You are connected to event: CFI-RPC7

WS34:  Digital Economy and the Future Work

>> 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

>> Test, test.

WS34:  Digital Economy and the Future Work

1, 2, 3.  1, 2, 3.  1, 2, 3.

>> Good morning, everyone.

>> Ready?

>> SOPHIE TOMLINSON:  Okay.  Good morning, everyone.  Welcome to this
workshop which is on the Digital economy.  I am Megan Richards.  I am very
pleased to moderate this.  I think what we really want to do is have a very
interactive and participative workshop.  We have some wonderful speakers.
They're all going to make brief presentations and then we'll have time for
proper discussion and interaction with you.  Two of our speakers are
participating remotely.  That's why their name plates are here.  But
they're not here physically.  They're here remotely, but they're
participating very actively.  What I propose to you is divide the workshop
into roughly two groups.  One to speak more generally about the digital
economy and then to concentrate more specifically on the implications for
the future of work in a changing environment. So it depends on whether
you're an engineer or a lawyer as to whether you go from a specific to a
general or a general to the specific.  But in this case, I thought it was
useful to go from the specific to the general and then we can identify some
clear proposals for addressing some of these issues and finding possibly
solutions to them. So we have a wonderful list of speakers.  I'm just going
to identify them briefly.  I'm not going to go into all the details because
it was all available to you in advance.  First we have Lillian Nalwoga.
She's participating remotely.  Then we will have -- if I'm looking right --
yes.  Iline Noah and andean toneio Garcia Zaballos.  So those are the first
four participants who are going to speak in the first half more generally
about the digital economy and then we'll go to the second session and I
have to keep track of the time. So, Lillian, can I ask you to start and
make a brief presentation now?  You have about three minutes to make a
presentation and then we'll go on to the next speaker.  And Lillian, as I
told you, is participating remotely.

>> Lillian Nalwoga:  Thank you very much.  Am I audible?

>> Megan Richards yes.  We can hear you.  you.

>> Lillian Nalwoga:  I am Lillian Nalwoga happy to Connect with you
remotely to talk about the digital economy and the future.  As you have
read, you read come my brief on the chapter and I all work with an ICT
policy series in Uganda for the center for ICT policy in southern Africa.
Just about what is happening in Africa, which is nonstop.  By now today,
you know about the Internet connection in Africa.  We've had increase in
users for over the last few years.  According to the ITU since 2010, we
have seen 15% increase in Internet access.  In terms of mobile
Connectivity, that's been a 35% increase. Currently, we have 80% of mobile
internet users and what does this translate to?  This means that we are
seeing many people using Internet.  Many people taking advantage of the
opportunities that have provided by the Internet.  This has led to a time
that is referred to as techy youths.  We have seen many youths in health,
education, finance and culture and we are seeing countries like Kenya,
South Africa, Uganda and many others catching up. As we shall see the
speakers to come for these opportunities that are out there, but for the
kids of Africa, we already had a number of challenges from infrastructure
challenges.  Africa is behind in terms of access, in terms of cost of
connection with just 75%.  75% of the people use Internet.  When we talk
about infrastructure challenges, we do not talk about Internet only.  The
challenges like Eelectricity.  They have blackouts on a daily basis and
this affects many Africans on a daily basis. Also, when you talk about the
future of the digital economy and the future of work, we can know no other
issue of literacy and computer skills which are very essential for us to
realize a digital economy; however, in Africa and in many developing
countries in general, there are still digital skills and also these skills
what they do is they exist in the queue.  We still have legal policy
challenges related to regimes.  While we are seeing countries like Uganda
and Kenya, governments are coming up to kind of regulate information
technology service providers requiring them to register with a national IT
authority for them to be able to practice.  Other challenges, of course,
taxation of ICT devices and services, cybersecurity.  For us realize
digital economy and for us to talk about the future of jobs in the district
economy, we need to have digital trust.  Many countries do not have that
protection and privacy laws.  Uganda, Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania and
Ghana and Zimbabwe.  So what needs to be done moving on, I think my 3
minutes or close to get finished, we need to address the challenges by
having reliable and presentable infrastructure. There needs to be more
public and private corporations in employment.  In African countries this
has been done.  However, there needs more cooperation in bringing
governments and private sector working together.  The issue of capacity
knowledge about in innovation from financing, marketing, technology and
financial inclusion and, of course, lastly but not least building digital
trust, having the right isolation will reach still needed to build trust in
the digital economy.  With those, I am happy to listen into what my other
speakers and panelists will be contributing to this important topic.  Thank
you.

