.A., the
E.U., they use the trade agreements as a way to limit the developing
countries, especially small countries policy space.   The policy space is
shrinking and that's why we need to discuss and we need to be more involved
in the trade process.

>> ANJA KOVACS: Thank you.

>> SALLY BURCH: Yes. About the question on what kind of global policies are
important, I think -- which is initially what I addressed.  Some of the
spaces where these global policies could be discussed beyond this Forum,
there is a process in the United Nations Human Rights council already
taking place to draft a treaty on the transnational cooperations and Human
Rights as a binding treaty. So far, Internet and digital rights haven't
really been taken into consideration in that space and maybe it is
something -- a place where they should be present. Second, there is a
proposal, I don't have the exact name of it, there is a proposal in
discussion at the United Nations on a treaty on cyber war and to
demilitarize the Internet which is fundamental spa us to have more input
from society. The third, possibly the third space to discuss these things,
the countries -- the South, the global  South, they do have international
integration  spaces, in the case of Latin America, the CILAC, the Latin
America, and the Caribbean, they have not really taken on had these issues
as part of the Agenda either, these could be key spaces to discuss common
policies and to have a stronger voice in International Policy making.

>> ANJA KOVACS: Before we go on, was there another comment from remote?
How to ensure that information regarding alternative sexualities and gender
identities is available to people in countries with strict religious anti
queer laws.

>> NANJIRA SAMBULI: That's a really hard  question. I wanted to talk to the
issue on the desegregated data.  It is -- what we're trying to do is a
carrot and stick approach in the sense that we can't get further ahead if
we keep telling governments what they're not doing and not working with
them to figure out how to do it with the woman rights network, we have done
caucuses on the digital divide for some countries to show them where they
are.  But also very clear action Agenda, and through the work we do with
the alliance for affordable Internet we're making sure that they have
gender responsive policies, if those are writing them now, make sure it is
baked into it and how they can go about it.   Those looking to row vice it,
working to figure out what are the right indicators.  We have to work
together, say what are the indicators we need around gender, not just men
and women versus this, but meaningful data telling us how to progress so
we're welcoming as many people as possible to help governments understand
that so that we're not always coming back saying it is a problem but we
start having progressive solutions to help us understand all of this.

>> ANJA KOVACS: Thank you. I'm aware nobody covered the various questions
that came up about gender and sexual identities.   Perhaps somebody could
come back to those still in the third segment which bell move -- which
we'll move on to right now.

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: Thank you. Now we just covered which are the main
concerns and challenges on both sections from civil and political rights
and then the economic, social, cultural rights. In this third section we
need to discuss -- I'm not sure if we're going to find answers, how these
rights interconnect, how are they disconnected? How should we start
analyzing and incorporating them if we're already talking of which are the
exact equations and components to add on these questions.   If we're
talking about access to Internet and then we have to talk about shut downs,
we can bridge the digital divide, not only with technology, but then we
have to go and ask what about data protection?  I mean, we need to think on
how are we going to connect them and how are we going to enable this
environment to have citizens exercising rights, both sets of rights
informed. I would like to raise some questions that could help us answer
and it is what is the potential impact of not considering what sets of
rights in thinking through some of the emerging issues, how are
increasingly data driven algorithmic decisions around social serves and
empowerment impacting on rights such as right of information and privacy.
These are just some thoughts on questions that we could be discussing on.
I think that -- before we start discussing, I would like to introduce David
Souter to provide his insight.  He's an independent researcher and writer
on the information society and public policy that worked extensivelily on
Human Rights issues for IPC.

>> DAVID SOUTER: Thank you. What I'll try to do is comment for four, five
minutes on the connections between certain and it political rights and
ESCRs which I'll refer to as ESCRs rights.  I'll make six general points
which I hope will inform or help stimulate discussion. First, it should be
clear that the rights set out in the two rights covenants, civil and
political rights and the other forms a single rights regime.   After all,
they both stem from the same source document, the universal declaration.
Rights advocates have repeatedly and consistently declared that all of the
rights included in these covenants form part of a single comprehensive
framework, that they're indivisible.  Let's take that as a starting point.
There are nevertheless important distinctions between most of the rights
included in the civil and political rights covenant and those in the ECS
rights covenant, many ECS are enabled by public provisions that can be
achieved collectively, morse of the civil and political rights, they're
concerned with us as individuals.  Many of the ESC rights require
investment over a prolonged period of time or progressive realization as it
is usually referred to to bring them to fulfillment.  These aspects of the
ESC rights have implications for the roles that must be played by
governments, by businesses, by citizens and indeed by the Internet in
ensuring they can be done.  That's the first point. As what was said, there
is a lack of attention to the ESC rights about the discussions on the
Internet of rights compared to civil and political rights. I have heard
some within the Internet community say that ESC rights are less important
than  CRISPNville and political rights.  -- civil and political.

>> However, there is equal status with the rights in the international
rights regime, they're not subordinate, not secondary, not less important,
they deserve equal importance here.  Indeed, I come to the third point, I
would say that the efforts to achieve ESC rights can broaden and deepen our
understanding of civil and political rights and vice versa, the efforts to
achieve the civil and had political rights will deepen the other.  Take
forks the interconnections between the rights and two covenants, the rights
to culture and the rights to participation in government, for example,
between trades union and freedom of association I suggest we consider three
things then.  How the Internet effects freedoms of expression and
association or rights to privacy or participation in public life, the
certain, political life, we should consider in lights of the rights and in
the status of cyville and protective rights.  We have to look at how to
facilitate this and how to freedom from hunger, rights to health,
education, a decent standard of living, economic, social, culture rights
effect the others.  Don't forget in this context that the Conventions on
the Rights of women and of children also connects with both right groups.
Fourth, I think we should acknowledge that the Internet poses problems for
rights and  opportunities.  We know that this is the case with privacy and
it is also the case for employment rights, full employment, Article 6 of
the ESC covenant is challenged by automation and  digitalization of work,
rights at work, Article 7 of that covenant challenged by casualization,
trades union rights, Article 8 rarely recognized in Internet businesses.
when ESC rights are weakened so are the civil and political rights that
depend partly on them.  The fifth point, development, ESC rights are
associated with development, rights to development, which has been
mentioned earlier and with the Sustainable Development Agenda, I think in
some ways that the SDGs, the Sustainable Development Goals can be seen as
establishing targets for the progressive realization of some of the
economic, social, cultural rights.They're not the only lens to which
development should be considered but I think that the link between them and
the SDGs can help provide sort of a unifying framework for ICT for
development.I'll close with three cross-cutting themes or resolved prosties
to which we may consider the relationship between the different groups of
rights.  First, the role of Freedom of Expression in enabling people to
secure economic social, cultural rights. Along with that, the role of
rights such as education and the rights to take part in cultural life in
facilitating free expression.  Second issue is the role of access to the
Internet in enabling the exercise of economic social, cultural rights and
also the way in which access can be seen as being rooted in the economic,
social, cultural rights to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and
applications third, equality, Articles 2 and 3 in the covenants. The
importance of equality in ensuring that the Rights of every kind and also
access to ICTs in the Internet, they can genuinely be enjoyed by all.
Those are 6 broad themes which I think are to do with the intersection
between civil and political rights and may help to inform the discussion.
Thank you.

>> ANJA KOVACS: Thank you.

We would like to now open up this debate, both for people on the panel and
for people from the floor. We will look in depth specifically of how the
enter connections play out in the real world and also what some of the
challenges and possibly also solutions and way forward are. Anyone who
wants to intervene.

>> Hello.  Thank you.  I'm Nicholas from Argentina. There are a couple of
things that I wanted to mention.  We work with community networks, we're
part of the economic and digital economy.  One of the things that was
mentioned here today, it is the missing people in the room and I wanted to
ask the room whom of us have Internet connection at home, if you can please
raise your hand. Okay. We usually have a problem that we're not being able
to have the people who have the problem speak for themselves.  The same
thing has happened in the LAC IGF and the Argentina IGF which are
participating also.  I think we're lacking strategy about how to have them
here, how to have them more represented to tell us what are the actual
needs.  I only heard a couple of mentions of actual needs like where are
the Facebook planes, they're not flying over my home.  No. Regarding this
sort of solutions that are  appearing lately, this is something else that
is a problem from our point of view, it is clear that the market with is
not able to provide those places, that will not be profitable, so we have
different solutions are trying to get free Internet to the people but
they're actually creating an Internet for the poor and an Internet which is
not a true Internet connectivity world where you host your services or
offer content, et cetera, but you have some Internet for some time or in a
public place where you don't have really intimacy, real privacy.   I think
we need to address this also in this  respect, the communities, they have a
lot to say and there is already at the ITU level the D19 recommendation and
now -- I'll wrap up -- now at the CTEL there is the resolution to propose
the governments to actually create the framework to allow non-profit and
community networks to expand in the American continent.  I want to just
mention these issues. Thank you.

>> ANJA KOVACS: Thank you.  Allan.

>> I'll Allan from APC. In terms of the intersection, obviously Internet
shut downs is a violation of CPRs with the economic changes and cultural
exchanges from our perspective, I wonder if someone can comment on the
regulators role in pricing and controlling the competition and monopolies.
If prices are too high and prevents people from being able to perform
cultural and economic exchanges, if this can be considered a violation of
the ESCRs.  Particularly the clause in the covenant.  .

>> Hello. I'm Argin, I work with freedom lost in India and I want to talk
about Internet shut downs.  We have seen a disturbing trend where
governments around the world developed a habit of shutting down the
Internet at the slightest provocation of any sort of violence, in India
actually over the past 4 years my organization recorded around 46 separate
instances of Internet shut downs not only does this stand in the way of
realizing important Human Rights, Freedom of Expression and freedom of
association, but it also severely compromises efforts aimed at  leveraging
the Internets role in the human empowerment.  I wanted to get a sense of
the panel's take on this larger issue and what would be the ideal responses
to the challenges. Thank you.

>> PATRICK PENNINCKX: Sally and Anita wants to repond.

>> SALLY BURCH: I wanted to contribute something else on the discussion.
About the Freedom of Expression and the interlinking role between civil and
political rights and the economic, social and political rights.  As we
know, it is important, for the participation of society, we need access to
not just information, but to the means of public expression. This requests
more than just freedoms but explicit public policy to ensure that we have
access to the adequate information and the means of public expression of
different viewpoints.  The problem with the Internet is that it gives us --
those that have access to the Internet, has almost unlimited access to be
able to express themselves publicly but it doesn't necessarily guarantee
the Rights of  others to have access to the adequate information and
journalism is being heavily effected by the new advertising model of the
Internet which no longer allows good investigative quality to survive, we
have a serious problem on getting access to the quality information in the
Information Society, we need a new economic model for good journalism.

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: Thank you.

>> I wanted to also contribute a bit more to broaden the conversation. I
think that all of these years, you know, we have been discussing (Anita
Gurumurthy) the  feasibility of having a treaty on the Internet.   Should
we, shouldn't we, we already have very strong international governance, we
have five major instruments, we should be doing more to strengthen them. I
would like to throw a problem out there, which is that my colleague here
was talking about trade.   Someone else working on the Intellectual
Property should feel that we should be out there fighting Intellectual
Property, fighting the regime so that everyone can have access to
knowledge. I also want demilitarization, people are working on cybercrime,
bio ethics, fighting the nano chips that are in human power metrics bodies,
others are working on labor, migration, everybody will be talking about how
the Internet is critically  defining the domains.  Let's take the other
side, unless we have standards call it a treaty, government, public policy,
an instrument, unless we have one that talks about this horizontal layer
that cuts across all of these other global agreements you're not going to
be able to interpret trade in a way that's globally just. Just to conclude,
there is this entire thing called critical Internet resources, then there
is data which is a horizontal layer, there is the  cloud, then there are
smart grids, there is Internet of Things, there is much more.  What I would
like to submit, even pose as a question in this debate, it is that we
cannot have one without the other.  We can't reinterpret trade in a
socially globally just way without talking about a Human Rights treaty on
the Internet.

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: Thank you very much. Frank, you wanted to say
something too?  No?  Okay.

>> BURCU KILIC: I just want to follow-up on that comment and actually it is
very important issue and thank you for raising that.  We have been having
that problem in trade agreements.  The TPP, it is the first trade agreement
with the mandatory rule on cross-border data transfers.  When we talk about
the rule, the cross-border data transfers it, the privacy, those rules, the
exception the negotiators, what they put in the text, in the TPP says that
the countries may have legitimate public policy measures and then there are
all of these tests and classifications that those measures have to pass.
When we look at the definition of the interpretation of the legitimate
public policy measures in trade work it is said it should be widely -- it
should be widely practiced.  When we come back to privacy and protection,
we don't have one standard, we don't have a rule out there on privacy and
the data protection, every country has a different approach to privacy and
in Europe it is Human Rights, in the U.S.A., it is a consumer privacy
issue.  It becomes really hard to justify privacy and data protection
measures in terms of the trade without global standards, Human Rights
standards on the issues.

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: Thank you. I would like to take one question from the
floor and one from remote participation.

>> Good afternoon.  I'm here from Guadalajara, Mexico, I'm an IT lawyer and
University professor. My question goes in regards to Freedom of Expression
and the Internet has become, you know, one of the hubs through which we get
information in the current state of the planet. We have seen in the last
year the spread of false information through the Internet and that may
affect even civil and political rights.  People might vote on the
presumption that things they are seeing on the Internet are real when
they're actually fake news.  This is I think a central issue.  It is not
only regarding Human Rights to have access, but how do we validate the
truth in that all ideas that are expressed are actually, you know, based on
something, and not just propaganda. Thank you.

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: Thank you. The remote -- okay.  We have a lot of
questions. If access to online con sensual pornography a Human Rights, how
can it be protected in light of the increasing porm bans.  Different rights
are linked S is there a a right, why not protect Human Rights simply?Al and
can we hear from governments and private sector representatives their
stance of Freedom of Expression on sexualities since they're the ones who
sanction. I would like to recall on the shut downs as two people raised
concerns about them in case some of you can answer. Hernan Vales.

>> HERNAN VALES: Thank you. I would like to answer the very good question
by Ginger on Slido. First of all, I'm -- I agree with many things that have
been said before in terms of the little importance that's been given to
Internet policy on economic, social, cultural rights and some other
panelists said that it is not helpful to continue this divide between this
apparent opposition between civil and political rights and the other rights
on one hand, I fully agree with this, the origin of this, the division, it
is historic, it doesn't make sense in our current times. Maybe to provide
some kind of way forward, solution, although it is a big word, another
thing that has received little attention is applying a Human Rights based
approach to Internet policy.   What do I mean by Human Rights based
approach, it is not a new idea, it has been used already to raise the Human
Rights base approach to development, there is a Human Rights base approach
to elections.  It means basically -- I will summarize, it is basically
three things, that you apply to Internet policy the principles that derive
from binding international Human Rights laws which are the principles.
Non-discrimination, equality, participation, if the rule of law, if you
apply the principles to Internet policy you have some of the problems
already partly solved. A second element of a Human Rights-based aid
approach, it is thinking in terms of duty bearerses, which are governments,
most of the time, they can be companies or even individuals. And thinking
in terms of rightholders. Individuals, we all have rights entitlements,
we're rightholders.  Why is this helpful?  If you think in terms of duty
bearerses and rightholders -- I'll be quick, my time is up. -- you actually
provide and make easier for remedies and for States to be held accountable.
The final point, is that of the Human  Rights-based approach, means that
all involved in the Internet work, all involved in the Internet policy, if
we apply a Human Rights-based approach we need to be aware of the
application of the Human Rights framework to our every day work. Thank you.

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: Thank you very much.   Someone else from our
panelists that wants to -- please.

>> WILL HUDSON: So I'll talk briefly about the gentlemen's question that
was getting to the issue of fake news and what we could or should be doing
on that.  As you say, you know, we have all this, you know, Freedom of
Expression online, you know, it sometimes is being used in other ways.
From our perspective as a search engine, right, if we're delivering results
to users that are inaccurate, misrepresentations, we have not done our job.
The question is, how do you tackle a challenge that's been ongoing for some
time?  You look over the last couple of centuries, fake news, hoaxes,
pamphlets, it is not new, what is new is that, you know, the Internet makes
it easier for publishers to spread that kind of misinformation. At the same
point, it is also a great opportunity to let people find out alternative
source pace of that information and to fact check. One of the -- Google has
been trying to deal with this in a couple of ways, in a couple of countries
we started introducing a fact checking tool to the Google news product in a
couple of countries and we're looking to expand that to other places as we
can. For us, it is important that, you know, we talk to a gentleman like
you, others in the room to help us figure out the best way to do this.  I
think a concern we have is you can try to draw distinctions between a
reputable news outlet and a non-reputable news outlet and even a reputable
news outlet will get the story wrong sometimes in the rush to get the
information out oar they'll report inaccurate information.  The question is
always how do you describing that balance in a way that gets to the
question you were talking about, even very  established news outlets and
journalists sometimes get it wrong.  We have to approach it very
thoughtfully.  We're always looking for ideas.

>> PAULINA GUTIERREZ: Thank you, will. If I may just follow-up briefly on
that (Anja Kovacs) there are several he questions around  gender,
sexuality, the intermediaries, the take  downs focus on these issues,
different countries have different apressure os to the what laws say on the
international frameworks, perhaps not all approaches are equally valid.
One can argue not being able to express one's sexual identity impacts a
wide range of rights.  There were several questions on how intermediaries
should deal with those and what the responsibility is in countries that
have more narrow sets of laws on these issues.   Could you perhaps briefly
comment on that as well.Al

>> WILL HUDSON: All right.  Yeah.  Happy to. Very briefly:  As you say, it
is a complex topic, not just about gender issues.  When you operate a
global platform and you operate in different countries with widely
different laws and cultures there's bound to be issues.  I think we have
tried -- as I said, our approach, we try to strike an approach that on the
search platform, we try to maximize the amount of information online and to
minimize with a tremendous degree of attention and precision the
information that's taken off. On YouTube, you know, a host of platforms
like that, it is a different story, one of the things that we struggle
with, just like other companies do, as you -- you don't just operate a
global platform from one market but a had localized domain right, you have
a Google.co in India, whatever, how do you apply the laws in a thoughtful
way there.  I don't pretend to have the answer.