>> Megan Richards:  Thank you very much, Lillian. In particular, you
emphasized some of the underlying factors that limit or impede the
development and growth of a digital economy.  Those I think are very
important and useful to keep in the back of our minds.  So, can I ask you
to introduce your point, please?

>> All right.  Sorry.  Good morning again.  Let me just say a few words
about the issue of translation and the effects of jobs and employment.
First is the overall effects of digitalization.  We should -- another
result of consents about the implications on jobs and employment.  I think
we should keep in mind that innovation is higher living standards, it is
progress and some.  So it is an opportunity of technology that can deliver
this progress.  There are two sides to that.  The first one is that when
you have better technology, you can produce more with less and this is
clearly the source of the consense about employment.  You can do the same
with less people.  There is another side to it which technology allows you
to complete different things.  Allows to you produce things, goods and
services that were not even imaginable before.  If you go back in history,
you see that the second effect and the creation of new markets of new
product service has been the driver of growth and employment generations.
So, if you like one basic line out of this view and history is that if you
want to support employment and growth, you need to foster the development
of this new service of this new market.  And this is a kind of paradox
because we see that investments and ICTs have been declining many times
over the last 10 years and so.  There are many firms that are not picking
up technologies that include productivity and increase their capability to
reach markets.  And also many uses and potential consumers that are not
using the technology to the extent that is possible.  So, there is a room
there really to foster the development of these new markets and policies
can play a role in that.  The second thing is you need to make sure that
the people that are displaced by the jobs that were not necessary by the
theories that had a smaller role can also be accompanied to the transition
to the new activities.  So clearly the education, training, vocational
training is an important component on that.  There are more what is called
active labor policies where there is enough time to help workers to make
the transition and we could still underuse and underdevelop in many
countries in advanced countries.  We also have to phase the fact that some
people, some workers for a number of reasons for basic skills for age will
not make the transition at all and we don't have to lead them on the road.
We have to provide for support for these people.  The third point I like to
make is about -- why there's about technology making it possible to
reorganize the organization to changed organizational work.  Of course the
job platforms that make possible to break down, if you like, what complete
organized jobs and number of tasks on demands.  For timing, this type of
platform and people using them is still small, but they're growing very
fast and we can all see there is a potential in how you organize work, you
organize business and there is a huge demand for change in the way by
organize employment protection is carried out.  The relationship between
the social partners takes place.  So we need to make sure that this new
opportunity for the organization of work do not -- I mean, they are
supported by change in the safetynet and deliverable market relationships.

>> Megan Richards:  Do you see a difference of where you are working and
emerging markets or developing countries or the principles the same for
all?

>> I think the principle is the same.  Of course, there is opportunities
for each country depends on their positioning in the global change which
leads to utilization, but overall, that's the kind of approach we'll take
forward with that.

>> Megan Richards:  Eli, please.  I'm sure you'll have interesting
comments.