>> ANJA KOVACS: Thank you.

>> REBECCA McKINNON: Interesting to follow-up on that with particularly
people who are gender minorities and who are trying to avoid persecution
and still exercise their rights online.  This is where having real ID
policies is quite pronicoous and people need to control what their identity
is online and companies need to be much more thoughtful about the choices
they provide people.  Yes, I know there is a counter argument about
harassment, accountability, I think some assumptions have been debunked in
that sort of counter argument as well.   People having control over how
their identity is presented online is absolute lit crucial.  I think
sometimes some companies are not sufficiently sensitive to that and need to
be much more so because it is also linking up with the surveillance system.
I'm wondering if I can take a tiny bit more time to just comment on the
link between online and off that ginger commented remotely. She's
absolutely right.  When we talk about  online, offline and the
interconnection, sometimes we're siloed in conversations on online rights
or  online threats and not thinking about how think relate offline. I think
one example where the partitioning has been quite harmful is in the debate
about extremist content online.  The focus on we need to remove harmful
speech or, you know, basically putting the onus on the companies as a
source of the problem and failing to address the problem where offline we
have a situation or a quasi offline, online, independent journalists, Civil
Society in the countries where the extremism is of greatest concern,
they're being put in jail, silenced, people that are most likely to provide
the kind of speech and put it online and elsewhere in the newspapers, so
on, they provide alternatives to extremism.  They're under attack by
extremists and their own government and prevented from participating in the
discourse, whether it is online or off.  This is contributing to the
problem.   I think it is not sufficiently addressed in these debates and
the obligations of countries to respect civil society's rights to exist and
speak out and organize and conduct independent journalism and the threat
against this is I think a part of the discussion that's often lost.

>> ANJA KOVACS: Thank you so much. Anymore comments from the floor?  One
here -- all of a sudden, there is many!  I have to ask you to be very brief
though.

>> Very brief.

>> Can I just finish?

>> Yes

>> ANJA KOVACS: We'll take thee threes comments and then go to Mr. Frank La
Rue to provide a summary overview of his thoughts on this and finally very
briefly we'll come back to the discussions, those that want to comment on
how they feel their stakeholder group can contribute to taking this forward
before we go to the Chair to close.

>> Thank you p from the center of Human Rights, I believe that two sets of
rights are interlinked, there is no prosperity without the respect of
public freedoms but in a region marked with dictatorship so long, it is
important to protect this right, that's a real question to me.  Two
colleagues in prison, now before leaving, Nanjira Sambuli says go to the
government, we're doing the job, we're not taking it for granted, you know,
we're in the field. I appreciate what was said at the start of the session.
It is a multiresponsibility.  Governments, business, others, it is very
important for us that somebody will take an initiative to support us so
that we can put pressure on governments.  This is very important, it is not
just leave us, go on and fight your government, this is not -- you know,
going to help us and we're not going to get  anywhere.  We want to make a
peaceful change in our region but we need the support from other
stakeholders. Thank you.

>> I'm from Cuba. I'm leaving this Forum with a strong feeling of the
enormous challenge facing all of the participants and those involved in the
topic of Internet Governance.  We have spoken about the responsibility of
government, companies but I think also that we, civil society, we have a
huge responsibility as well on the educational side and tie ins that may
exist with organizations sump as UNESCO on it's topic of education of
people when we sited before the computer screen talking about Internet, we
have spoken about false content, the search for information and generally
the interests that any person may have, it is very important that people
know what they should look for and how they should look for it and to know
how to distinguish between quality and bad information. Thank you.

>> I'm African IGF Secretariat resource person, following the debate from
Senegal on connecting the unconnected population, there are groups
advocating deployment of the wide spaces to underserved areas at double the
rate.  We have examples in developing countries which type of communities
are connected.   I hope libraries and documentation centers will benefit as
they're closer to the population they serve.

>> ANJA KOVACS: Thank you. I now request Frank La Rue to take the floor
before we come back to the panelists.  Frank La Rue, many of you know him
as a former Special Rapporteur on the Freedom of Expression at the United
Nations and currently assistant Director General for communication and
information at UNESCO. You have about five minutes.

>> FRANK LA RUE: Thank you.  Thank you very much.   I'll speak in English
however because of the international broadcasting, I would have liked to
have spoken in Spanish. I have dutifully and patiently waited for my space
at the end and silently waited for my moment. I'm just going to highlight a
few points, it is difficult to summarize this whole richness of the panel
and this wonderful experience of being here today. Many things have been
said but I think trying to summarize especially from our perspective as
UNESCO. Number one, it is we're talking about Internet, yes.  A new
technology.  We have to focus it from what it is doing for human kind.
This is in reference to the comment from our friend from Bolivia saying
human beings, men and women have to be at the center of our consideration
and definitely this is true.

Secondly, precisely because we're looking at this technology and how it is
serving human kind we want do have a Human Rights focus of it, which was
already here emphasized in the panel, everything we do in UNESCO, it is
coming from the Human Rights perspective but it is very important in
addressing the main means of communication we have in this moment, everyone
should have a Human Rights perspective in addressing, especially states
designing the policies for the implementation of communication through
Internet. The issue between civil and political rights and economic, social
rights, I won't emphasize much, we all agree, all rights are equal, all
rights are universal, interdependent and interrelated, one thing I make,
oftentimes people want to pit some rights against the other, civil,
political is more important than social, economic, other the other way
around, this is a mistake.  Human Rights as a whole is a network built to
protect human beings and every knot in the net is important, if we break
the net, any part of it, it is useless.  All rights, all the time for all
of the people are fundamental.  Here we can make no categories and no
difference and no differentiation.  This is cruciously important. The third
aspect, when talking about communication and we're talking about Internet
today, we're talking fundamentally of Freedom of Expression.  There is
always a debate whether access to Internet is a right or not.  We always
say it is a right.  But in reality, the right is to exercise Freedom of
Expression and it is two dimensions, toic a single end-point server
information and to transmit and to share ideas, knowledge, opinions and
information as well. The Internet is the best tool at this moment for doing
this, this is why in a way it becomes a right but an instrumental right,
Internet is the instrument in which we will exercise Freedom of Expression
and the right is Freedom of Expression and here is why we're always use the
phrase of exercising Freedom of Expression off line and  online, it is the
same right.  And sometimes it is with the same challenges but for Internet
makes it stronger in terms of a communication but makes some challenges as
well stronger in some of the dangers as well more profound and stronger.
This is crucial. When we're talking about Internet and Freedom of
Expression, we're talking about a right that's not more important than the
others but does play a facilitating right through Freedom of Expression
we'll exercise all of the other rights and demand other rights.  Freedom of
Expression, it is also intrinsically connected to other rights it, one is
privacy, today we mentioned privacy, there is two distinct rights but
without privacy we won't feel safe to exercise Freedom of Expression which
is why the policies of many states for SURVEILLANCE, whether it is
explained to combat organized crime, terrorism, national security, all of
these practices of surveillance has to be done within the rule of law and
democratic way and has to be trans parents and accountable to its own
population.  If we allow that the technology override the rights because it
is so easy to monitor Internet and so easy for any authority to look for
private access then we're harming actually the future of societies making
them weaker even in their national security because national security has
to be the strength of its own population, of the trust of the population
has in the authorities and of the democratic model of participation and the
strong participation. I also think that we must understand that the
Internet today is linked to democratic participation in the sense that
there is a flow of opinions and dialogue and democracy with many dangers
and I will come back to this because it was already mentioned the negative
amount of false information being circulated in the Internet which is real.
There is dangers for children, which we have to protect, there has to be
media literacy, our friend from Cuba mentioned that clearly, young people,
they have to be educated and trained and our media literacy programs,
every, they have to build critical minds in the young people because there
are many dangers in the content received.  The alternative is not to sensor
or to hide it from children, the alternative is from children to youth,
making them more critical in what they seek, how they use it, what is the
benefit.

Moving into development, the third aspect of  this, we have said that
communication is important for Human Rights as a right, important for
democratic participation but it is fundamental for development.  This comes
to another right, the right to development that's been mentioned.  Why is
it fundamental?  We have recognized that without information we cannot
build knowledge societies, without information we will not reach the
development goals.  The millennium development  goals, the precursor, they
did not reach the goal for two real bigamies takes they had, number one,
the Agenda of the developed world telling the developing world what to do,
a bigamies take in the concept but the second one, they didn't reach the
goals, the communities on the ground, the development to be possible has to
be the Agenda of their own people, people have to assume it as their
Agenda, if this is not assumed as their own, it is not implemented as their
own, it will never succeed. Today we have this challenge of the SDGs, the
17 SDGs, by the way, development, it is not only the 17 goals and we must
think beyond the next 15 years but this gives us a framework for the next
15 years in a very concrete way.  Here we point out to many goals, using
communication for education, using communication for building content on
gender equity, not only in connective itty, women with equal access to
Internet, but in content.This sure one of the big issues for UNESCO, it is
important, connectivity and content, they go hand in hand.  This is clearly
defined in goal 16.  Goal 16 is telling about the conditions for the
developed society, you have to build societies and peace, inclusiveness,
access to justice, transparency, and guarantee it says public access to
information. The three elements in this phrase, number one, it is public
access, meaning it is the right of everyone, knowledge cannot be
appropriated by an elite. Knowledge should be the right of everyone.  In
this sense, knowledge should be shared by all of the technologies of
sharing knowledge. Number two, we talk about access, access means
connectivity, we should ensure that for the poorest sectors of the society
and remote regions,  everybody, number three, public access to content and
information, we must guarantee that the information is relevant because
oftentimes we're finding in irrelevant information.  Two quick final
comments, we're living in a world of dangers, Internet can easily be
monitored and the faster the technology moves, the faster it is to develop
the software to monitor communications and this is a real struggle we all
have to -- will have to deal with, with the demand transparency, many
demands are made, secondly we're also discovering phenomena  it'ses dealing
with sexual harassment of women online dealing with false information
circulated, people believing, elections, consultations, they're based on
false information. This is really tragic and very serious.  There is a
crisis!  What crisis in journalism as well.  Which cannot -- we can no
longer defend the quality of investigative journalism.  In this moment of
crisis, where we have to reaffirm the Human Rights focus we have on the
Internet and the approach, the Human Rights perspective but secondly, this
is the multistakeholder dialogue, this is -- of course the States have an
obligation to guarantee Human Rights and the policies will not come from
the states  alone, will not come from the corporations, there is a danger
in the concentration of the corporations as well.  This Internet is
allowing media to concentrate massively violating the principle of
diversity and pluralism in communication.  We have to really enhance the
multistakeholder dialogue where everyone has the chance to speak out and
have part of the planning of the policies and this is the only alternative,
States, corporations, big platforms have to understand but in civil society
we have to acknowledge and participate to make this real. Thank you.

>> ANJA KOVACS: Thank you very much.

We're running out of time (Paulina Gutierrez) we have a minute.  Any urgent
final remark that a panelist wants to raise, it is welcomed right now. We
have Anita, anyone else?  Ana, you want to say something -- no.  We have
Anita.

>> ANITA GURUMURTHY: Thank you.  I wanted to respond to the Frank La Rue's
intervention and I'm going to read so that I take little time.  I think
that the Internet is not only a communication infrastructure, it is also
the primary means of production, and economic resource as we have seen in
the network data complex in developing us today.   Therefore, the dichotomy
between online and offline is not only unhelpful but may do disservice to
the conditioner unconnected if we go with that  framework.  I would submit,
therefore, that we treat the relationship between communication rights and
the Internet separately from the issue of digital rights and the Internet.
Thank you.

>> ANJA KOVACS: Thank you. Thank you, everyone, -- for coming, for staying
and for all of those people attending remotely  (Paulina Gutierrez) I will
give the mic to you to close the session, please.

>> YOLANDA MARTINEZ: I couldn't agree more with all of the ideas, the
contributions and challenges that we have all shared.  I'm firmly convinced
that we can only face this working as a community with a multistakeholder
model that we can make the Agenda as ambitious as it is actionable, the
2030 Agenda.   I agree development is comprehensive, we cannot give more
importance to one right than another but only in an open community where we
network and where we are open to innovation, that's the only way and space
we can be successful. I invite you to participate in all of the workshops
we have scheduled and this I declare officially this session closed.  Ouch

Dynamic Coalitions Main Session.

>> Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  I'm not starting the session yet.
It's 3:00, if you wait till we are online and I'll give the sign to get
started.  Just to remind you that this is main session that has
interpretation in all six UN languages.  If you want to be sure you
understand, there are interpretation tools, radios, outside in the foyer,
and all sessions are being  live-streamed and interpreted, so you can also
watch it on the IGF web site, and YouTube Channel, to watch and share. So
we're waiting for the signal to get started.  I have the signal so we can
get started. Once again, good afternoon, my name is Markus Kummer.  I was
the co-facilitator of the DC, the Dynamic Coalition, main session, together
with Avri Doria, who's sitting down there in the second row.  And Avri who
is also a MAG member, has taken it on her to observe the Twitter sphere and
a few words on the history of Dynamic Coalition, and on these sessions.
The Dynamic Coalitions started with the very first IGF meeting in 2006.  It
was then a kind of compromise between those who didn't want any
intersessional activity and those who wanted to set up Working Groups that
would continue their work throughout the year. So Dynamic Coalitions are
essentially  self-formed, self-appointed, and very much in a bottom-up way.
Now, the first nine years or so, they all had their own life in the margins
of the IGF, and last year, for the first time, we got together and said it
would be time to give them center stage, and to show the broader community
what they had done and cheffed, and also to get feedback from the broader
community.  And immediately after Joao Pessoa, we continued with regular
calls, and also preparing some common principles.  All the Dynamic
Coalitions were invited to be open, to have open archives, open lists, be
open to membership and also to agree to make dissenting opinions public.
This session, we thought it would be tedious if we allow each Dynamic
Coalition to read out the report.  They have all prepared a report, and all
the reports are available on the web site, of the IGF web site and I
encourage you all to look at them and to read them.  There is a lot of
substantive work that have gone on.  But we thought in order to make it a
little more dynamic we would ask and moderate to be a kind of  provocateur,
to engage in dialogue with Dynamic Coalitions and we also hope to have a
dialogue with interactive session with all participants but before going
into the session, I would like to invite our Host Country Chair, Victor
Lagunes, to say a few words.  Please, Victor.

>> V. LEGUNES:  Thank you, Markus and thank you to everyone.  Thank you.
On behalf of the Mexican government and the co-presidency, thank you for
the presence.  I thank you for the debate we're still building on during
these few days of work.  We are in day number 3 of the IGF, 4 if we count
Day 0, and we are achieving our goals when it comes to feedback and the
different comments we have been listening to during these days.  Everybody
here is very happy.  We are truly touching on different subjects in a deep
way, and we are generating an enriching conversation for all of us.  I hope
for you, as well. I would like to thank Markus Kummer for inviting me to be
Chair of this panel, integrate representatives of the MAG.  They have also
co-facilitators of this session.  Dynamic Coalitions for us are extremely
important.  They truly demonstrate the richness of the Internet, as well as
the different themes that are brought up  along the way, and that are
common goods.  It was positioned quite well last year in Joao Pessoa and as
Mr. Kummer said, this was a vocal point. The scope of interest is very
large and  enriching and interesting from the role of the Internet in
Climate Change, the work of Dynamic Coalitions is a demonstration of this
richness that brings about many things to the Internet Community. I also
thank our Moderator, and I formally declare this session as open.  I hope
it will be a productive one, thank you very much.

>> M. KUMMER:  I would like to invite Jeremy Malcolm from th Electronic
Frontier Foundation to say a few words on the Dynamic Coalition survey he
has organised.

>> J. MALCOLM:  Thank you very much, Markus, so the issue survey is a way
to connect the Dynamic Coalitions to the broader IGF community a as Markus
has explained that we've decided to do.  They're a simplified version of
the output documents that each Dynamic Coalition has produced this year, or
at least 12 of the 16 Dynamic Coalitions have produced this year, and
they've extracted 5 points for your feedback and you can submit your
feedback using paper versions of these feedback sheets, which are available
in the Dynamic Coalition booth in the IGF Village, or you can use the
version that's online on the IGF web site. So by means of exposing 5 key
points from their documents to the broader community, the Dynamic
Coalitions are able to refine and improve their outputs.  The idea is that
you all will complete these surveys after you've had some -- you've
informed yourselves of the content of the Dynamic Coalitions work either by
reading their documents or participating in this session or we also had a
webinar which some people participated in and you may have attended some of
the Dynamic Coalition meetings during the week. So now that you have done
that, you'll be informed enough to complete these surveys, and you can
express agreement, disagreement, or somewhere in between on each of the 5
points that the Dynamic Coalitions have put to you. So if it turns out that
there's very strong agreement on a particular point, the Dynamic Coalition
can take that as a kind of informal validation of their work by the
respondents to the survey, or if there's strong disagreement, then they may
realize that they haven't quite hit the mark, and maybe there needs to be
some more discussion and knowledge exchange, or maybe this is just a
proposition that they can't find support for. So we hope that you will take
the time to either visit the IGF booth, or to complete the feedback forms
online.  We'll be keeping them open for one month after the IGF closes, and
after  that, we'll be collecting the responses and returning them to the
Dynamic Coalitions, so we very much hope that you'll participate.  Thank
you.

>> M. KUMMER:  Thank you, Jeremy, for the explanation and thank you very
much for the hard work you put into this.  With that I can hand over to
Tatiana Tropina.  Please -- you have to rush up on the stage.  Make sure
you're not out of breath when you reach us.  Please, Tatiana.