>> Thank you very much, Megan.  Here we are in the City of Guadalajara and
we're happy to be hosted.  Forweeks ago, we had an election in the United
States and Guadalajara lost.  That is to say the forces of people who are
worried about their employment and their jobs have deemed -- have led to a
back lash on the election and it was not only the Republicans.  Democrats
too.  Bernie Sanders' supporters too.  So this clearly will affect people,
maybe not so in particular I would say here.  So I think that on the whole,
it's a reflection that the community has to recognize to man up, to woman
up. One cannot take credit for everything that happens in the world that is
good and attribute it to the internet and at the same time shrug your
shoulders when it is something negative.  While it is true that in the
larger order of things and on a global level, there will be more jobs and
better jobs in certain countries, influential countries, western Europe,
United States, North America, Japan and so on.  This is not necessarily the
case.  So, that has been shifting from the blue collar jobs that have been
out migrated and, of course, the industrialization is happening anyway, but
the pace of the acceleration is a stronger one because of the  the ability
to transact globally and to control globally.  So things have accelerated
beyond the ability of the political system of the individual skill level to
adjust.  That's a problem one has to recognize and it is now moving from
the blue collar jobs also to the pink collar jobs and retail and so on.  So
because there is so much to talk about, I would say something about old
folks having reached the age of 70.  I can consider myself to be in that
category.  So I've been thinking about it.  So there are several issues.
One is the problem of undercall fixation of older people.  That is their
skill level is just not up to.  And there are some policy solutions one can
think of.  For example, being able to take your social security retirement
benefits earlier to reskill, to learn something new and then say a year or
two like a sabbatical and then kind of retire one or two years later.  So
you just front load it.  The second problem -- so that's the problem of
under call fixation.  The second problem is over call fixation.  People who
have been trained to do certain jobs at a high level and in some ways
they're over qualified for a lower job and they will not take a middle
level job.  Sea   So we have to restructure and that's a rather difficult
problem to deal with.  The other one is the back loading of the
compensation.  That is young people are relatively under compensated for
their proactivity while older people are over compensated and that is the
reward to keep the younger people, working hard and working at night so
that one day they will benefit from it. And that is not a skilled issue.
That is a compensation profile issue.  So maybe we should pay the older
people a little less and the younger people a little bit more because that
arrangement that we promise you a good job later, lifetime employment, that
promise is being broken now all the time.  The fourth problem is the
problem of the changing risk profile.  We are moving more to a winner take
off economy where there's only few winners, but the Internet model in a
way, kind of the tournament where you can win a big prize that most people
don't.  And the -- and it also is associated with a more unstable economy.
If you think about it, the '60s in particular were economically more
stable, but then we have come to 2008 down turn.  The dot com movement bust
and there will be other things similar.  The Internet economy is an
unstable economy.  It's a boom bust economy. So in that situation, you will
always have more risk and the people who are lease capable of handling that
is older people.  So to conclude since there's no time, the Internet
industry needs to step up to its responsibility.  It needs to support
government programs, but needs to do something on its own.  For example, it
should not only displace older work, but it will hire older workers.  Why
doesn't Google? Maybe they do it.

>> Megan Richards:  You have a very good example. A Google employee here.

>> Hire every year and business service people over 70, Megan.  70, 60, 70
older people who are perfect and capable of doing a decent job, but for a
variety of cultural and order issues are not being considered.  That will
be a service to the community and it will also be a beacon to others to do
the same.

>> Megan Richards:  VINT wants to comment on that.

>> I was 62 when I was hired at Google and now I'm 73.  We hired 10,000
people last year and we need experienced managers.  So we're very spread
across the age groups.  15 years ago, it was a different story.  We were
hiring people right out of school.  The average age of the company was
probably 27 or something.  But that age has gone up significantly and, of
course, over the last 18 years.

>> Megan Richards:  Thanks.  I want to throw out a couple of points for
future discussion.  But one idea that's been muted many timeses is equal
income for everyone.  And again for the discussion later is the idea of
older workers and it falls on a bit of what Eli said.  Older workers being
rehired but at a lower wage and almost volunteers.  This is somewhere where
we can use the experience andex are expertise of people who don't
necessarily need the financial income, but are ready to produce. Okay.
Let's go next to Antonio.  Antonio Garcia Zaballos is participating
remotely.  I suppose you're in Washington, Antonio.  Do we have you?

>> ANTONIO GARCIA ZABALLOS:  Thank you so much. I don't know if you can
hear me.

>> Megan Richards:  Yes.