>> T. TROPINA:  Thank you very much, Markus.  Can you all hear me well?  I
would like to explain a bit the flow of the session.  We are going to ask
Dynamic Coalition to present their work, but they will be presenting it
with the questions from me.  So they don't really know what kind of
questions I'm going to ask, because I'm an agent provocateur and after 45
minutes of them answering the questions we're going to open the floor for
you, for your questions.  Please be as controversial as you can and also
even if you have a pressing need to ask the question, please wait.  These
45 minutes will expire because we're going to listen to Dynamic Coalitions
first. A bit of administrative:  If you're going to ask a question please
raise your hand and there will be people with microphones around.  They
will come to you.  And the last thing:  We are going to use the Twitter
world but not project it on the screen.  There is Avri Doria, who is
sitting over there, who is monitoring the Tweets, so please Tweet any
questions you want to ask.  The hashtags are #IGF2016 and #DC so you have
to use two hashtags to ask the questions and it was quite hard to choose
which Dynamic Coalition I will start with, because there is alphabetical
order.  You can cluster the issue. And I decided to start with the oldest
Dynamic Coalition.  I think the oldest existing, and it's Dynamic Coalition
on Accessibility and Disability.  And I would like to ask Andrea the
following question.  I read your paper and it really struck me in the sense
that you have been fighting for such a long time for accessibility, for old
people, for people with disabilities, and there are still unresolved
issues.  But at the same time we have all these new technologies
developing:  Internet of Things, self-driving cars, and so on. So what is
your Dynamic Coalition doing?  What has been done so far?  And how you're
going to address existing issues and include new issues, as well?  Thanks.

>> A. SAKS:  Thank you, Tatiana.  Well, I have two hats.  I'm also the
Joint Coordination Activity on accessibility and human factors Chairman for
the ITU, and the ITU supports  the -- by giving it a web site and the
Secretariat the Dynamic Coalition, and Malcolm Johnson was the one who
thought who is now the Deputy Secretary-General of the ITU, and gave us
that amount of support.  Standardization is on one level, and a lot of
problems in actually making IGF accessible. So our work is actually two-
fold.  We produce something, and it's taken a few years to write, and many
years to implement, is we call ourself DCAD, the guidelines, accessibility
guidelines, which actually are being used to some extent here, but not
completely, and it tells us how to make an accessible meeting.  We didn't
have captioning in front of me or -- I can see my face -- anything to see
in the beginning.  We now have that.  That was a suggestion made by DCAD.
There were other issues about accessible  hotels, and all that kind of
logistics stuff that we need to have.  On the other hand, we deal with
areas that are important to persons with disabilities, like procurement,
will enable us to have accessible tools and services.  And we need to have
a push behind that, and every single person who has given a presentation,
save one, was a person with disabilities, including myself, so there we
are.  So we all have issues, but we work with persons with disabilities all
the time.  We do not do anything without them. So the problem is two-fold:
Standardization is the key to getting globalization, and we can't have
unilateral accept answer or use of the Internet un-- acceptance or use of
the Internet unless we all work from the same hymn note.  The problem is we
have proprietary companies who have to make a living who perhaps won't
implement certain techniques that need to be done either in making their
websites accessible, they don't have the expertise, or they don't implement
the accessibility features that are in standards.  There are other issues
of training people on how to deal with persons with disabilities, and they
need to listen to them, because when we've come here, we always -- in any
IGF meeting there are always difficulties but when we actually work with
the individual, it's a piece of cake.  They get  it.  They understand, they
correct it.  Why can't we get that done?  Advance? So now we've come up
with another great idea:  Training.  IGF training for persons -- for
persons who are going to be assisting persons with disabilities, so they
know what to expect, they know what they have to do for both the venue and
the human being. I really want to stress that the Dynamic Coalition is a
part of the IGF, contributing to the IGF, so that not only do we have
accessibility, but awareness, and also to encourage standardization
including the Internet of Things, which is going to make life really better
for persons with disabilities.  That's what the Dynamic Coalition does.
Thank you.

>> T. TROPINA:  Thank you so much, Andrea, for this wonderful intervention
and also with keeping up with time.  And from Accessibility and Disability
I would like to go to the online Coalition on gender and Internet
Governance, and my question would be, both terms are broad.  Both O'them
encompass so many things, so when you talk about gender Internet
Governance?  Are you talking about gender at the venues?  Are you talking
about gender equalities and the Internet?  Are you talking about pressing
the issue of harassment and from which perspective, male, female?  Both can
be or hassed so if you can just explain what this Coalition is focusing on
and maybe briefly what has been done.

>> B. DATTA:  Sure, thanks a lot.  When we talk about gender and Internet
Governance I think we talk about a range of things.  To begin with, we
start with the premise that all genders must  shape, define, and
participate in Internet Governance, and so it's very important that men,
women, as well as people who define themselves as trans, or throughout the
gender identities, are able to participate in panels, in processes, whether
it's the Internet Governance Forum, whether it's the bodies that are
responsible for Internet Governance, whether it's online processes or
physical meetings.  Related to that I think is also the question that when
we think of the Internet user, we tend to think of a neutral Internet user
who doesn't have a gender. And we would like to change that conversation to
thinking of users as embodied, which means some users are men, some are
women, some are of different genders, and we believe that that will help us
actually come to a better understanding of some of the fundamental issues
that affect, say, privacy or free expression, just to give you one example.
If we think of free expression through the lens of gender and we think of
online harassment, we are seeing more and more that online harassment which
occurs through speech or through expression is restricting the free
expression of women,  right?  So the whole free expression concept has to
then account for gender, has to account for women's experiences in a sense.
So that's one piece of it. I think the other issue is really, like, if we
look at an issue like access, for instance, right?  We have to look at all
the concerns related to that, and how we can bring on women, as well as
trans people, online as equal participants, so it's a number of things, and
I think the kind of work that we've done, we're also looking this year
actually at, we have just presented at the gender Dynamic Coalition a draft
sexual harassment policy and desexual harassment policy to be sure there
are no incidents in the processes or in the physical meeting of the
Internet Governance Forum because there have been in other Internet
Governance bodies a couple of incidents and we would feel this kind of
thing needs to be addressed in advance so that people of all genders feel
comfortable in this space. And we've also used the technique of what are
called gender report cards, where, for the last, from from 2012 onwards,
we've monitored the participation of women and men in the IGF meetings as
participants, as panelists, and as Moderators, and we are very happy to say
that the numbers are actually going up, and there's definitely greater
gender balance within the IGF. I think in the year ahead we'll just change
focus slightly and an unrealized aspiration from last year was to actually
work with some of the other DCs to see how a gender perspective can
actually be infused into all our work together.  That's pretty much it.

>> T. TROPINA:  Thank you very much.  I'm  really grateful to our panelists
that they really stick to time. The next Coalition I would like to inquire
to take the floor is Coalition on protecting vul initial targets and online
safety Coalition.  We know how much you have already done in protecting
children online.  My question to you might sound a bit controversial but
that's what I'm here for.  There are many problems in the field of child
online protection and it can be viewed from different angles, from
educating children to behavior online from protecting them being exploited,
child grooming, anything you can imagine.  Why does your Coalition
concentrate on age verification systems?  Why did you pick up this topic?
Why do you think this is of uppermost importance or more importance among
all other topics your Coalition could have dealt with?

>> J. CARR:  Well, first of all, it's not the only topic we've been dealing
with, but we're in a space of the Internet that's famous for  innovation,
famous for trying to use technology in new and different ways, and so --
and certainly in the country I'm from, the United Kingdom, we are
attempting to use available technology to protect children from one
particular aspect of I. confronting them on the interpret space.  It's not
an alternative to good sex education.  It's certainly not meant to supplant
parental supervision, or anything of that kind. And actually to be quite
specific about it, within the United Kingdom, for example but I'm sure it
will be true in many other countries, we have laws which say:  If you are a
pornography publisher operating out of the U.K. jurisdiction you're
required by law to have age verification, so as to ensure that persons
under the age of 18 will not normally be able to access your content. And
that works very well.  We have systems of fines and so on, so the companies
comply, the British based companies comply.  The problem, of course, is
that the great majority of pornography sites, there's a problem with the
word pornography because it doesn't quite describe some of the horrible
stuff we're actually speaking  about -- most of those are outside of the
United Kingdom, so you can't bring them to court, and force compliance with
our laws. So we've devised a system which in the end depends upon each site
having to age-verify people coming to them, to demonstrate that they're
over the age of 18 before they can gain access to the material.  By the
way, this is specifically aimed at commercial pornography sites.  It's not
all pornography sites.  It's commercial ones, it's businesses.  But that
includes the so-called free sites because they are actually highly
commercial ventures. And it's not about censorship.  It's not about getting
stuff removed.  It's simply about trying to ensure that our laws are
complied with, and that children are not exposed to this  material -- can't
find it easily accessible and not exposed to it by accident.  Most of the
big porn companies, I'm thinking particular of mind geek which owns porn
hub for example, have indicated they're happy to comply, they will comply
with the new law.  It's still in  Parliament.  It's completed its passage
through the house of commons, it's now in our upper chamber.  It will be on
the statute book in February and probably operational within 18 months of
that date.  There will be a running period. To just to stress this is not
the only thing we think about.  But this is new.  It's happening  now.
It's about innovation, it's about countries seeking better child protection
in relation to the Internet space.  So we thought we'd bring it to your
attention.

>> T. TROPINA:  Thank you very -- I somehow keep holding microphone in the
wrong way.  So coming from one angle of innovation to another angle of
innovation, I would like to ask Dynamic Coalition for -- on community
connectivity.  I think community connectivity made it very, itself very
visible as a concept at this IGF.  Luca, what is your Coalition dealing
with?  How do you understand community connectivity and how you're actually
moving this agenda forward?

>> L. BELLI:  Thank you, Tatiana, for the question.  So first of all let me
say this Dynamic Coalition community connectivity is 2 newest one.  We have
only established this year, we started working in January.  It was actually
a natural consequence of the workshop organised last year in Joao Pessoa on
community networks so that  workshop, a lot of very passionate people came
and we understood we could merge our efforts to try to have more visibility
on an issue that deserves to have visibility, particularly when we speak
about connecting the next billion. And actually, the -- I think we have
managed to have a lot of visibility, and I think what we are going to do
over the past years, and what we have been doing this year, is to try to
let the  policy-makers and all Internet users, let them understand that
there is not -- there is also another paradigm, an alternative paradigm,
that could be utilized to connect the other  people -- the next billion,
which is actually not to connect them, but to let them build their own
connectivity.  And we have -- actually, we have both a Declaration on
community connectivity where we define what is connectivity, what are
community networks, what are the community network users and we also have
produced a report that is the first report we have produced and we will
produce more, where we analyzed not only the technical features of
community networks, but also the governance of community networks. And it
is very interesting to note, analyzing all these different examples, that
it is not only a way to provide Internet access.  It's a true way of
providing sustainable connectivity and to engage local communities.  The
local communities build their own infrastructure.  They design them.  They
manage them.  They maintain it.  And being involved in the infrastructure,
they also -- the positive externality of this is that, at least one of the
positive externality is that they also acquire digital literacy.  They
organize  themselves socially. People that otherwise will be completely
disconnected start to be local entrepreneurs, and to be able to communicate
with others, to sell their product, to produce new product, and another
very important element that emerged from the report, and that is also
reflected in the Declaration, is that it is not only a paradigm that one
can apply to rural populations, to  low-income populations, it is actually
something that works very well also in developed countries, in high-income
country.  There is one very prominent example of the network that covers
the entire region of Catalonia in Spain and is already generating more than
100 direct works, jobs, of people that are working to maintain the network.
So it is not something -- there is no dichotomy between community network
and private initiatives.  On the contrary.  A lot of community networks are
organised not only by local NGOs, by local communities, but also by local
entrepreneurs. So we have tried to describe this in the  report, and to set
some basic principles on which we can all agree in the Declaration.  I
invite you all to use the survey to provide us feedback so that we can
refine it and have a finalized Document by the end of the year, or the
beginning of next year.  Thank you.

>> T. TROPINA:  Thank you very much.  And from your Dynamic Coalition on
community connectivity, I would like to go to another Coalition which
relates to connectivity, but on innovative approaches to connect the
unconnected.  And it's also I gathered a very new Coalition which started
just recently, and I want to ask you, Christopher:  What is about your
Coalition?  Does it overlap with what Luca and his guys are doing?  And how
are you actually encompassing these challenges and what are you focusing
on?

>> C. YOO:  So thank you very much.  I should say before we do anything, I
should say thank you to the Government of Mexico for being so  welcoming.
We're overwhelmed by your hospitality, the generosity of your volunteers
has been astounding and we're deeply grateful for your  hosting us here.  I
think we actually may be the youngest Dynamic Coalition, having been
approved just in May.  I think we're certainly the most energetic.  You may
have seen us wearing the orange.  Partly in support of the trust to end
violence against women.  We're the ones with the coffee in the village. I
must make a public announcement:  Today is the last day for coffee so I
will apologize in advance.  Please don't shoot the messenger. So our work
not only, it doesn't overlap with the one on community networking.  We
actually depend on them to provide us the information we need to do our
work.  In fact, what we are doing is we are aware that there are -- the
multitude of attempts are innovative ways people are using to connect
people to the Internet.  Much of it being done by community networks. But
also done by Governments, done by nonprofit organizations, done by
corporations and different experiments.  And what I've talked about when I
talk to Ministers, they're almost baffled by the variety they hear people
convinced that some technology is the future.  And we decided that what we
needed is a solid empirical Foundation to make those assessments.  And so
we made a commitment to look at every single implementation we can find of
an innovative way to connect people to the Internet.  Demand side and
supply side, we have a list of over 200 and we're going to make a good
faith effort to do data validation on evwe single one.  We're going to
write a narrative case study describing it to share the benefits of this
information and we're going to attempt in the next year to develop common
metrics to allow comparisons across projects. Now, what I've learned in
this process is those comparisons are very risky and hard to draw, because
as Luca noted, this tremendous variety just within community networking.
Part of it is to complex tie the problem.  To understand what are best
practices but what are the key differences to make a context specific or
context sensitive assessment of how this platform goes  forward.  I'll give
you one example of a case study very briefly.  There's an organization
called econet wireless in Zimbabwe.  They're in an area with no electric
tower.  They're setting up  3G cell towers powered by diesel generators
that use not only that power to provide Internet service but use the excess
capacity to provide the first Electric Power to homes in these areas that
they've ever had. We've also been unable to distribute vaccines because
vaccines must be kept refrigerated through another initiative, called
energize the chain, we're putting, they are putting refrigerators in all
the base stations and using it to distribute vaccines that have vaccinated
250,000 children and they're preparing to expand this into India and Ghana
so that's just one example of the stories we've learned and they're
attempting to develop solar solutions because diesel is not environmentally
sustainable.  That's a learning that we can identify and help share with
everyone else because there are many other initiatives that are attempting
to find solar solutions to these problems, as well. What we need from the
IGF community is already you're welcoming, we appreciate that.  We need
your help identifying additional case studies.  I'm humbled by the fact
that so many people here have done this.  In fact, the woman from Vanuatu
remotely participated.  She found participating in this to be deeply
validating.  She was losing energy.  I told her she inspires us not the
other way around.  We need your help to make this work and publicize and
bring stories in and for that we thank you very much and we hope to work
with you in the future.

>> T. TROPINA:  Thank you very much, Christopher.  Actually, thank you very
much for coffee.  It made all my mornings here.  It's a wonderful coffee
booth.  But I'm moving from coffee to Stuart, who is representing Dynamic
Coalition on public access in libraries.  How do you contribute to
connectivity?  I believe that your Coalition is connected to connectivity
issue, as well so maybe you can provide your perspective.

>> S. HAMILTON:  Certainly, thank you.  How do we contribute to
connectivity?  The libraries we're talking about mostly in our Dynamic
Coalition, we'll start with public libraries.   320,000 public libraries
worldwide, 230,000 of those are located in developing countries.  And the
Public Library in many places is the first place that the unconnected go to
get online. So as libraries have moved with the times and begun to provide
access to Internet connected computers, we play an extremely strong role in
bringing the connectivity to the community.  I noted Luca mentioned the
community network in Spain, and just as an example, the library's a part of
that community network.  We're very, very strong at bringing the Internet
right the way down to the grassroots level but of course we do a little bit
more than that, and in the Dynamic Coalition we discuss a number of other
things because I think there's general agreement now in the IGF and within
these discussions that access is not enough. So we bring a lot of other
things to the table, including skills training, digital skills  training,
beginning to understand the computers for the first time, but going a bit
deeper into media and information literacy training.  We're the sort of
institution that because of the values that libraries have, we're
accessible to  everybody, so everybody is going to be able to walk through
the doors in a Public Library, and utilize the computers to get online.
We're particularly good at providing access in remote and rural places,
where often the library is the only community institution that's
connected, and we become hubs for people who, for example, might have
family Members that are working in big cities or even other countries to
stay in contact with their families. The same places, libraries act as safe
spaces for some of the other groups that the Dynamic Coalitions we've heard
from before.  We're safe spaces for women and girls.  We have plenty of
research that shows that women and girls are far more likely to want to get
online in a library than in a telecenter or in a cafe space.  And as I
mentioned we're open for people with disabilities, all sorts of access
issues. The thing I think which is really important in the conversations
we're now having about bringing the next 1.5 billion people online is that
we're a scalable solution.  In the countries of the world these Public
Library networks already exist.  If they're not connected to the Internet,
then we would be strongly encouraging Governments to do  so, because we've
taken a look at the sorts of goals and targets that the SDGs want to hit
and as far as we can work out, there really is no way we're going to bring
those big numbers online without a public access component so some of the
work we're doing within the Dynamic Coalition, we produced a set of
principles on public access in libraries.  And as a result of that, we've
now begun to work with people from for example the  IEEE, Microsoft, at
looking about how we can sort of bring other partners in, and we've started
to talk with the DC on community connectivity to run a number of pilot
projects and to see what we can do to really ramp up Internet access in the
community through libraries. There's a couple of other things which I'd
point out which we discuss here at the IGF which we can also bring to the
table.  We produce and we preserve and provide access to local content,
often developed by people in the community and an issue we discussed here
at length.  We also act as deliverers of Government services and we've
often talked about electronic and online services  needing to get right
down to the community, and we do that.  And we act as the digital memory
very often of the community whether that community is nation sized or even
just down, right at the local community level. So we really feel that we
cover a lot of bases of the issues discussed here at the IGF, and I think
over the next year we're looking forward to working with more DCs.

>> T. TROPINA:  Thank you very much, and from principles on public access
in libraries, I would like to move to Internet Rights and Principles.
Hanane, I read the Charter on Human Rights and principles for the Internet.
We all know working in this space how many charters, how many documents,
how many principles we have, and how many of them just stay on paper. I
would like to ask you what your Dynamic Coalition is doing to actually
promote this to actually reach your audience.  This is 2 first question.
And the second question:  What would success mean for you in promoting this
Document?  Just awareness raising, all people signing up, organization
endorsement, so, yes, what is your definition of success for your
Coalition?  O thank you.  First I would like to thank our host in Mexico
for the great organization and the  great -- .

>> H. BOUJEMI:  Help that we get.  Thank you for all the help that we get
from the Secretariat to be able to do our work.  Under the leadership of
Markus Kummer.  This is a very good question, and all the Dynamic
Coalitions we heard before cover different issues, and the Internet now
without defining the common framework of principles which rehuman Rights, I
don't think we can function.  So the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights
and Principles is one of the oldest Coalitions of the IGF.  It was
established in 2009.  I think the achievement of the Dynamic Coalition, if
may say, that it has been a base Document for many policy-making processes
in different countries around the world, mainly in New Zealand and in Italy
so I think that's a success, and maybe I'm jumping to your second question.
So the Charter and the principles was used as a base Document in these two
countries.  On the top of that, it was also used to build the capacity of
communities which are not very familiar with Human Rights, namely in the
Middle East, so a campaign was led by a programme that I happen to manage,
it's on Internet Governance for the Middle East and North Africa and it was
pitched also to Government institutions, hoping that these principles would
be coded in the legislation at the local level. But the point is, the
Charter is the primary, let's say, customer of this Charter, is people who
would like to understand a little bit more about the principles which
govern the Internet from a Human Rights perspective.  So we obviously
target regions where there is less knowledge about Human Rights.  We try
also to outreach to policymakers all around the world without any
exceptions. The Charter is available in 25 -- sorry, the principles are
available in 25 languages and the Charter itself is available in 7
languages, which means we're putting huge efforts in trying to achieve the
global Internet Community. What else?  We're doing a lot of work, from
building capacity to providing a platform for a discussion on Internet
Rights and Principles.  Anybody -- it's not easy to work on a Charter.  I
know that you mentioned there are so many principles around, but the
quality of our work is recognized because we are actually -- we're advising
on Internet principles to the Council of Europe, so we are recognized with
our work and the effort that we put into promoting the work of the IGF, as
well.  So it's a win-win situation.  Also pleased to have a group of
students from a Law School in Syracuse University who are connected to us
remotely now and they worked on a resource guide to explain the Charter and
make it more die justible for the overall -- digestible for the overall
community so I'd like to thank them for all the work they did this year.
And I hope we can find ways to promote the work that we do here in the IGF,
and we're definitely willing to define the cross-cutting issues that we
heard here in the panel to improve our work and be an outstanding Dynamic
Coalition for the rest of the life of the IGF.

>> T. TROPINA:  Thank you very much.  And hello to Syracuse students.  I
hope they are connected from Public Library. But my next question goes to
Olivier who is representing the Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values.
I would like to know how they actually differ from Rights and Principles.
Is there a -- I have not finished my question yet.  How they differ from --
.

>> O. CRÉPIN-LEBLOND:  You scare me, you're right behind me.

>> T. TROPINA:  No, you have to memorize my questions.  How do they differ
from Rights and Principles?  And also, maybe you can tell what does it mean
core value?  Because on the one hand in your paper you say they're really
core values.  On the other hand you say that we might change them at
something, so could you please elaborate a bit on this within the short
time and explain your rationale?  Thanks?

>> O. CRÉPIN-LEBLOND:  Thank you very much, at that time Yan Tatiana.  They
differ from the Rights and Principles, they're not based on Human Rights.
They're technical values that were I guess adopted when the makers of the
Internet, the fathers and mothers of the Internet back 20, 30, 40 years a I
go, put this whole network of networks together so they're all technical in
nature and we have seen over the years that some have remained cast in
stone, and others appear to have somehow withered in one direction or
another. I'll give you a list of the few that this year we've been looking
at, and that we've been tracking and finding out whether they have been
changed, or whether there's been an improvement or a worsening of the
situation regarding the value.  We looked at the global fact of the
Internet, the interoperability, the openness, the  decentralization of the
Internet, the fact that it should be end to end, user-centric, robust and
reliable. But the reason that we're here is actually to really start asking
ourselves whether these are just cast in stone or whether the Internet is
actually evolving?  And if the Internet is evolving with perhaps new
threats or new challenges, do we need new values?  Do we need to amend the
values that we were on before?  That's the reason why I'm actually here to
listen to you, people in the audience, rather than actually ramble and
speak about our paper. Our paper is online and I'd be interested that you
can probably take the next 20 minutes or 5, 10 minutes to read through it.
One of the questions that we've addressed here this time is, with the new
threats such as for example the use of the Internet of Things for denial of
service attacks, malware, et cetera, should we have new values implemented,
such as value to protect people from harm, from technical harm, on the
Internet?  And we've actually had the chance to start collaborating with
the Internet -- Dynamic Coalition on Internet of Things, who you're going
to hear about in a few moments. And we have, and I think we will, continue
collaborating with the Internet Rights and Principles because as I said,
it's a subset of the Rights and Principles.  Thank you.

>> T. TROPINA:  Thank you, Olivier.  It is very interesting because maybe I
wasn't going to move to the Dynamic Coalition of the Internet of Things but
you basically forced me to do so. So my next set of questions goes to
Maarten.  Maarten, can you please tell me:  What kind of contribution your
Dynamic Coalition can make?  I work in the cybersecurity area, and Internet
of Things is discussed everywhere.  It's on the top of the agenda of
technical community, International Organizations.  How are you going to
contribute?  How are you actually contributing  now? And the second part of
the question relates to what Olivier was talking about:  How are you going
to contribute to the safety against digital attacks?  Is there any way your
Coalition can actually contribute?  Thanks.

>> M. BOTTERMAN:  Thank you for the questions.  IoT is on the top of the
agenda already for some time and increasingly also for other policymakers,
et cetera.  What you see however is all these discussions are local or in
specific silo, I would say and what we do is to really have all
stakeholders meet at equal level, at equal  fatting, to talk about global
good practice  issues.  With that, I think the focus is different than in
all the other networks, and we do hope and via the networks of people and
information, that our thinking on global good practice will be taken into
account and help the world to find its place in that, in that way forward.
Now, you're right on the security issues.  I mean, like anything, really
the triggers are for a change that something hurts in society.  Sometimes
the Titanic has to sink.  I'm not sure the Titanic has sunk already but for
sure the attack of a month ago that took down some websites had a clear
reference to the Internet of Things as being one of the causes, because
many things on the Internet today are in a way many computers that have
capacity to collaborate to start an attack but they've not been secured
fully or they have passwords that are very standard, or even sometimes
indicated in the manuals that are available online, too, on those tools.
It's created a situation where we need to move away from.  Security is
important for some things more important than for others.  This morning I
was also in the session on child online safety, where those are nowadays
also sometimes connected.  It's created a level of sensitivity there.  It's
different than for instance from your fit bit that you may have on your arm
where you share your information from. So these levels of sensitivity, for
privacy, for security and also for safety need to be understood.
Security's also a very good example to say it's not one player who can do
it.  This is multistakeholder.  The businesses that make these tools that
go online, these things, they may need to take into account that these
things are not all protected in the same way, and that good security is
possible. Network providers, where all this data will be exchanged, they
may need to step up to their roles as well to ensuring communications and
preventing attacks or use of tools for things that shouldn't be used for.
But in the end, it's also the user itself that should play its role, and it
requires them to be aware, and to know how to do it, and to be enabled to
do so by the technologies offered. So all that together requires more
attention, it's become more urgent and I dare say people have become more
aware of this as well.  So let's go on improving this.  We need the
Internet of Things.  We need that to manage our increasingly dense
societies, but we also need to be aware of the dangers that comes with, so
I think we're right on target with that, and there's much to do to make
sure we're not going to end up in a world we don't want.

>> T. TROPINA:  Thank you very much.  I think that if we make a pool of
boards which make it a booth Board last year, along with Internet of
Things, there would be zero rating and I would like to ask Luca to put on
his hat of Dynamic Coalition on net neutrality and elaborate a bit on zero
rate and being in the heart of this debate and on this tension between
access and connection, and maybe connecting the unconnected, and equality
of access.  Thanks.

>> L. BELLI:  Thanks, Tatiana.  So first of all let me say that the Dynamic
Coalition on net neutrality we have been working over the past four years
producing already a lot of outcomes for reports, a modern framework, Policy
Statement, and so this year, we have produced another report, yet another
one, with exploring a farther level of complexity, so we already have some
sort of agreement on net neutrality within the Coalition on what could be
defined, how could be defined, sorry, and what could be the rationale of
net neutrality which is indeed to keep the Internet as an open platform for
free communication, free participation, and free cooperation and also free
innovation. And here this year, we have explored particularly zero rating,
but not only zero  rating, there are seven Chapters of the book on zero
rating and three on net neutrality implementation and exceptions.  It's
very useful this report to have an informed debate on zero rating and that
is something that is lacking in a lot of countries, where zero rating
policy have been elaborated or are going to be elaborated.  And what is
very useful also in the report is that there is -- it is not some sort of
propaganda pro or against zero rating.  It's actually quite balanced and
you have some Chapters that are highly in favor and others that are highly
against, and some others discuss the policy that has been elaborated so
far.  It's a true multistakeholder effort.  There is a Chapter from one --
from actually the person that was Chairing the group that elaborated the
European Union guidelines.  There are three Chapters from the private
sector, four from academics and a couple from Civil Society. So coming back
to the question and trying to reply to it, the big issue of zero rating is
that it has been portrayed as a domain technique to connect the unconnected
and actually if you have in mind my speech of the previous Coalition, you
will understand it is not the only way.  There are also other ways that
could be taking in conversation and there are other ways that look more
sustainable particularly if our goal is to preserve the Internet as it was
designed, a general network purpose, where the users are not only users of
pre-defined applications.  That was the telephone network.  In the Internet
the consumers are producer, they can produce and consumers.  So the
analysis you find here can provide you some element to understand whether
zero rating could be a useful policy or not, what are the costs and
benefits, what are the risks?  And in my view, and I've authored one of the
Chapters, the risk that we are taking with zero rating is to transform the
Internet from a  generic, general purpose network to a pre-defined purpose
network that is much easier to control, and that is also I think a reason
why some Governments are very much in favor of zero rating, because
actually if you only have to police 5 applications or 6 for communication,
it's much easier than policing the entire Internet. So I think that there
are some very good elements here that you could analyze, and there  is, in
the survey, I apologize because in the survey, there are not only five
questions, but 10, because there are 10 different Chapters here, with 10
completely different arguments that are  analyzed.  So if you want to take
the survey and provide us your feedback, it would be very  welcome.  Thank
you.  Sorry, just one last thing:  Both reports will be on the IGF web
site, and you can already find them on Internet Governance.

>> T. TROPINA:  Thank you very much.  It's apparently very interesting and
I hope there would be more questions.  We have only two Dynamic Coalitions
left and certainly another booth Board blockchain technologies and
Coalition on blockchain technologies.  I really enjoyed reading your paper,
the Coalition paper and there was one thing that really struck me if I look
at my notes, is this tension that you highlight between technically
building decentralization and knowing what the aim on your decentralization
is, like decentralization as a mean?  Or decentralization as a goal? And I
would like to ask you:  Why do you think the paradigm shift from
technically building this decentralization to knowing your aim is needed?
Thank you.

>> C. REYES:  So part of it is the significant hype that surrounds
blockchain technologies.  Anybody and everybody wants to incorporate
blockchain technology into whatever it is they're doing, whether it makes a
lot of sense or not.  And from our perspective, in order to know whether
blockchain technology is useful for your aim or not, you have to ask first
what aims you hope ho to achieve by decentralization.  Are we
decentralizing just for decentralizing's sake?  We hope not.  That's not
something the Dynamic Coalition would recommend. In that case, the question
becomes:  What aspects of social, economic, cultural or political life, or
whatever task you have at hand, what aspect of shared facts that you need
immutable record of?  What is it that you are doing that could benefit from
decentralized organization?  In which areas could folks be given a stronger
voice in claiming their own rights, in asserting their values?  If they had
a more decentralized way of organising at their fingertips and if they
could use that to build more flatter, more transparent governance tools, if
they could build their values and their culture into the operating
governance structures of the technology that they're using to organize
online itself. This is the work of the Dynamic Coalition on blockchain
technologies.  We try to identify areas ripe for change through
decentralized  architecture.  We try to identify the purpose of that
change.  And to consider how and to what extent blockchain technologies
could be used to achieve that change. Sometimes we find we conclude that
blockchain technologies isn't what should be used for that change.  We
think that's a good thing.  We don't want to be the group that says
blockchain, blockchain!  To everything.  That's not what we hope to
achieve.  Instead, we think that to identify the appropriate areas for use
of blockchain technologies that we need this:  We need a multistakeholder
discussion, a multistakeholder sort of brainstorming of what areas could
benefit from the unique as spect of decentralization and decentralized
organization that blockchain technologies can provide. Yeah, does that
answer your question?

>> T. TROPINA:  Yes, thank you.  It answers it perfectly.  Thank you, Carla
and from blockchain we're moving to the very last Dynamic Coalition
represented at this session.  I think there are more of them, but they're
the only Coalitions which submitted the papers.  And this is Dynamic
Coalition on Internet and Climate Change.  I  really had difficulties to
come up with a question to this Coalition because I really would like to
understand whether it overlaps with ICT and Climate Change.  What are you
actually doing as a Coalition?  What is in the agenda of your work?  And
what has been done already?  Thanks.

>> P. MALOOR:  Thank you, Tatiana.  And before I start, let me start with a
caveat that this is not my area of expertise at all, and I'm doing it on
behalf, I'm presenting this on behalf of my colleagues who are dealing with
problems and I was the last man standing so with that caveat, let me start.
So my answer would be, I would encourage people here and those
participating remotely to read the report of the Dynamic Coalition.  So
just quickly, a few sentences on what the report has.  So there's a Section
which highlights the role of ICTs in dealing with Climate Change and ICTs
do play a very pivotal role in raising awareness and creating dialogue
channels obviously on the effects of Climate Change and helping providing
channels, communication means for advocacy.  Obviously also there are very,
very innovative  ICT-driven innovations available on energy efficiency,
smart metering, smart grids, for energy management.  Many of these are in
our report. And obviously the close link to the Sustainable Development
Goals especially as DG13 has stressed that.  There's also this interesting
paradox that ICTs are obviously a catalyst in mitigating the effects of
Climate Change but they also contributed to Climate Change so for those of
you who may not be aware of the stats, ICTs actually account for 2% of the
global greenhouse gas emissions.  On the other hand, it's been projected to
aid the reduction of -- by 16% by 2020.  You can say overall we come out
well and that's why we should continue viewing the ICTs at a catalyst for
achieving Climate Change goals as stipulated in the SDGs and also the
targets outlined by 21. In the report we list a number of areas of action
of our Members, including the ITU, the organization that I belong to, the
EBU, and many others on awareness raising, on capacity-building, developing
standards, recommendations, developing tools, and we continue to encourage
all stakeholders to participate.  There are a few  take-aways from the work
of the group, and one is within the IG community.  We need to do more to
highlight the issue of Climate Change.  Also while discussing issues like
Sustainable Growth, Sustainable Development, Climate Change should be taken
into greater consideration and incorporate and discussed. I've been
involved in the IGF since Hyderabad  2008 and I think I've seen the Dynamic
Coalition on Climate Change meet in every session of IGF.  This probably is
the first time the group isn't meeting.  And they've also organised
workshops, side events on this topic, but the group Members have noticed,
and I'm paraphrasing them, they've noticed that there's a limited audience
for this topic at the IGF, as the focus of the Forum is on core Internet
Governance matters. The Dynamic Coalition Members have agreed to meet
annually also at the WSIS Forum in Geneva where there has been continued
active engagement and to report back to IGF on the progress made and here
let me just remained people here that next WSIS Forum will be held in June,
I think 12th to the 14th of June in Geneva and we'll host the next meeting
of the Dynamic Coalition.  Again the discussion will aim to talk about the
targets reached by the Paris agreement and SDGs 12, 13 and 15.  The report
also raises a few questions from the Dynamic Coalition to the IGF Members,
and I would encourage you to go through them and come back to the group
with your insights so that we can improve the work of the group.  Thank
you.

>> T. TROPINA:  Thank you very much.  Thank you very much to all the
wonderful Dynamic Coalition representatives, because you really, really
followed the time guidance.  And now I would like to open this floor to all
of you participants in this session.  Please grill the Dynamic  Coalitions.
Please ask your questions.  I see already one hand over there. There will
be a roaming microphone around here and please stand up because we're
filming and please speak close to the microphone.  Thank you so much.