>> ANTONIO GARCIA ZABALLOS:  Thank you very much for the opportunity of
being here remotely.  The topic is definitely something of great interest
and is something we are observing in most of the projects in which we are
involved in the IDV.  Just for those of you that are not very much
familiar, there's an American development bank that is working on 26
countries from Latin America and basically we are just providing financial
and technical support to the different governments in several areas.  So
one of the things that we're observing when we are working in the region is
that there's much between the skills that are required by the companies and
the skills that are provided by the company.  At the end of the day, we are
moving in a global market that are requiring things and digital
infrastructure.  There's no in a sense for a particular government or
company just to be working on just one country.  So as a consequence of
that, you know, the industry and the economy is demanding positions and is
demanding jobs that they're not assisting and some are on time going to be
different.  So the true thing is that we have to work together between the
privacy sector, between the government and the academia in order for us to
meet much of assisting gap in terms of, you know, in terms of jobs.  I will
submit simple questions.  Why are companies going to countries like rush
alike India, like Ukraine to get programmers rather than going to countries
like Peru, Argentina or Mexico? This is something that the government has
to think of and this is something that the whole community has to think
about.  There is an increasing gap in skills and we do need specific
actions just in order for us to reach this assisting gap.  Some idea just
to throw on top of the table to open up the dialogue later on.  We need an
increasing dialogue and collaboration between governments, private sector
and academia to understand first of all which is the magnitude of the gap.
Second, am I understanding we need a specific involvement over ministries
of education at different levels.  Primary, secondary and university
education in order for them to adjust to what is really needed.  And third,
we will need to speed up the involvement of training center, train of
trainers and communities because in most of the circumstances, we realize
there are rural areas which are not connectd and in one way or another, you
know by nature using this technology they can improve the quality of life.
So at the end of the day and just to sum up, in developing countries, there
is an increasing need on new jobs, on digital infrastructure and we need to
work all together just to reuse the system gaps.  It is also a spont of the
means to finance and the government assess.  For sure responsibility from
the private sector and the academia.  Thank you very much again.  I'm
looking forward to the discussion.

>> Megan Richards:  Thank you very much, Antonio. Now, I would like to open
up the panel to comments, questions, et cetera.  State your name and your
organization, if you represent an organization and where you are from.
Second, if you are asking a question to be very brief and end it with a
question mark.  Always useful.  If you have a comment, please be very
brief.  You may have an observation or comment.  No problem to make that,
but then again, please be very brief and you us have to say your name and
where you're from. So, let's go ahead and start.  My name is Maya Petra.  I
am dealing with digital issues, but also simply on the member in the
employment committee. So my question is:  A value added in this new
Internet is kind of the key, but do you invent something and then you
multiply with the 3.4 billion users.  So, is it then the whole value added
chain meant to be from here to the future that innovator, the owner of that
one clicking whatever it is innovation is then gathering all that value
added and then everybody working on a part of that chain is worth a few
cents or a little bit.  So that has been something we have been considering
a lot.  As a test one example, I come from Finland with a lot of gaming
industry and they did good games and then we play all over the world or we
play heyday or Clash of plans.  It is quite nice how what they did for the
Finland society.  It is not only the 300 working place.  It is doing the
development of the games, but they were the biggest tax payer event.  So
off to a few banks, they were the biggest tangs payer and they were happy
tax payers and said they were getting funded to be able to create
something, but then also say they are happy to provide to society with the
tax they value added.  So this ends with a question mark.  Is it the value
chain we should look at and the role of work in that one?

>> Megan Richards:  Thank you, MIA Petra.  Other tax payers wouldn't be
quite so happy.  Vincenzo, can I ask you to stand up?