>> Thank you very much.  I would really -- so it's shorter.  I'm Co-Chair
of testify DC3, so I wanted to point out a couple of things.  One is
community networks are not about technology.  They are about community.
And about recovering the spirit of a human centered Internet. I believe we
are an example of how we can reverse the trend for concentration and
centralized control the Internet has been moving into for the past years.
We are worried that Governments have not been able to separate corporate
lobbying interests from what the real need of the people to fully realize
their rights is. Recommendation 19 from ITU-D is many years old, but very
little has been done.  Hopefully, resolution 268 from the Inter-American
Commission on telecommunications, CITEL, which is very specific about the
need for Governments to support the development of local nonprofit Internet
operators in rural and disadvantaged areas will help create a new balance
in the regulatory and policy discussion from 2017  onwards, at least in
this Continent. I wanted to share these thoughts.  Thank you.

>> T. TROPINA:  Thank you very much.  So it was rather a comment than a
question.  We have a question from remote participant, and I don't
remember, Arsčne, you were introduced, if not thank you very much.  This is
Arsčne our Remote Moderator.

>> A. TUNGALI:  Thank you so much, Tatiana.  We have a few participants
from remotes and while we're still waiting from confirmation from the
Syracuse University remote hub we have up to five students who are willing
to be -- who are connected to this session.  But I'll go ahead and read, we
have a question from Mr. McCann from the African IGF Secretariat, and he
says:  I would like to know if the Dynamic Coalitions dealing with
community connectivity issues have dealt with use of TV white spaces to
take care of underserved areas.  One we know there are a lot of unuse
frequencies in countries.  While these could be used to serve the remote
areas.  In this context these tools could be deployed in libraries and
documentation centers as these are widely available as access points in
many developing countries, and even rural or remote areas of developed
countries.

>> T. TROPINA:  Thank you very much.  I would like to hand it Toluca, and
then to Christopher.  Luca, you go first.

>> L. BELLI:  Well, first of all, that is a very prominent issue, and
actually if you consider the Declaration on community connectivity that we
have been producing, the fourth point is about policy that can facilitate
or hinder the deployment of community networks, and the really specific one
that I'm going to read, which specifically refers to spectrum, and
particularly, we say that a National as well as international policy should
allow the exploitation of existing unlicensed spectrum bands, or
dynamically assigned secondary use of spectrum for public interest
purposes, or consider the growth of analyzing spectrum bands and spectrum
licenses for the needs of connectivity.  So basically the fact is there are
already a lot of regulation on spectrum, every country has one, but few of
them or basically  none, or very few examples, let's say, allow not-for-
profit to utilize spectrum for the public good basically and also actually
there is also a Chapter in the report that analyzes how to identify to make
sense of spectrum white spaces and understand how can they be used and who
can use them and Maureen Hernandez there is the author of this excellent
Chapter that unfortunately is only in Spanish in this book but it will be
translated soon. So, yes, spectrum is indeed a very prominent issue.  We
have tried to tackle it at the very first and more general level this year,
but we are planning to invest a lot of time next year in the next report to
analyze policy and regulation that can affect and facilitate the use of
community networks action and to put forward some concrete proposals.
Thank you.

>> T. TROPINA:  Thank you very much, Luca, over to Christopher.

>> A. SAKS:  It's a wonderful question and Luca speaks generally about
spectrum which is  important.  The question about TV white spaces is even
more specific.  There are, I said we have 200 case studies identified.
We've completed 20 of them.  Two of them involved TV white spaces.  I'd
like to share them briefly.  In Nepal, there is a gentleman who's actually
here at the IGF has pioneered a community network in the TV white spaces,
has provided the first Internet connectivity to 200 Nepalese villages, in a
situation where there was no prior service and it's a spectacular
achievement on his part. The Mhingu project is also another TV white spaces
project in Kenya.  It has connected 10,000 customers through wi-fi portals
and 300,000 people through libraries and schools and the most amazing thing
using TV white spaces so they're wonderful success stories in Kenya in
particular, there's a principal from a school connected to the TV white
spaces based community network.  She reports that the students' scores on
the Kenyan National exam improved in every single subject after being
connected to the Internet.  So it's another wonderful story that we are
learning about how the Internet promotes the kinds of Sustainable
Development Goals that lay at the center of our current agenda.

>> T. TROPINA:  Thank you very much, Stuart.  I heard and saw the magic
word libraries.  Can you add something?

>> S. HAMILTON:  Yes when someone mentions libraries I have to say
something.  We're already using it in some places, particularly in remote
and rural U.S., the gigabit libraries network is something they should look
into.  The best thing about the potential for this technology is using
libraries, schools, hospitals as anchor institutions and then being able to
give another definition to public access to the Internet.  You won't
actually have to even come into the library in some respects to benefit
from its services and that can really go some distance at some point so I
think it's a technology we'll see more of with the libraries.

>> T. TROPINA:  Thank you very much.  And I think we have comment from
remote participation.

>> A. TUNGALI:  Yes, we have a comment from  forgive the name, with with
Subramanian from India and he says this:  Internet's rights are an
important aspect of Internet Governance.  Core Internet values are at the
heart of the Internet.  These values are the Foundation that makes the
Internet what it is. The question of conflicts needs not to arise between
the portrait of the two Coalitions.  It's difficult to understand why this
is question is persistent. well maybe it is my bad that I ask this question
but I think there are enough of newcomers to the IGF or to the Internet
Governance itself, and it's a very legitimate question to ask but maybe,
Olivier you want to say something.

>> O. CRÉPIN-LEBLOND:  I wanted to comment on the comment made by the
gentleman earlier on the changing nature of the Internet because of various
legislation or actions by Governments or private sector.  In fact, some of
the points you've made I think would fit very well in Internet Rights and
Principles Coalition and some of them would fit very well into the Core
Internet Values, for the very reason that they are affecting both of these
and ultimately for the worse as we're seeing at the moment and I'd be
really interested in speaking to you afterwards because we're tracking
those changes that are taking place when it comes down over to the
technical side of things, and ultimately we might end up with a worse
Internet or less usable Internet than we have today.

>> T. TROPINA:  Do you have anything to add here?

>> H. BOUJEMI:  Yes, I think it has been very challenging to quantify Human
Rights especially in oppressive regimes.  You find the language we use in
the Internet Rights and Principles Charter, all the principles is quite
diluted, to be more comprehensive and simplified in a way that Governments
would be able to incorporate the language that we have in their local
legislation. This happened, but unfortunately it happened only in
progressive countries like New Zealand and Italy.  I think there is a lot
of work that needs to be done in the underrepresented countries like in the
Middle East and Africa and so on.  So I do relate to that, and we try to
reach out to Governments from these regions. The thing is, most of these
Governments, they don't speak Human Rights language so we need to find
different modalities to be able to make sense to this very important
stakeholder.

>> T. TROPINA:  Sorry.  Thank you very much.  I was told that our Twitter
wall is surprisingly empty.  This is sad.  I urge you all who can Tweet
that you still have, like, 15 to 20 minutes to grill our Dynamic Coalition
participants. Are there any questions from you?  I see the hand over there.
Please stand up, because we are filming and keep close to the microphone.
Thank you very much.

>> Hello.  My name is George.  I work in the Cybercrime unit in the local
police in Jalisco.  I have a question for all the experts. Every day around
the world, children and teenagers are creating videos of themselves naked
or allowing videos of sex in the Internet, into the Internet.  Maybe in
America it's for  extortion, for maybe predators in the Internet, so what
can I do to promote international protocol to prevent these cybercrimes, is
my question.  Thank you.

>> T. TROPINA:  I think that this might relate to gender Coalition, so I
will give the floor first to you and then to anyone who can  contribute.
John Carr, thank you.

>> B. DATTA:  Yes, to answer your question about intimate images that are
being circulated online, I think at the gender Coalition, we divide what
are called sex or naked images into two categories:  Those that are
consensually produced, and exchanged among individuals, and those that are
consensually produced but non-consensually distributed.  And our position
is that sexting or the exchange of intimate images is the digital
equivalent of what used to be called the love letter in an ancient sort of
time and space, and research has actually shown, there's a researcher in
Canada who's studied this and found that with each age, there's been a new
sort of way to express romance, intimacy, sex, love, et cetera.  This in
the digital age is one of the main mechanisms. So what we would like
policymakers to actually do is have legislation that protects consensual
exchange, but to take very strict action against non-consensual exchange
that causes harm to  people.

>> T. TROPINA:  Thank you very much.  John?

>> J. CARR:  Hugely important issue, and thank you very much for raising
it.  Two numbers first.  In a study done by the National center for missing
and exploited children in the United States of America, 15% of all of the
images which were technically child pornography, as they call it in
America, child abuse images as we call it in the U.K., had been self-
generated in the sense that it didn't appear to have been any malevolent
third party involved in bullying or coercing the child into creating the
image.  Why do we know this?  Because in each case, the police were able to
locate the actual child who had made the image themselves and talked to
them.  And this goes to the point that you were making there. We don't
think children should be criminalized or prosecuted for doing things of
that nature.  They're experimenting and they're learning.  They may be
making mistakes, but they shouldn't be dragged into the criminal system
because of that. Second number, this came from the study done by the
Internet Watch Foundation in the United Kingdom:  About 80% of the -- of
images that they found on pedophile websites, sorry, 80% of the images
which had been self-generated by children were subsequently found on
websites used by pedophiles and people who are collecting child abuse
images.  So it's very important that young people understand that even
though they think they are sending this to the great love of their life and
God knows, when I was 13, 14, I thought that was it for me, as well --
these things happen.  They need to know that even though it might be
consensual at the point where they make the exchange, there's a very strong
risk, even if it's done by accident.  That that image will escape into a
much different environment. Another quick point I would like to make,
because we've mentioned the Internet fundamental rights and so on and I
wonder what image of the Internet people have in their heads.  What is the
Internet like today?  It's not like it was 20 years ago.  One in 3 of every
single Internet user on the planet is a child below the age of 18.  In
parts of the developing world, it rises to nearly one in 2.  In my own
country and much of Europe, it's one in 5.  So whatever else you think the
Internet is or might be, or might become, it is a medium that is
overwhelmingly being used by families and by children and by young people.
And yet if you look at the NETmundial statement for example, children,
young people, are not even mentioned once.  And the fact is, they're too
often marginalized and overlooked, even though they are one in 3 of every
Internet user on the planet.

>> T. TROPINA:  Thank you very much, John, for this intervention.  We have
one question from the participant -- two questions.  Okay,  identify --
sorry, dent phi you, the gentleman in the white shirt, so you can just
stand up and grab the microphone, thank you.

>> Thank you.  My name is Jari Ellis.  I'm from Dublin in Ireland and
firstly I'd like to thank Andrea for her contribution around accessibility
for people with disabilities.  I'm blind myself.  And Andrea might want to
chip in on this, but my question really is for everyone else on the panel:
Disability doesn't stand alone for just people with disabilities.  Every
person on the planet will either grow old and acquire disabilities as they
grow old, or they will die, so the preference is that all of our
technologies will accommodate the needs of every single person on the
planet.  Okay. So I'm wondering are the other people taking this into
account and building it into their principles?  So we say the core
principles and rights.  We say when you're building libraries are you
making them accessible?  Are you making the technology there accessible?
And one you might not even have thought of is the question of communities
using spare spectrum.  You wouldn't even think if you use spare spectrum in
the wrong way you could interfere very easily with assistive listening
devices and other assistive technologies used by people with disabilities.
So we're saying:  Please take this into account in all areas, not just one
Dynamic Coalition, because it improves the lives of everyone as they grow
older.

>> T. TROPINA:  Thank you very much.  I think this comment could be
addressed to several of our Dynamic Coalitions.  Andrea if you do have any
particular comment to reply to this.

>> A. SAKS:  Thank you, jail JERRY.  He is blind and one of the things that
makes it very difficult for him to watch television is there might not be
any audio description.  I had a question in my own mind directed to the
gentleman who was talking about his compatriot who was able to link up
rural areas with white spectrum,  and -- white space, and the thing is:
Was that thought of and is that accessible?  Probably not. There are other
issues regarding spectrum,  also, in highly populated countries like
Germany, for example, where accessibility in television and broadcasting is
not able to be done in a satisfactory fashion, because all the spectrum is
used up, and there is a situation where there are conflicting television
systems that impact the ability for accessibility to be provided. I could
list them, but I'm not going to take you into a technical area.  There are
severe problems of accessibility not only in the  Internet, but also in
broadcasting, and there are solutions that are possible through the
Internet, and one of them, the ITU has been very instrumental in promoting
and also has  standardized regarding accessibility, is Internet Protocol
TV, not the old one, but the new one.  So there's lots of issues that are
not being taken into consideration.  Libraries can be accessible because
you can get in with a wheelchair but are the websites accessible that
people are using?  So it's -- Jerry's right, there are so many other areas
from each Dynamic Coalition that needs to be taken into account.  Is the
work that you're doing accessible to persons with disabilities?  And I
think everybody needs to look at their own back yard.  Thank you.

>> T. TROPINA:  Thank you very much.  Christopher, over to you.

>> C. YOO:  Thank you very much for the question.  I think it's an
important part that is becoming part that I'm gratified to see coming into
our case studies.  I've seen it already in a number of the 200 we've
identified.  There is one we've completed in India, Intel learn easy steps
is providing digital literacy training with 28 nonprofit organizations.
One of them is devoted to providing digital literacy training to physically
challenged individuals and they're customizing the tools they're using for
training people in digital literacy for a different range of physical
capacities. We're happy to try to identify these and to bring them to the
attention of the entire community but it will be broader than that.  It's
not just disability.  It will be gender, youth, seniors, and one of the
most challenging things, people who are functionally illiterate.  These are
all challenges for us as a community and we're happy to try to find them as
examples and share them.

>> T. TROPINA:  We really have time conference now.  We have not much time
left.  Olivier do you have anything to add?

>> O. CRÉPIN-LEBLOND:  I was just going to add to the question that Jerry
was saying.  One of the Core Internet Values is it should be user centric
which means that you should have the choice of what you want to run and
what you want to connect on to the Internet and it shouldn't be a gateway
that blocks applications or tells you what applications you need to have on
your desktop or in whatever device that you're using to connect to it.  So
that's a real important Core Internet Values.

>> T. TROPINA:  Thank you very much, Olivier.  I think we have something
from Remote Moderator, and we have remote hub connected.

>> A. TUNGALI:  Yeah, thank you, Tatiana.  We're trying to connect with the
students at Syracuse University in New York State, so if they can hear us,
please, you have the floor.  We can have them only on audio because the
video didn't work.  Can you hear us?

>> Hello?

>> A. TUNGALI:  We can -- give a second.  We can even have you on video.

>> Remote participant:  Can you hear me?   Hello?

>> A. TUNGALI:  Yes, we can hear you.  Go  ahead.  And we can even see you.

>> Remote participant:  We just wanted to thank you for giving us the
shoutout.  That was an awesome shoutout.  As you know we did work on the
educational resource guide, and we were just -- we had two comments. Hello?
Okay.  There's a delay.  I apologize.  I'm on a delay, but I just wanted to
have a few comments.  So we believe that young audiences, so I'm sorry, I
have a reflection, but we believe that there needs to be more promotion in
colleges.  Also we believe if possible that the IGF and especially the
Internet Rights and Principles Coalition needs to work closely with ITM.
We believe since they'll be the organization that will monitor the Internet
that they should monitor the Internet.  And also finally I'm just giving
comments.  We were wondering what we can do to help to further our
partnership with students, with everybody, around the world.

>> T. TROPINA:  Thank you very much, remote  hub.

>> A. TUNGALI:  I have another comment.

>> T. TROPINA:  We have one more comment from remote participant and then I
unfortunately will have to close the queue.

>> A. TUNGALI:  Thank you.  We have given riser who is on the Coalition for
Internet Rights and Principles Steering Committee and he was the one
helping coordinate the sear cues University students.  He's saying:  The
Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles has had a very positive
experience with engaging University students, and we would be happy to work
with other Coalitions to help implement these methods of engagement and
outreach for other Coalitions. So probably they are just willing to be able
to collaborate with the other Coalitions, if the Coalitions can share ways
for students, University students, to collaborate with them, probably that
can be helpful.

>> T. TROPINA:  Thank you very much, Arsčne.  Thank you very much.  I would
like -- we really have no time.  I'm sorry for this.  So I would like to
wrap this up before I hand over to Markus.  I would like to thank you.
Fantastic, fantastic, participants, representatives of Dynamic  Coalitions.
I would like to thank all of you who came here and participated in this
session.  And of course, I would like to thank Mexican Government for
bringing us all here and, Markus, over to you for wrapping it up.  Though
if you're going to be quick maybe we can give some time Toluca but it's
really a hard stop soon.

>> M. KUMMER:  It's super quick actually directly -- .

>> L. BELLI:  With community networks, people, the community that build
them are students or they do this as part of their University studies and
also I also wanted to say that we have been talking a lot with Stuart and
other Fellow Dynamic Coalition friends from the Dynamic Coalition on public
access to library to try to cooperate and build some sort of synergy
amongst us, so that the work that we produce to teach people how to do a
community network can also be shared through the networks of the Public
Libraries so that students that usually go to Public Libraries, or at least
they should go there, can learn how to do their own community network, how
to expand connectivity themselves.

>> T. TROPINA:  Thank you very much, Luca, and now Markus, up to you to
wrap up.  Preferably in a Tweet, as short as a Tweet.

>> M. KUMMER:  Thank you, Tatiana and thank you Luca, you anticipated what
I was going to say.  This is not the end and also, thankful for the young
people, the students, who joined in.  And all the Dynamic Coalitions are
open and inclusive, so feel free to join the Dynamic Coalitions. We will
immediately afterwards have a DC  Coordination session.  This is an open
session.  All participants are invited, if interested to join, and
particularly Tatiana and Jeremy would certainly be most welcome to join us.
This may not be that interesting to other participants because it's more
inward-looking, but nevertheless, as we are open and inclusive, we are
open. With that, I would like to thank you.  All this was an experimental
session but my first assessment is:  I think it was a good experiment, and
thank you very much, Tatiana.  You did an excellent job.  And thank you,
all the Dynamic Coalitions, and the participants to this meeting. And I
hope you will join me in giving a big hand to Tatiana and the
representatives of the Dynamic Coalitions in closing this session.  Thank
you. [ Applause ]

And the session of the Dynamic Coalitions is in workshop room 9 and it
starts immediately afterwards.  Thank you.  I close this session.

>> T. TROPINA:  Thank you very much. [ End of session ] . . . . . . . . . .

>> Ladies and gentlemen, please take your  seats.  We'll be starting this
session in a couple of minutes. So I've just got something to read out to
you before the session starts.  This workshop will be translated in six
languages.  You can grab your translation radios outside in the foyer.
Also, we remind you that all sessions are being live-streamed and
translated.  We invite you to go to the IGF web site and IGF YouTube
Channel to watch and share.  Thank you.

>> Good afternoon, all.  In the name of the Government of Mexico and the
office for digital strategy, we welcome you.  It is an honor  to -- for us
to be your host for this great event.  What an important topic:  Trade
Agreements:  Commercial and Internet jointly.  Something that is of great
relevance and currently vital.  I'm going to give the position of the
Mexican Government.  I will open the floor for all participants. The IGF is
identified as a World Forum that allows foreign interaction of different
actors, Governments, experts, industries, and Civil Society.  We know today
that the Internet represents several key concepts which will be tackled
during this panel, such as the Resolution of disputes regarding domains,
data of registration, encryption, source code problems, as well as border
matters.  These things, as well as international topics along with the OAS,
DESA, the TPP, and the different associations are key to these matters.  It
is why this is important to discuss matters regarding Internet Governance.
When it comes to trade agreements, Mexico has a network of 12 treaties of
free trade, with 43 countries.  30 agreements for from motion and
protection of investments, 9 agreements of limited cope, regarding economic
compliment the tearty.  Additionally thanks to the fact we have signed
agreements in all continents, Mexico becomes an access door to a potential
market of over one billion consumers. Now, considering Mexico is a source
and promoter of Internet Governance in the case of the TPP, for example,
I'm happy to say we're happy with the results, as wells as with the results
of the aagreement of TISA ooms.  We're still working to achieve a complete
and ambitious agreement through which we have included our disposition to
be dynamic, and when it comes to source code matters, we included an
important disposition.  No part will require the transference of access of
the source code of the informatic code property of a person on the other
part as a condition for importing, distributing, sale, or use of that
information data that will contain that programme in their territory. When
it comes to cross-border commerce, regarding the TPP, we include a strong
disposition against the following redaction.  Each part will allow for
transporter transfers of information by electronic means, including
personal information when the activity will be for business matters only.
Basically, this is the position of our country regarding the 12 treaties
that we have signed, and they are very varied.  I would like to thank the
coordination of the National Digital Strategy, who invited us to be part of
this panel, as well as Renata for the carrying out of this panel.  Our
countries have an active part in this discussions.  I congratulate all the
Moderators ties, participants and public in general and without further ado
I would like to pass the floor to our Chair.

>> E. TAYLOR:  Could I just say as a first-time visitor to Mexico what a
wonderful event this is and to congratulate you on the hospitality and the
amazing organization and logistics here and thanks to all the MAG Members
who put together this  panel.  As you heard from senior Rendon, this issue
is dealing with an issue that is new to the IGF but is very topical and
very much at the heart of a lot of debates at the moment and I hope we will
be able to expose some of those divisions and to have a reasoned and polite
discussion which accepts the different points of view. And, of course, that
includes you, the  audience.  Very pleased to see you all here. What I'd
like to do before we kick off the actual discussions is to introduce our
wonderful panel to you.  We have a really amazing panel.  Sorry, I always
forget to introduce myself, my name is Emily Taylor.  I'm from the United
Kingdom, and I've been working in this space in the naming and addressing
sphere, and lately in cybersecurity and all sorts of other things, for the
last 15 or 20 years or so, so that's me.  Got that done. So let me
introduce our panel without further  ado.  I'm going to read out in no
particular  order, to keep it exciting.  First of all, we have Burcu Kilic,
the legal and policy Director at  Public Citizen, Civil Society
organization and Burcu works in the access to medicines,  innovation, and
information group.  And as part of many degrees and qualifications that she
has, she has a Ph.D. from Queen Mayor University of London in my home
country. David Snead, General Counsel for C panel, a lawyer with more than
20 years of experience in the tech Sector, negotiating agreements although
not trade agreements, that's all right but agreements for the companies
that he's  represented.  He's worked both in law firms and  in-house.  He
founded the Internet infrastructure Coalition in 2011, and was one of the
earliest opponents of the stop online piracy act, or SOPA as it's known.
Jeremy Malcolm, yes with your hand up there.  Electronic Frontier
Foundation, international  team, and before working at the EFF, Jeremy was
at consumers international.  He's both an intellectual property lawyer and
an IT consultant, and lists his -- what he enjoys as acting,  writing,
coding, not law, I noticed, but I suppose code is law.  Steering Committee,
he's on the Steering Committee of the OECD Civil Society, Information
Society Advisory Council.  Did I get that right?  Quite a mouth full. So
next we have Marcela Paiva which is one of our trade negotiators on the
panel.  She is a lawyer and is at the Permanent Mission of Chile to the
WTO, world trade organization as well as other numerous other International
Organizations.  She has experience in both bilateral and multinatural trade
negotiations and has been an add vieser to the Director-General of
international economic relations, I think. Joseph Alhadeff of Oracle is the
VP of global Public Policy, and Chief privacy strategist.  He Chairs
numerous influential Committees, including, he's the Chair to the OECD
digital economy policy Committee, and is also I think relevant here, Chair
to the international Chamber of Commerce digital economy Committee. Last,
but definitely not least, Juan Antonio Dorantes, who is a former trade
negotiator for the Mexican Government and is now in private practice as a
partner at the law firm Aguilar and Lorea.  Thank you to our panelists.
Thank you very much. So we heard from Senor Rendon a brief sort of overview
of the eggs but I think that the reason, if -- but the reason, if I'm
correct, the reason why it's on the agenda of the IGF is this sort of
concern that we're hearing increasingly that whether it's at the world
trade organization, the Trans-Pacific partnership, the transatlantic trade
and investment partnership, TPP, TTIP, that these are including more and
more Internet matters whether it's Domain Name dispute resolution or who is
or use of encryption standards, just to name a few and there seems to be
some concern that these interpret issues which have always been discussed
in multistakeholder fora such as this are being reflected in trade
negotiations and trade agreements in a very much a black box, it's felt to
be quite a private and secretive, some would say, negotiation. So we've got
a few policy questions, but what I'd like to do is just to have some
opening remarks from the panelists about where you see the tensions.  How
can multistakeholder Internet Governance support digital trade?  And what
should be done to, you know, whether it should be limiting the number of
trade Internet policy issues that are included in trade agreements, or
trying to get some more transparency into trade negotiations. So why don't
we start with our trade  negotiators, and let you -- also, could you help
us understand something about the status quo and how it works, and why it
is how it is?  Could I start with you, Marcela?  And then we'll come to
you, Juan Antonio.

>> Thank you for that fantastic introduction and thank you to our Chair for
the words.  First I have to thank the Civil Society organizations, EFF and
public citizens that invited me and they were open to have this debate in
this setting so thank you very much. And second, I just want to clarify
that despite of my position and what was described by our Moderator, I will
be speaking in my personal capacity, just to keep this in record. So I
think that it's important first to start and thanks for giving me the floor
initially because I had this conceptual analysis:  What are we talking
about when we talk about Internet?  I know that here for you it's something
obvious but I tried to do some philosophical research because I also think
it's important go back a little bit one step behind when we're talking
about regulating something and probably this is the initial different views
that probably we might have in how the trade world sees Internet comes
here, because if you analyze, well, I just check one important philosopher
at least that I thought was very interesting.  He talks about the fourth
revolution and how the concept of the self has changed, and even we
experience this every day, and this implies that Internet is affecting all
the dimensions of our life, beyond the trade aspects. Obviously when we
come to trade, for the trade world, and then we have the WEF, the world
economic Forum that has conceptualized the idea of the fourth industrial
revolution, they see Internet as this tool that it's also true that it's
going to be a tool as much as it's going to change and impact our lives so
this is the first thing, that Internet is going to be looked at from
different approaches regarding who's looking at it and all of them are
right. The thing is that probably we need to sit down and have this
conversation. In terms of trade, so normally, trade is the transfer of
goods and services from one person to another.  And the concept
particularly of free trade means that as an economic policy, we, countries,
decide that we will not discriminate between imported forms and --
importing goods and exported goods from other countries.  This is the basic
concept.  This idea of free trade that is basically lowering tariffs, so
you remove the walls that you have to protect your economy -- can be done
unilaterally and this was the way forward for a lot of our countries
including Chile.  We started unilaterally lowering our tariffs.  Then the
time come when countries realize and especially in the post-second world
era, that more was needed and trust, it was also important to keep the
commitments, and so the institutions with the WTO emerged. This implied
that not only tariffs were going to be included, but also some disciplines
and specific regulations that would warrant that the investors from one
country will go to another country and will have certain, like, environment
fix or sort of guarantee, similar as the one I will have for your
investors.  So this will give certainty and this will go in favor of free
trade.  So even though it is a contradiction because initially free trade
is more like Governments don't do anything and we just let everything flow,
this implies that we will do something, but we will do something to give
certainty to investment, to be easier to come. Now, if Internet is an
additional layer of our reality and an additional dimension for
relationships, it's almost obvious that Internet will be part of trade, or
that trade will be part of Internet, as well.  This is here and this is
here to stay.  It's part of the origin, the fact that everything happens in
the Internet as much as it happens in the material world, or analog world,
it means that trade also will have the a say on trade issues and there will
be a normal relationship there. Now, those agreements started in a moment
where Internet was starting to be something spread, so it's more -- it's
through bilateral agreements that this regulation spread in the world, or
it's been moving forward in the world. So this would be like the initial
basic concepts.  I hope that this gives, like, a good frame for the rest of
the panelists and we can get then to the discussion of the issues in the
next intervention.

>> E. TAYLOR:  Thank you.  That's a very helpful introduction.  Could I
turn to you Juan Antonio, and ask, so we've heard a sort of general
overview of what trade agreements involve, and the different negotiations,
but why is it that they don't involve Civil Society, multistakeholders?
Why is it that they are perceived in this way as closed and secret?  And
should there be more transparency in the process, do you think?

>> J.A.D. SÁNCHEZ:  I plan to address that point later during the
discussion but I think it's a good starting point.  I think that
traditionally, Governments had created a system to consult companies and
private sector organizations as part of their normal dialogue when they
decide to launch a trade negotiation.  Why?  Because mainly, the interest
involved in those discussions are those of the companies that are exporting
or that will be affected by imports as a part of the trade negotiations.
And in that regard, I think that that's why, for example, in the case of
Mexico, when we negotiated back in the '90s the free trade, the North
American free trade agreement, the notion of [ Speaking Spanish ] Which is
translated as side room was created to have permanently representatives
from the private sector as side room, that the Mex tan officials and the
negotiators both in Mexico and the U.S. will consult and then they will go
back, taking that input, and present the National positions of the
respective country. I think that one of the critics right now of the TPP --
and I have been hearing that for long times -- is that the only interest
that were considered when we negotiated TPP were those of the private
sector and the companies and the multinational companies, and that's
completely untruth.  I mean, to think that the trade negotiators would only
take those views and go and present those as the National interest, that's
to me, at least, naive.  Trade negotiators are officials paid by
Governments to do a job, which is to identify the National interest as an
important interest.  And in that consultation, in the formation or re-
creation of that position, they do take into account the private sector
views, but they also consider the National domestic legislation, the views
of the regulators, and in many times when that's possible, and that's
something new, the views of the Civil Society. Now, I think that the issue
of how the trade negotiations take place and the way the discussions and
the texts are developed has created a challenge on how to consult those to
the private sector, and the Civil Society, without creating or compromising
the negotiating position of each Government. So what I can explain is
basically when Mexico put forward a position, for example, that may be the
highest or the starting point for the negotiation.  And that may be
contains issues that are not strictly related to, for example, the National
domestic, or the domestic regulation and in that regard, a National
company, or Civil Society organization, may say:  Well, look, the Mexican
Government is lying in their initial position, and that will maybe
compromise the position of the Government, but also there is the issue of
when you're negotiating you have in the text the views of your Government
but the other Government also.  So how can you as a trade negotiator, as a
Government, put to the  other -- or release to the public in general the
position of the other Government?  I think that's an issue that will need
to be addressed. Now, I think that TPP and ACTA, but in particular TPP,
were positive even -- and I know many people here will not think like that
-- but they were positive in the way that they created, or they produced, a
clear reflection in Government on the need for having Civil Society
representatives consulted as a part of the  process, when negotiating an
international trade agreement.  And I think that's something that is a
challenge that will need to be taken into account in the future, and I
think that that's the way  forward, at least in my view, to consider the
views of others, not only companies in the development of trade agreements,
because they're becoming more complex and they're actually touching upon
different issues that are not strictly related to trade.

>> E. TAYLOR:  So as almost a case of -- you've explained that public
officials will naturally take into account the National interests, the
views of business that they've been consulting with, but also Civil
Society.  But perhaps they also need to be seen to be doing so, as well, a
little bit more in the future. I'd like to, before going to our next
panelist, I'd just lake to open up the floor to any questions.  Does
anybody want to raise any questions at this point?  Or have we got anything
on the -- from the remote Moderators at this time? Just raise your hand and
we will get you a microphone.  I know it's late in the afternoon.  Sir,
would you like one?  Could we get a microphone down to this gentleman here,
please? Anybody else?

>> Yes, Steve Zeltzer, labor net, United  States, San Francisco.  I think
one of the things we have to confront with these trade agreements was that
in fact, a majority of people particularly in the United States are very,
very angry about these trade agreements, and that includes NAFTA, as well.
People feel that they have not been consulted, and these trade agreements
have basically been decided and written by multinational corporations and
back of the  backlash going on today with the election of trump is
precisely that so I think we have to confront the reality after these trade
agreements and the fact that there hasn't been transparency.  They were
kept secret.  The American people were not told, even Senators were not
told what these agreements consisted of, and what it has meant for the mass
of working people in the United States and around the world.  Thank you.

>> E. TAYLOR:  Thank you very much.  Would anybody from the panel like to
comment on that?  Burcu?

>> B. KILIC:  Actually, before this comment, I wanted to pose this
question:  Can you  negotiate -- can you negotiate an open Internet behind
closed doors, according to United States trade representative?  Yes, you
can, because the TPP, the Trans-Pacific partnership agreement, has been
promoted as the -- as promoting protecting open Internet, but it has been
negotiated behind closed doors. And that's why, like the TPP, one of the
most serious concerns about the TPP was transparency and that's why TPP was
defeated in the U.S., and probably in other countries, as well, because of
the way it has negotiated, and the negotiation process raised really
serious concerns.

>> E. TAYLOR:  Juan Antonio?

>> J.A.D. SÁNCHEZ:  Thank you.  I think you need to separate two things.
One thing is that transparency can be improved, of course, always, and I
favor pretty much, when I was a trade negotiator to consult this.  Burcu
here is one evidence, very clear evidence, that the TPP was not negotiated
in secret.  She was approaching every negotiator in every round, and she
was actually promoting and putting forward all trade negotiators papers and
documents.  And parted of what we have in the TPP, as positive outcomes,
are responsibility of this person.

>> E. TAYLOR:  She's laughing so I think she knows it's true.

>> J.A.D. SÁNCHEZ:  So I think we need to move ahead of that discussion.
We had opportunities to hear the private, civil organizations, and that was
actually part of the way the TPP was negotiated. Of course, to negotiate
with the text in front of everybody and having a camera on negotiators
hearing their statements when they were negotiating with other 11 parties,
that's to me not possible, but maybe in the future it will be possible.  I
don't know. But in any case, you need to separate that thing. Now, the
other thing is that:  Let's just -- .

>> E. TAYLOR:  Very, very quickly because I have two panelists and someone
in the audience.

>> J.A.D. SÁNCHEZ:  Trade is not responsible for the loss of jobs.  I just
want to be very clear about that.  I heard a gentleman saying that NAFTA is
criticized in the U.S. because of the effects that that had in the past.  I
don't think so.  I think that there are many other reasons like ought
mizations and I have to say that clearly because to blame the trade
agreements for the loss of jobs is just -- .

>> E. TAYLOR:  I'm going to go to this gentleman in the audience and I'm
going to come back to David Snead and Joseph Alhadeff because I'd like to
move on to sort of corporate if you like point of view and legal point of
view.  Sir.  Can you introduce yourself and then give your question.

>> Andrew. [ Off Microphone ] From Australia.  Is there any prospect that
few tier trade negotiations might take into the 2016 from the European
Union considering trade principles taken -- .

>> E. TAYLOR:  Did everybody get that question?

>> The memo Declaration of the 5th of December.

>> E. TAYLOR:  Jeremy Malcolm from the -- .

>> I've read it myself.  It's a very good Document.  There's another one
which is called the Brussels Declaration on trade and the Internet which
you might want to Google and read as well.  These are two declarations
which I think should inform the way that trade Ministries approach future
negotiations, if they want to avoid these agreements collapsing due to pub
dissent about being excluded.

>> E. TAYLOR:  Thank you very much.  I'm going to just ask David Snead for
some comments here, either some reflections on the questions and what
you've heard from the other panelists or just your perspective from C
panel, General Counsel and also your experience in the Internet
infrastructure Coalition.