>> Vincenzo:  It's possible, but if you like -- I don't think it's
necessarily something specific which is interant for the digital technology
and some.  It is clear there are new markets and new organization and
division of production across the world.  There are some actors that have
enteredd market that have considerable market power.  They're putting
pressure, their leadership to deal with the other providers and so on.  But
again, there are markets and to the extent, this market is competitive and
remains open to competition.  There are other actors to reduce the power
that's there. It would be one big or small number of big players taking
almost everything and the large number of smaller players getting adjusted
to the share if you like.  Again, the situation is that -- I mean, there
are different views on that.  My personal view is that the big way of the
Internet companies is mostly a first move advantage.  They created and
entered the market and they have a big weight on that. Others may take this
position away for the time -- for as long as we are sure there's
competition in this market.  So things can change and we had a discussion
yesterday whether the dominant position of certain countries is such that
it prevents competition or not is not clear that this is the case.  So
again, I will not be necessarily concerned on this stage that there is
concentrations going to be like that forever because it is digital.

>> Megan Richards:  Thanks.  Just a brief remark. I was joking about the
happy tax payers.  Without aspect that I think very interesting and telling
in the way in which economies are built and the way societies manage is
that 90% of the GDP increase in Denmark, for example, went to 90% of the
population whereas in the United States, it was almost the opposite.  You
have this equality and the way benefits are accruing and they're quite
dramatic in different countries.  Can I ask you to speak?

>> I am Steve selfer and I am with APC in San Francisco.  We have a great
revolution taking place. Some of the industrial revolution.  The question
we face is:  How is that going to affect the working class of the world and
frankly, it is harming them. There are advances in technology.  As a result
of this ideology of disrupting the economy, Uberand other products,
millions of workers are threatened with that.  You have the economy
developing in the United States and if you want to know about Trump, part
of the development of Trump and order right-wing nationalists is a loss of
job working people that have no future.  Young people have no security.
This is the cause because of the development of the technology and the
deregulation of the economy which politicians like Trump and orders are
pushing.  I think that the -- others are pushing.  The result is how is the
working class, how people globally are going to confront this new world
economy?  How can people defend their working conditions and no control of
their lives.  They're basically -- American workers are competing with
workers all over the world through the Internet in very different
conditions.  So, this is a very radical situation and something that has to
be confronted and I think the last part of it is, of course, some people
benefit.  The billion neighbors, the owners of Google and these companies,
Ubermake tremendous profit.  But the Uberwork i, the workers who are being
marginalized, these are losing everything that they have and they have no
future in this economy.  Thank you.

>> Megan Richards:  I think both Vincenzo and Eli have addressed these
issues.  Thank you.  Can you take the microphone back?  I think perhaps
they would like to mention this as well.  Antonio, of course, has talked
about digital skills.  We will go into that discussion a little bit later
in the second half.  If they want, they can address that a little bit
later.  I don't know if, Lillian, you want to come in on that as well.

>> I'd like to address that because I think you're addressing a real issue
and what surprises me is that unions have not used the new tools of
technology in order to organize or new touch of organizational efforts been
taking place to deal with that among young people, among existing or older
people.  I'm a, school professor.  I'm not a union organizer here, but I'm
surprised it doesn't happen that the shift from the traditional lifetime
employment type situation to what is called a 1099 economy.  1099 is a part
time tax form for part-time labor.  So people are moving from W4 forms to
1099 forms of taxation.  That shift is not accompanied by any
organizational efforts to get people who are at risk or who have to work as
volunteers to over qualify who are the extra supply that exists in certain
high-skilled technologies that has not happened.  Perhaps you can explain
to us why it hasn't.

>> Megan Richards:  Do you want to add anything?

>> I would like to say briefly.  It's a bit easy to blame digitalization
for a number of things that are going on.  It's true that a lot of trade is
enabled by digital technologies, but between the technology and the actual
trade, there are trade agreements, there are policies, national policies
and so on.  So the overall deliverable market is a political choice which
is independent of what is made possible by technology.  So I think it's
useful to recognize that technology change completely the picture, the
environment in which policies are affected or not, but then we should not
forget there are other respects, which is as important in technology in
determining the outcome.  Otherwise we kind of confuse a bit the situation
of what we make.

>> Megan Richards:  I was looking in the distance, in the future and I
missed one of the speakers here who wants to ask a question.