>> D. SNEAD:  Sure.  So my comments are on  behalf of the Internet
infrastructure Coalition.  So I'm going to respond to a couple of points
that were brought up rather than kind of going on with some prepared
remarks. The first is the comment about Burcu being at the trade
negotiations and her input being considered there.  That's the worst-case
scenario, right?  The worst-case scenario is people having to go to trade
negotiations and sit in the lobby and wait for the negotiators to come down
the elevator, and then buttonhole them and give their viewpoint.  That's
the worst-case scenario and I don't think that that's effective
communication, and it's not effective dissemination of information either
for disseminating Burcu's viewpoint, or for the negotiators to understand
her viewpoint. I really believe that for the trade agreement process to be
successful, there need to be multiple opportunities and multiple effective
opportunities for various voices to give input into the trade agreement
process, and have those processes be somewhat institutionalized.  Now, that
doesn't mean that you kind of create this system that's just open all the
time, but it does mean that opportunities need to be established in the
trade system which was set up initially for businesses.  And it's kind of
out of whack.  It tends to -- it tends to institutionalize the methods that
businesses tend to use to work with negotiators. The second thing I want to
talk about is secrecy, and the secrecy around trade  negotiations.  I think
if you look at the recent history of trade negotiations, we have this long
string of failed trade agreements, and trade agreements that have been
really vehemently opposed by a number of people, the last of which is TPP.
What does that indicate to me?  It indicates to me that as someone who
believes very deeply in the potential for free trade, and the fact that
free trade is good, that the system isn't working. If we can't get people
behind the trade agreements, if we have people in the streets opposing the
trade agreements, we need to find a better way to address their concerns,
and for me, the primary issue is one of secrecy.  I think we've gone way
overboard in classifying trade agreements and trade agreement texts, and
there need to be methods for opening those up.

>> E. TAYLOR:  Thank you very much, David  Snead.  Can I turn to you,
Joseph Alhadeff?  I guess from a Corporation like Oracle or with your
experience sitting on international Chamber of Commerce Committees, that
you would be the sort of people that other panelists have been talking
about, who are consulted by Governments during trade negotiations.  Is that
correct?  How does it work?

>> J. ALHADEFF:  It would be wonderful to actually have the access that
we've been thought to have.

>> E. TAYLOR:  Well, it sounds fantastic from the way it's been described.

>> J. ALHADEFF:  That does not actually occur in that fashion.  There are
specified advisors who do have access, it's usually conceptual access
rather than contextual access and then there are consultations that go on,
and she would not have been alone in the lobby trying to find the
negotiator.  There would have been lots of business people in the lobby
trying to find the negotiator, too, so the improvements that David's
talking about are improvements that I think would be welcome across all the
stakeholder groups. I do want to distinguish, though, we have three topics
that somehow get coalesced into one topic.  We have trade, which is that
movement of goods and services among parties, because it's not always
across borders.  You have trades within a state, trades within countries,
trades across borders, trades that would are global.  And those have
created substantial potential for economic growth, have driven societal
benefit in many cases. You then have trade agreements, which are these
negotiated texts that place conditions on trade, sometimes in the reduction
of tariffs and  barriers.  Sometimes in the quality of labor and other
standards that are applied to trade.  And you have the process related to
how those agreements are negotiated, which has become a significant issue
of trust.  That trust is because people don't find them to be inclusive.
People don't find there to be sufficient visibility, and then you have the
outcome of the process, which is the agreement itself. And unfortunately,
we're con have Luting all of those things into one topic so all of a sudden
now trade is bad also, not just trade agreements and that's an unfortunate
consequence, because trade has been tremendously beneficial in many cases
and sometimes the outcome agreement is not a bad agreement, but the process
that was apertinent to it was considered deficient and therefore we're not
even going to take a look at the words because we're so upset with the
process and so I think we need to understand how to allocate those issues
across themselves to make sure that we are actually focusing on the part
that is causing the harm and creating the problem of trust, and not
actually take all of these things apart. And then I think a lot of times we
need to actually create an evidence base for this discussion which doesn't
really exist, because this is also an emotional discussion, without
evidence it allows the emotions to be flamed in a way that is
understandable, but may not reflect the actual impact of what's happening.
So I think we need to bring more facts, but we also need to recognize I
think as David said, that this could do so much better than it's doing.
The potential and the opportunity is huge, and we're leaving a lot of it on
the table because we're not understanding how to develop the mechanisms
that allow us to have trust, and to to promote these agreements rather than
to be afraid of them.

>> E. TAYLOR:  Are there any reactions or questions from the audience or
the remote Moderators at this point?  Just raise your hand and someone will
get you a microphone.  I don't see any.  I do believe though we have a
remote intervention from Marietje Schake.  I think we have a video we'll
try to queue up.  I probably have time for a quick question or comments,
because, Burcu you were looking for the microphone.

>> B. KILIC:  I became a super-hero. [ Laughter ] So, yeah.  I followed the
TPP negotiations last four years.  I've been to almost every negotiation
round, and I was spending most of my time at the hotel lobbies waiting for
the negotiators and trying to get hold of them, and I mean, as Joseph said,
it was not Civil Society.  It was mostly businesses, but the Civil Society
-- as representing the Civil Society, there were a couple of us there. And
we -- .

>> E. TAYLOR:  Is that bad though?  Woody Allon said, 80% of life is just
turning up.  So turning up is part of the whole process.

>> B. KILIC:  It's not easy,ites not easy to go to all these negotiation
rounds.  As sile society we have very limited funding.  We have very
limited resources.  My organization made a choice and that was our decision
that we have to be  there, we have to be present, so that we could make a
difference. But not every Civil Society organization could afford to go to
every negotiation round, because at the end of the day, we depend on the
funding and there is no funding for Civil Society organizations to go to
trade negotiations.  And it's one of the issues we discussed in our
Brussels Declaration because as Civil Society, we know that we have to be
present.  We have to be there.  We have to talk to the negotiators.
Otherwise, no one will raise our issues.  No one will raise the Human
Rights issues, or no one will raise the public interest issues.

>> E. TAYLOR:  What you seem to be saying -- do you feel like you were able
to influence?

>> B. KILIC:  I don't know -- .

>> E. TAYLOR:  Because if you or I -- yes, please.

>> M.P. VÉLIZ:  Yes, thank you, I would like to touch some points that have
been said.

>> E. TAYLOR:  Sorry to interrupt you, I'm not sure if the video is ready
or not, oh, it is, so should we just get a quick point from you and then go
to the video.

>> M.P. VÉLIZ:  Two things:  The first one, with respect to this idea of
secrecy, to be honest the way Governments interact with each other has
always been the same in different areas, not only in trade.  It's not that
it's secret it's just that we meet in one country, invite the other.  If
you follow other negotiations that have been done in different Ministries
it's going to be the same. The fact that there's been more interest from
Civil Society on this particular negotiation that Governments take place,
it's been changing things.  And I have to say, being a negotiator first in
my capital and now in Geneva in multilateral organizations that the inputs
from Civil Society are very important, and that it's very important that
the countries have their own processes of participation in the territories,
because one of the issues that you just were talking about, the
difficulties of traveling and funding, that can be solved if you have your
own process of consultations within each country.

>> E. TAYLOR:  And do you in Chile?

>> M.P. VÉLIZ:  Yeah, exactly, we have a side room that was established for
TPP.  This was in  2014 when the current Government took the  position,
they started with this mechanism, and for the first time, it included a lot
of Civil Society organizations.  In the past, it only included business.
Now we have -- it had sent 100 organizations, 50 for meetings with the head
of the trade Agency and all the experts that are actually negotiating the
trade agreement so this possibility of dialogue and influence, it happens
in the bottom, in the roots.  So I think it's also very important.

>> E. TAYLOR:  So if there is that  consultation, why are people so angry?

>> M.P. VÉLIZ:  Well, I think first of all, this is not necessarily a
procedure in all the countries that are negotiating and I think this is
important.  In our case, every stakeholder is treated the same way, so we
will have business stakeholders, we have Civil Society stakeholders., in
the same room, hearing the same information.  There's not going to be,
like, different kind of procedures for business than Civil Society. And
this is new.  I think that we're changing and there's a lot of things going
on, and probably this kind of conversation helps to be more established
around the world.

>> E. TAYLOR:  I can see some panelists want to respond to that, but let's
go to the video, breathe deeply, and see where this takes us.  Thank you.

>> Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Marietje Sheik, a
member of the D66.  We're with the alliance of liberals and Democrats for
Europe.  I've been a long time visitor of the IGF and I'm a fan so I'm
really sad that I cannot attend in person this year. Trade and technology
are both key areas of my work here in the European Parliament so I thank
you for letting me share some of my thoughts with you through this
recording. Trade agreements can play a crucial role in constructing a
global rules-based framework for digital trade, but they cannot change
fundamental law, at least not in the EU.  This is a perception though that
many people hold, and it can lead to confusion.  I see both a lot of unjust
hopes and unfounded fears.  If we want trade rules to strengthen the open
Internet and Human Rights online they must take as a baseline strong
protection of Human Rights as well as  inclusiveness. By being clear on the
need to protect access to information, non-discrimination, net neutrality
and the freedom of expression, open societies can leverage the opening up
of markets against the need to protect rights.  If we want to improve Human
Rights and inclusion, we should stop focusing narrowly on removing trade
barriers as the primary goal of trade rules. So this takes us into the
territory of  non-tariff barriers.  A win-win between Economic Development
and raising the Bar of standards should be sought.  Enabling consumer
protection and digital rights such as free speech and access to information
go hand in hand with challenging excessive cybersecurity demands or
National requirements to hand over the source code or encryption keys of
products. Caving into such demands hurt both rights protection and economic
opportunity.  Given the interplay between economic opportunities and
digital right benefits, the more coordination, the better.  We need to work
together more.   Currently, trade negotiators, Civil Society organizations
legislators and tech experts try to address the opportunities of the
digital economy or Internet Governance or the protection of digital rights
in very different fora, without necessarily having a clear overview of who
is doing what. Some actors have raised concerns about the potential dangers
of trade agreements such as the cementing of outdated copyright rules or
the circumvent of privacy standards, while yet others have focused on the
opportunities to safeguard and strengthen the open Internet, for example by
banning unjustified forced data localization or prohibiting online
censorship, but what must be clear first and foremost is that trade rules
are not in a zero sum relation with economic interests on the one side and
digital rights on the other. As the European Union, we need to use trade
agreements to try to improve and strengthen digital rights worldwide.  The
approach would be similar to how we promote values such as the respect for
the environment, labor rights, animal welfare, and Hume as an integral part
of our foreign policy.  I believe opportunities lie in removing forced data
localization requirements, which would help digital services, and can be
beneficial for people's freedom of speech. Clear provisions that specify
which traffic management practices are prohibited under any circumstance
can prevent anti-competitive behavior and strengthen net neutrality.  This
should be done globally. Trade agreements can in that way improve privacy
and security by allowing the unrestricted import, use, and sale in
commercial markets of products with cryptographic capabilities.  If well
done, rules-based trade can help the respect for Human Rights and
inclusiveness.  And I would like to see the EU leading in setting such
norms  globally, but as always, we are only able to lead if we lead by
example. While it is our duty to invest time and energy in the creation of
the best possible agreements, we have to remember that perfect deals risk
being the enemy of good deals.  While we deliberate, Governments worldwide
and even private companies don't wait.  They are already creating new
norms. And instead of a perfect agreement, we risk ending up with norms
that are fundamentally detrimental to the open Internet and Human Rights
online.  They're also often unchecked democratically or judicially. So let
us work together to use the opportunity of trade agreements to improve
online rights, to close the gap between the technical community and trade
experts.  Based on the values of openness, we can work across disciplines
and ensure  economies, societies, and the Internet remain  open. Thank you
very much for your attention.  I wish you a great Forum and discussion, and
I look  forward to hearing back about the solutions you find and the
thoughts that you have.  Thank you. [ Applause ]

>> E. TAYLOR:  Thank you very much to Marietje Schake who has been a very
involved member of the European Parliament in this space for many years and
was one of the commissioners on the Global Commission for Internet
Governance. Jeremy, you've been uncharacteristically quiet during this
session so far.  And actually I think that there were a lot of substantive
issues in Marietje's comments and also what you've heard before about, she
seems to be making the case  that:  Well done trade agreements don't
necessarily have to be a zero sum game and they don't necessarily have to
lower Human Rights standards. Can I have your reaction to Marietje's rosy
view of trade agreements? I don't think we've got your mic just yet.

>> J. MALCOLM:  I actually agree with the potential for trade agreements to
promote a free and open Internet.  One of the misconceptions that I heard
earlier on the panel is that where this panel is against trade.  That's
certainly not the case.  There are certainly some of the Internet
Governance deliberations that take place here and elsewhere that should be
informed by the need  for -- or by the benefits of trade, because trade
certainly can bring enormous benefits, and nowadays we can't separate the
Internet and trade.  I agree with that point that I believe Marcela made
earlier. However, by the same token, there are also some trade issues that
need to be informed by Internet Governance stakeholders, and so change is
certainly needed.  We've heard I think it suggested that it's impossible or
difficult to make these changes because of the way that trade negotiators
need to have a bit of separation and privacy in their negotiations, yet
there are similar negotiations that take place elsewhere, such as at the
World Intellectual Property Organization that are open to public
involvement and scrutiny.  And we have also seen similar major developments
in Internet Governance happen without the world collapsing.  Look at the
NTIA IANA transition, look at the NETmundial meeting which many people said
in advance was impossible.  We could never have a meeting like this that
generated outcomes agreed between such a broad group of stakeholders and
yet we did so there are some practical steps we could take to open up trade
agreements or trade negotiations. Firstly, we shouldn't assume that every
Internet issue needs to be dealt with in a trade agreement.  There may be
some rules, such as Domain Name rules, spam rules, net neutrality, that are
better dealt with elsewhere so we shouldn't default to including these
things in trade agreements. But secondly, for the issues that are included
in trade agreements, we need to work out are countries serious when they
talk about multistakeholder Internet Governance?  They've made commitments
at WSIS, at NETmundial, at the  G20 to use the multistakeholder model of
Internet Governance and that includes some issues that are now decided
behind closed doors in trade agreements. So what we really need is to make
some changes.  These can include releasing the textual proposals that each
country puts forward, releasing draft consolidated texts after each
negotiating round.  Perhaps the country names can be removed from those
consolidated texts but that would be a step forward. Opening up the trade
advisory Committees which are currently dominated by industry and are
secretive and maybe also linking up with the IGF and other Internet
Governance bodies to actually hear from the experts to actually take in
some of the expertise that we have into those closed-door discussions so I
think there are definitely changes that we can make, and we, some of the
stakeholders here at the IGF decided we'd like to create a Dynamic
Coalition on trade and the Internet to take this forward.  So once that
gets on the road we'd like you to join us.  Thank you.

>> E. TAYLOR:  Okay, I think there will be some reactions from the panel to
Jeremy's proposals, some very concrete, practical proposals that are being
made but first I'd like to turn to you in the audience.  Would anybody like
to make an intervention at this stage?  Or to disagree?  Susan, are you
fidgeting?  Or would you like to ask a question?  Anything on the remote?
There is no yeah, please go ahead. Are we getting through?

>> We have a question from Dave in Mauritius, who says:  How can we have
contractual agreements being made between two businesses in two different
countries, especially if there has not been a bilateral agreement enforced
between the Governments of the two countries?

>> E. TAYLOR:  Anybody like to have a crack at that question?  Please, Juan
Antonio, David, we haven't heard from you in a while.

>> I can just answer as a contractual lawyer, it doesn't require a trade
agreement to have a contract.  It's something that would be governed by the
contract laws that are in the two countries.

>> E. TAYLOR:  Thank you, Marcela?

>> M.P. VÉLIZ:  Just to add to that, that would be part of the private
international law so that it regulates relationships between private
parties, and the thing is that multilateral context or public international
law, what it does is make it easier with some commitments we both agree,
both countries and then make these contractual relationships within the
private sector easily.

>> E. TAYLOR:  So there's nothing preventing private companies from
contracting with one another even if there is no agreement in place, and
the agreements operate sort of on a different level at sort of the macro-
level if you like to make trading conditions a little easier.  Anything
else?  Yes, please go ahead.

>> Hola.  Hello, I just wanted to say that it is true that names and domain
issues are discussed in the governance model.  Definitely the rules of the
game are different in terms of bilateral agreements and country to country
aagreements.  I believe that there is a lot to to learn in the governance
model for other models as well but the rules are different.

>> E. TAYLOR:  Anybody like to respond to that intervention? Burcu?

>> B. KILIC:  And I also want to follow up on Jeremy's comment.  So, yeah,
one thing is clear with all these discussions and what's happening in the
U.S. with the TPP, the current trade model is not working, so we are in the
21st century, and when they were -- when the parties were negotiating the
TPP, they were saying that we were negotiating high standard rules for the
21st century by using 20th century trade model, trade negotiation model, so
one thing is clear, this trade model is not working.  And in the post-TPP
era, because now we're in the post-TPP era with the transition of the U.S.
administrations, the policies will change.  The trade agreements, the way
the countries negotiate trade agreements will change. So I always say this,
like, trade negotiations, or the trade negotiators, have lots to learn from
the IGF community because these multistakeholder discussions we take here,
they shouldn't stay  here.  We should reach out to these people and tell
them why we care, why these issues are not only the trade issues, but also
the Human Rights issues, but also the social issues, social and economic
issues.  Because if we can't do that, we won't be able to -- if we can't do
that, it would be impossible for us to expect them to speak our own
language.

>> E. TAYLOR:  Burcu, can I ask you, as somebody who has operated both in
the lobbies of the trade agreement fora and in this Forum, how could we
take Jeremy's suggestion to bring the two together in some way?  What would
that look like?  How would that happen?

>> B. KILIC:  I mean, there are, like, when I first started to work on the
trade agreements it was 2011, and from 2011 to 2016, lots of change in
terms of, like, Governments becoming more and more transparent.  I mean,
Chile's side rooms were  really interesting and it was an interesting
experience for Chile, being in the side room with other stakeholders and
listening from the trade negotiators but it wasn't enough.  It's not
enough.  And it became more open, at least they started to post these blogs
about what's happening in the negotiations.  So it's an interesting
question. I don't have an answer for that.  When we  draft, when we were
drafting the Brussels Declaration, those were the issues, and it was almost
a multistakeholder discussion we had in Brussels because industry,
businesses were also there, and we were, like, yeah, we should be able to
see the text.  At least we should be -- we should be kept informed about
what's happening in the negotiations. I was able to comment on the texts or
analyze the texts because the texts were leaked many, many times but the
text which was leaked was the intellectual property Chapter, not the  e-
Commerce Chapter so when you look at the intellectual property Chapter of
the TPP, it has changed a lot from 2011 to 2015.  But e-Commerce Chapter,
we never seen that, so we don't know what kind of discussions had taken
place in that room, and what were the positions of countries.  We had no
idea.