>> Hello.  My name is VIHAN Bonnie.  There are jobs created in the the
digital revolution, but the question is how to adjust people to those new
challenges especially in that time now where we are starting with robots
and auto missation.  We train other people and we need to change
educational system and to give young people new completely new skills.  On
the other hand, this is a question.  If we need the basic income model to
implement because it is very interests, but I have some questions and some
doubts.

>> Megan Richards:  Thanks.  Yes.  I think because there are so many
questions, what we will do is bring a few together.  I gave you the
microphone back.  So please go ahead.

>> My name is WIZET.  I come from Nigeria.  My question is the other side
of the question that Steve has asked.  How, displacement is in every table
and I think there are a number of solutions that have been suggested.  Now
solutions without the infrastructure to implement that solutions would not
work.  By infrastructure I mean that the trade unions increasing lose it
out in the sense that a lot, a lot of workers and losing the right to
unions.  This is affected by the fact that you have employers in one
country and workers in another country, different laws, different regimes.
The great impact that digital economy is creating on the right of unions
and the right of workers union has to be addressed in order for all this
other solutions to be implemented.  Without the right, unions can be
affected and pushing solutions that we have suggested here.

>> Megan Richards:  Okay.  This is very, very much between different
countries around the world. I will come to you to after.

>> Thank you, Steve from Net Choice.  The U.S. congress held a round table
hearing on what they call the sharing economy.  But it was a committee on
education and work force with an intempt to figure out if workers are
participating in the digital economy, the sharing economy.  They may need
access to employee benefits that would otherwise be available in an
employer relationship.  My organization presented a new nomenclature for
them to think about.  The word sharing capture 1/3rd of what happens in the
peer to peer economy enabled by sided markets, technology and they evaluate
sellers and buyers.  We talked about gig work. That's like LYFT, Uberand
big work.  That's sharing a home or a room on your house in a B&B and maybe
sharing your car, sharing your tools and getting paid for it or delivery
vehicles and delivery vans and pick up trucks and the third category was
the goods economy.  That's not sharing anything and it's not gig, but it's
goods.  It's making crafts and selling them on a platform like ETSY.  So
the goods, the gig and the asset sharing are a far better way to think
about the peer to peer economy than to lump it all in a digital economy or
the sharing.

>> Megan Richards:  Of course we'll come back to that when we talk about
digital skills and digital work.  Let me take two more questions and the
panel will have the difficult job of trying to answer them in one.  You
wanted to take the floor.

>> For the record, my name is Leandro.  I represent private sector.  I'm a
software developer. I think we always talk about digital economy on the bad
side, but we can also think about the good things and then new values that
we can have like collaboration and new things like Ehub repository or APIs
with innovating and the developing of future skills and jobs in our hearing
capital.  Thanks.

>> Megan Richards:  You'll be the last one and then we'll have another
round.

>> My name is Graceon.  I'm a student at NYU.  I think one thing that
inspired me on my studies is front ear paper which in 1945, that technology
can be a way in which work and leaseure time will increase and at the same
time Tshows technology as this thing to enhance life instead of enhance
work, but it seems like now looking at the digital economy, work has bled
into leisure time.  We're answering e-mails at home or having conference
calls day to night.  I wanted to know when we think about the future of the
digital economy, is there kind of a weigh in which we can get back to this
idea of technology as Utopianism or a post work economy.  Is that possible?
Or we so bled into this idea of work if the sake of work and we will have
to incentivize work to keep it going.  So thank you.

>> Megan Richards:  Thank you.  Very good question.  Can I open it up to
the panel?  Yes. Vince, you go ahead.

>> So, let me respond to the last question.  I'm still a big Bush fan.  It
takes a longer time to make observations, but let me point out that
historically, technology has come along and disrupts jobs.  The industrial
revolution did that, but it created a whole lot of other work.  I think
that's still true.  The problem is that the jobs that get destroyed and the
new jobs that get created may not be filled by the people who fill the
older jobs. And so one of the biggest issues is figuring out how to put
those people to work.  One answer to that may be retraining.  It may also
turn out to be inventing new work to do and when I get a chance to speak
more, I'd like to point out a few ways in which we can all benefit from the
spread of digital cape act and also argue that we -- capability and also
argue that we will have to.

>> Maylanny.  I run a think tank in south east Asia.  I come from a part of
the world that's benefitted from the jobs that all the people in this room
have lost.  It has created wealth.  It has contributed to the GDP.  It has
partly been price competition, the commoditization of work.  And
ironically, we are now in that middle position ever having been early in
the outsourcing business and now raising price competition from other
cheaper players, interestingly.  And that VPO revolution has not always
been inexclusive either.  It created employment for delish speaking, degree
holding software skilled people greatly.  Then the wave of call like
outsourcing is slightly more inclusive and it is more competitive.  When I
come back, I will talk a little bit about micro work.  The commodeitized
work that the people here don't like, everyone wants to do high end work
including governments wantrino vacation, but somebody has to design that
logo.  Things need to be done and there's a large group of people in our
countries who do this and who benefit greatly and who don't fall into this
narrative.  And that is gig work.  There's exploitation, but also a huge
story as well.

>> Megan Richards:  There were people in the back that wanted to ask
questions.  Do you want to ask them related to the digital economy per se
or more on future of work?  There was someone elsew else wage his hand.

>> I am Julia from the youth observer toy.  I think we are living in a time
such as the Trump election and the Brazilian turmoil reflect on other
things.  There is a new industry revolution and this is curious because all
this advance they are rooted. Their economic and political institutions are
connected.  We have all the social dynamics having more common equality in
a society.  A society is lack of faith on Democratic institutions and they
need to have other alternatives.  In the scenario of polarization and jobs
as sellers as we have heard here today, it matters in my opinion for us to
reflect on how the ropes of national or regional systems and PPPs as public
policies that can overcome social economic consequence of a new
configuration of the new labor market globally. Thank you.

>> Megan Richards:  Next one.  Can you be very brief, please.

>> Hello.  I wanted to know if the speakers think that if regulation to
stop the strain jobs stop the new software companies to progress and try to
replace workers with relative regulation would be the solution to that to
affect the market and regulate itself and they don't have to do anything or
just a little bit.

>> Megan Richards:  That's a complex question. If you would have attended
the workshop yesterday, you would have known the answer.  No I'm kidding.

>> I amjenceon the chair of Africa alliance.  I would like to commend this
workshop and the panels. My quick intervention with respect to what was
said earlier and others too that we should look forward to more destructive
technologies.  If we look forward to eat, then we need to fully prepare
because we're in a digital society.  So we have identified that there's
need for expansion of outsourcing industry, in Africa for example.
Government to take the lead really and increasing the capacity of citizens.
So we can have a pool of workers that can take the new jobs.  There are
many new jobs.  For example in Nigeria, there are many things that we need.
Security, people need explanation of many things, many new technologies. So
they don't get it.  So government to take the lead in charting direction
and also emphasizing that industry need to also up the skill level so they
can relevant the new industry.

>> Megan Richards:  Okay.  Thank you.  That's a very good lead into the
next session unless someone wants to show how regulation is going to change
the world.  I don't think it will be able to stop technological advances.
We'll come back to that when we come to the next issue.  You want to speak
very briefly on that before we go to the next?

>> The industrial revolution led to political revolution.  So here now if
we have a situation in which there are more people who lose or who fear
losing and feel threatened to feel that the new economy is a threat and not
an opportunity for them, there will be political back lash.  We've seen it.
We are seeing it.  We will see more of it through the regulatory system and
reflected.  There will be rules set that you cannot fire anybody who has
worked for you for 10 years.  You cannot fire somebody who is 60 or more
years old.  There would be action for seniors and for gender and race
issues.  There are responses that the system will impose unless the
industry creates these opportunities in a very affirmative way.  So it is
seen as an opportunity and not as a consumption of opportunity, but also as
a job and opportunity.  I am addressing this to him.