>> E. TAYLOR:  I can see that other panelists want to come in on this and
I'm probably going to come to all of you.  But I just want to go out to the
audience, and particularly the women in the audience.  Can we have some
questions from you, please?  This is an interactive session, and the panel
are here, these experts are here, in front of you to interact with you.  So
it would be great to hear from you.  Yes, sir.  Can we get a microphone
down here, please?  When you get the microphone, please introduce yourself
and then make your point.  Do you want to use my  microphone?  Come to the
front and just use my microphone.

>> Yeah.  Thank you very much.  I'm from Nigeria.  And the discussion here
has been focusing on the trade partnership agreement in the U.S. and how it
impacts the free world and all that.  I really want to bring the
perspective of Africa to it.  We have African groups, which was signed into
law in 20 -- the year 2000. Then we have seen that becoming one of the
subject matters of debate during the U.S. presidential election, but now I
really want to ask the question that:  How can the Internet Governance, how
can it help to improve the review of African groups and opportunities,
rather than to repeat it?  Thank you.

>> E. TAYLOR:  Should we take your question while we're down here?  Okay,
we've got a  whole -- oh, good.  Let's have you, Madam.  And Juan Antonio
is desperate to take the microphone and to take -- I've got one here.  Can
we get a working microphone to this gentleman here?  And then we'll take a
series of questions, because it's like buses.  Three have come together
now.

>> I am Anna.  I come from Haiti.  My question goes as follows:  What do
you think that trade agreements could reinforce security online?  I do
understand that trade agreements could reinforce the openness of Internet
worldwide.  I would like to hear from you, your take.

>> E. TAYLOR:  Have you got a microphone?  While you're waiting, we'll go
to you.  We a seem to be struggling with some of the microphones working.
Please go ahead, Sir.

>> Thank you.  I come from Chad.  This is the first IGF that I participate
in.  Thank you very much.  I would like to thank the panelists.  You have
talked about trade, you have talked about the Internet, you have talked
about agreements, but I do understand how trade works. Could you give us
specific examples, like three tangible examples, that could describe?
Because I do understand how trade works, but how can I relate to what you
are discussing?  Because could you define why the articles or why those
agreements have not worked?  I would appreciate if you could explain for
the participants of this session.

>> E. TAYLOR:  -- about improving cybersecurity or the interaction between
cybersecurity and trade agreements I think, and also we have the gentleman
here who raised the questions about Africa.  Can I come to the panel and
then we'll come back to the audience. Juan Antonio I feel duty-bound to go
to you next as you've been waiting for so long, and Joseph, you were asking
for the microphone, as well, and Jeremy.

>> J.A.D. SÁNCHEZ:  Thank you for that.  I'm sorry for being so insist tint
but I just want to reiterate one thing I said at the beginning of this
conversation is that we do think, or I do think, that the way Governments
consult the text on the trade negotiation has to be improved and that's a
fact.  And I think we should all go back and think how to do that. But to
say that the trade negotiations, or the trade structure, system, is not
working, is completely unfair and untruth.  There are 160 trade FTA
agreements, FTA sorry negotiating and on the side of the WTO.  The WTO just
recently negotiated Lurie lateral agreement on trade facilitation, that
it's about to become in force.  Mexico is currently negotiating with
Jordan, Turkey, Brazil.  They just have to conclude the Pacific alliance.
We're negotiating an improvement of an agreement with Europe, and with the
EFTA countries so trade is there and it's going to still be there
regardless of what we discuss here. I think that the issue is how to be
bringing the information and the views from other stakeholders to those
negotiations.  And I think that one point about the consultations with the
Civil Society, you mentioned why people is so anger. I think there is a
philosophical -- .

>> E. TAYLOR:  And also perhaps to this gentleman's point, as well:  Can
you help to bring it into a concrete level that people who aren't involved
in trade negotiations, why this -- what difference these make to people's
lives, or to trade, if I've understood your question correctly. I think it
was the trade agreements, yes?

>> J.A.D. SÁNCHEZ:  I think it's trade and perhaps Marcela can explain that
just to finalize this very quickly.  So I think that Civil Society would
needles to improve the relation to trade Ministries and regulators when
they're discussing trade rules, and I think that's a fact that Burcu
mentioned, of course the Governments need to put forward better systems to
react, but the vice versa should be applied there.  One last thing, the
interaction between the International Organizations has been there, WHO
interacts with other organizations because they're overlapping all around
trade issues. For example, tobacco.  When you discuss about how to regulate
tobacco, WHO rules apply, and sometimes those rules actually harm trade
interests, and there has to be dialogue.  So that's something that should
be done in this context.

>> E. TAYLOR:  I've got Jeremy, Marcela,  Joseph.  Or shall we go to you
first, Joseph?  Because you've been waiting for a while?  Very, very brief
because we're into the last 15 minutes and we've got some questions from
the audience, so thank you.

>> J. ALHADEFF:  Just to say I didn't actually find anything tremendously
surprising in Jeremy's intervention which was the most surprising part of
the intervention.  To the question that was on security, I think part of
one of the things that Jeremy said is that not everything is fit for a
trade agreement.  While very top-line concepts on security may be in a
trade agreement, operational concepts of security don't belong in trade
agreements.  We need to find other place .  Budapest Cybercrime
conventions, there are lots of other places where the detail work is going
on so I wouldn't look for that on a trade agreement though it might be a
framework concept, in a trade agreement, for examples where trade has been
beneficial, if you think of data processing in India, it was trade between
some of the developed countries and India add a very low level of quality.
Data processing at the call center  level, very low-tech, not really very
high-quality jobs, not really high-paying. Over time, knowledge transfer
occurred.  Over time, Indian companies moved up the value chain, and today
they are global players and exporters of services.  So that ability to
enable trade between economies was tremendously beneficial.  There would,
of course, have not had that happened had there been a trade impediment or
had it not been facilitated by certain incentives and other  things.  There
is also the opportunity that you don't always have a happy ending just
because you have trade but there are a lot of positive examples where it is
beneficial.

>> E. TAYLOR:  Thank you very much.  Jeremy, Marcela.

>> J. MALCOLM:  I think I can make a few remarks that respond in a way to
all three of those questions, and also to Juan Antonio and Joseph.  So -- .

>> E. TAYLOR:  Can we also pick up this gentleman's point about Africa, as
well?  Because I didn't hear anyone addressing it.

>> J. MALCOLM:  Indeed.  I mean, there has been -- African countries, in
fact all three of the questions came from developing countries which is
wonderful.  These countries have been left out of the latest round of Lurie
lateral trade agreements.  Although Juan Antonio said the trade is working,
the WTO has become deeply dysfunctional because developing countries are
asking for agricultural reforms and yet the developed countries are saying
no we need  e-Commerce rules and they're at logger heads so the question
about security online, how can trade agreements promote that?  The TPP had
a rule which prohibited countries from requiring the review of source code
of products, and I think this goes to Joseph's point that that's kind of
operational.  That is a very detailed rule. And the result of that rule is
that actually, products that may have bugs or flaws or back doors in them
can't be reviewed for those security flaws if a rule like that is adopted
so this is really problematic.  And so the other problem t I think for
developing countries is that once these plural lateral agreements are in
place other countries can join on later but by the time they join on the
terms are already set.  So it's a big problem.

>> E. TAYLOR:  Marcela quickly.

>> M.P. VÉLIZ:  Yes, thank you, I would like to make a few points.  The
first is joining voices to the failed trade agreements, coming from the
country that the basis of the economy of our growth has been trade,
actually, the portion of trade that is exchange of goods and services with
the rest of the world, within our GDP, it's higher than the average in the
world and the average of Latin America, that's our truth so for us saying
that free trades are failure or not working is really not like an accurate
picture itself. And the second thing is that we also have other
initiatives, like TPP is the main focus right now but Chile and Mexico are
part of the Pacific alliance and currently Pacific alliance not necessarily
the only platform but it's been used to promote the Regional digital
market, ELAC, that actually some colleagues were meeting in this parallel
so this same IGF with private sector as well, so I think that there's more
to just in trade agreements to just TPP.  The other thing is we have
different spaces to influence.  There is a negotiation process.  The
implementation process that is very important because it's not directly
applied.  You have to go to Congress and there's also another opportunity
to balance rate norms and have a more robust policy, and then it's
enforcement moment with the judicial system that's also very important to
have educated judges so there is a three process in this -- and it's not
only about negotiations.  Trade is not only about the negotiations.  I
think this is very important to highlight. And finally -- .

>> E. TAYLOR:  I'm going to, I'm sorry to stop you with your, and finally
because I know I have someone on the Remote Moderator and I've got at least
three, I think, people who want to come in in the last 10 minutes.  I need
to go to the Remote Moderator.  Are we ready?

>> Yes, we are.  We have a contribution, a comment from Switzerland,
someone with the digital society of Switzerland and the just net Coalition,
his name is Norbert Bollo and he says one issue that particularly needs in-
depth discussion today is how privacy can effectively be protected in
today's world, where online activities leave a lot of digital traces or
footprints, and how the needed legislative innovation can be achieved.
Then he goes on to say:  The currently proposed trade agreements like the
TICA would prevent such innovation.  We need to create real in-depth
conversations and discourse to figure out how protecting privacy while as
far as possible  avoiding thereby creating barriers to international trade
in goods and services. And he goes on to say, he supports the formation of
a Dynamic Coalition on Trade.

>> E. TAYLOR:  I'm seeing a lot of nods from the people on the panel to
that intervention.  Thank you very much for that.  Can I come to you, Sir?
And then you.  What we'll do is just take the questions from the audience
in a group.

>> Hello.  How are you doing, manual. [ Off Microphone ] From Mexico.  I
would like to add to who was next to me.  I believe that the feeling that
certain communities show to TPP, they're not happy with it, and in terms of
the potential trade exchanges that could trigger that we trust that that
will happen if TPP happens.  I believe we should see the process itself and
going back to what she just mentioned that different sectors have different
rules in the negotiation table, all of us are here, we know that the
negotiation rules go through multistakeholder processes that result in
outcomes and at least one very tangible example that took place in parallel
to TPP negotiations is the IANA transition, which was publicly negotiated
with a very transparent process. But on the other hand, we can't be naive
to think that some issues should not be solved with multinational treaties
because some treaties have to happen.  I believe that both processes can
work very well with each other and I just wanted to add that to the
discussion.

>> Hi.  Krishna. [ Off Microphone ] From governance -- the way I look at
trade organizations is I feel trade organizations over a period of time
have become heavily path dependent, rigid and institutionalized structures
and I would lake to know if there are proposals to fundamentally alter the
core structure to reflect 21st century values?  And by restructuring I mean
not just including Civil Society voices.  I feel that it's a add-on, what I
would be interested is creation of newer institutions that reflect 21st
century values.  Thank you.

>> E. TAYLOR:  I've got one at the back, one at the middle and then one at
the end, please.

>> So hello, my name is Mary an Fernández I work for an NGO based in
Brussels.  I wanted to comment on philosophy and emotions.  I was actually
particularly baffled because our organization actually takes a look at the
text and we have evidence that shows that there are a lot of concerns for
digital rights so I wonder what's the view specifically from the Civil
Society Members of the panel whether you think that it's just a matter of
the process or whether you think that the substance also matters?  And I
guess that's why we're here today to talk about trade and the Internet. And
just briefly, a comment as well, however when it comes to emotions, it's
very interesting to note that what I've noticed is that when it comes to
the ISDS, I however have seen an emotional debate about the need of having
ISDS even to the detriment of concluding a trade agreement and I wonder
whether that is really based in emotions and not on evidence.

>> E. TAYLOR:  Sorry to just interrupt you.  Could you spell out the
acronym?

>> ISDS.

>> E. TAYLOR:  What does it mean?

>> Investor to state destitute settlement.

>> E. TAYLOR:  Thank you.

>> Hello, good afternoon.  I would like to thank the Members of the panel.
I would like to ask you something very succinctly.  In any of the treaties,
and agreements, that you're aware of, do you know if consumers are
protected?  Is consumer protection mentioned?  That is, if there are
scams, let's say that foreign companies make scams because through the
Internet you can buy from Mexico, you can buy from a Chinese company.  I
would like to know if in this agreement scams are included to protect
consumers and to compensate consumers in case of damages when they use  e-
Commerce.  That would be my questions.

>> E. TAYLOR:  I'm just going to take your question and then I'm going to
come back in the last four minutes because we have a hard stop at 6:00.
Okay.

>> Thank you very much.  Arnold, the Netherlands Government on
cybersecurity and trade agreements.  I fully agree with Mr. Alhadeff on his
statement that we have to watch out that cybersecurity shouldn't be
included in multilateral trade agreements.  Multilateral trade agreements
are strengthening digital rights like Marietje Schake said and also would
contribute to e-Commerce but we have to as I said watch out that
cybersecurity issues are not dealt with in trade agreements.  We all know
what happened in December 2012 where we had negotiations on a new UN
Telecom Treaty, the so-called WCIT, and this ended up in a Treaty, new
Treaty, but which was not signed by lots of countries in the world.  So the
world was split because of two issues in that Treaty. The word "spam" was
included in the Telecom Treaty as the security of networks.  If we do that
in new trade agreements then we could end up with a situation where the
world again is split and that is what I would not like to see happen.  The
only issue where these kind of things can be dealt with is in my opinion
the Budapest Convention, the Global Forum of cyberexpertise, and a
wonderful Forum like this in the IGF.  Thank you very much.

>> E. TAYLOR:  Thank you very much, Arnold.  Right, in the last three
minutes I'd like no more than one sentence from each of the panelists.  I'm
going to start with you, Burcu.

>> B. KILIC:  Okay.  I just want to clarify something.  I'm not against
free trade or I am not an anti-trade person.  I come from Turkey.  I can't
be anti-trade person so that's the clarification and that is the reaction
we always receive as soon as we start to criticize the trade agreements and
the model it is negotiated or concerns the process and the substance. And
if you want to read about our concerns like both EFF and public citizen has
information on our web site.  We couldn't speak about those now.

>> E. TAYLOR:  Thank you.  Juan Antonio?

>> J.A.D. SÁNCHEZ:  I would just simply say that we must create new ways to
coordinate the provisions that are contained in trade agreements with other
international agreements, specifically the ones that are discussed here in
this Forum, and I would like to give an answer to our Mexican colleague.
Article 14.1 of the TPP addresses what you've asked, the protection of
consumers online.

>> Thank you.  A quick clarification, I suggested that security framework
concepts may be something you address in trade but not detail operational
issues.  I think just reiterating trade, the process of trade agreements,
and the resulting agreements are three different things that should be
considered on their own merits. [ Joseph Alhadeff ]

>> E. TAYLOR:  Thank you very much, Jeremy.

>> J. MALCOLM:  I can answer in 20 seconds about the question about whether
consumer protection is included, generally no, with weak provision on spam
control and provision on electronic signatures.  This is one case where
UNCTAD and OECD are better left to deal with consumer protection issues.

>> E. TAYLOR:  David Snead.

>> D. SNEAD:  I'll respond to the question about new norms or new ways to
deal with trade.  I think the multistakeholder model provides a very
interesting and useful example to people who argue that trade agreements
and trade texts and trade negotiations must be insanely secret all the
time.  It provides an example of how those issues can be resolved, how some
of those issues can be resolved in an open, transparent, and very robust
manner.

>> E. TAYLOR:  Thank you very much, Marcela?

>> M.P. VÉLIZ:  Thanks.  Now, it's -- okay, so two points.  First, access
and infrastructure is also very important and we haven't talked about these
now and I think that at least I'm going to leave it there. Competition law,
consumer protection and thanks for bringing that question are also relevant
topics as Jeremy mentioned, UNCTAD has lots of work.  There was a Revision
of the consumer protection guidelines last year and I will invite you to
search in the other organizations what's going on out there in terms of
trade that complement what's been done in free trade agreements.  And
finally how to bring this approach to regions.  The region IGFs are very
important, something I got informed now.  I'm happy to be informed my
country Chile has been applying to be the next Regional IGF LAC and the
last thing constructive is speech because we need all the views.  Thank
you.

>> E. TAYLOR:  Very well done.  I'd like to leave the last word to our
Chair, Senro ran Don.

>> R. RENDON:  Just a commented.  We have to  avoid the romantic view of
the trade.  What I'm saying is even though if we improve very good
transparent making decision, prioritization, there is the trade agreement,
there's winners and there's losers.  There's always going to be.  So with
that in fact, the thing is the transition cost inside the countries are the
winners to the losers but we have to keep that in mind in order to be very
clear.  That doesn't mean that we don't have to improve our transparency
and all the issues.  It's very, very important but there's always winners
and losers. There's no country that go to a free trade or a trade agreement
thinking that they are going to lose more than they are going to win.  But
they are going to lose.  So it's just my point of view, and it's the same
discussion in terms of Internet, what are we going to win?  What are we
going to lose? So sorry for this pragmatic issue.

>> E. TAYLOR:  Thank you.  I think that's a very helpful pragmatic note to
end our conversation today.  I would like to thank our panelists, who have
done an absolutely tremendous job of sharing their expertise with us, and
sharing the different points of view.  I'd like to thank you, the audience,
but I'm sure we'd all like to show our appreciation of the panel.  Thank
you. [ Applause ] So that brings our discussions to a close.  I think we're
just on 6:00, so I think that's the time for us all to go home before we
turn into pumpkins. [ End of session ] . . . . . . . . . .

Copyright © 2016 Show/Hide Header