>> Megan Richards:  Thanks very much.  Let's go to the next half or more or
less half of our discussion.  It would focus more on the skills, jobs
aspect rather than the digital economy as a whole and an impact on the
jobs.  I want to call on Lorenzo who is from Telecom Iitalia and he's
participating -- I am not sure where you are, lore enzi, perhaps in Italy
or Rome.  Do we have  have Lorenzo on the line?  We'll come back to Lorenzo
when we have him available.  VINT are you ready?  Evening just admitted
he's over 60 still working.  Lorenzo is there.  Excuse me.  Sorry.  Please
go ahead and thank you for joining us, Lorenzo.  Please make your 3-minute
intervention and we'll continue.  We can't hear you.  Perhaps your
microphone is off.  Lorenzo, we can see you, but we can't hear you.  You
can turn your microphone on?  Let's go to VINT in the interest of time and
we'll come back to Lorenzo because that will make us go faster.

>> Vint Cerf:  This is a topic of real interest to me.  Let me start by
saying the social world we live in is like an Eco system, biological Eco
system and the participants in that Eco system find issues where they can
survive.  The job world is like that. The nichees change and the available
food changes in this analogy.  So we shouldn't be surprised to see this
kind of shift take place.  Second, I want to emphasize the technology does
some pretty interesting things.  Imagine that it's 1900 and you are a buggy
whip maker for horse drawn buggies.  And the Ford automobile shows up.  And
you decide to lobby the Ford motor company to make the accelerators work
with the buggy whips.  So you whipd car and it goes faster.  My guess is
that wouldn't have worked too well.  Let me give you another very specific
current example.  The tesla car requires service once a year.  The only
lyquid is the windshield wiper fluid.  Technology does change the
requirement for work and the kind of work that's needed.  Now, at the same
time, technology can also create new kinds of work and we're seeing that
when we refer to the digital economy.  Please remember there's more to our
economy than just the digital part.  There is still need for all kinds of
other work.  We are entering into a very interesting period where our lives
are on average longer.  We live longer which may mean that we can work
longer. The implications of that are that we may need to learn more over a
longer period of time because the need for work and the kind of work is
going to change, thanks to technology.  So my conclusion with regard to
that is that our careers will no longer be go to school, go to work and
retire.  It will be go to school, go to work, go to school, go to work, go
to school, go to work and it has to be continuous and available.S internet
may be able to help that, but I don't want to suggest that all learning can
be done in this remote way.  But nonetheless, this needs to continue
learning is very important.  If you think a little bit about the platforms
that have become available to us to create new work, I will use Google
examples just because they're more familiar to me.  YouTube has created
careers for people.  The Google Cloud is a platform on top of which people
build products and services for other people.  They have created
opportunities to generate revenue from the contips they put up on the net.
The apps that show up in mobiles are often business opportunities for
people.  The Android operating system which we give away for free has
become a platform that other people can build products and services on and
so on and so on.  There are other just as good examples from other areas
and other sources.  So we have this increasing array of tools through which
to create work, but we still have the problem of attaching the right people
to the work that needs to be done.  This brings up another point.  David
and I have been exploring for the last three years.  I we call it
innovation for jobs.  We wrote a book on it earlier disrupting employment.
You will find all the content of the book and our work there.  What's
important is that we have come to the belief that we shouldn't be trying to
jam people into pre-defined jobs.  What we should be trying on figure out
is:  What can people do well and how do we fashion work for them to
excelling? If you have ever worked in an environment where you have this
annual meeting with your manager and the manager dwells on what you don't
do very well and this is where you have to improve.  Much more powerful
thing is let's figure out what you do really well and figure out if we can
put you to work doing that because that's better for everyone, including
you because it is a more satisfying experience.  So the idea we can adapt
work to the people and their skills and capabilities seems to me a very
important theme and maybe have an opportunity to work our way through that.
I will stop there because I think we have much more opportunity to discuss
than to discurse, so to speak.  So I'll stop.

>> Megan Richards:  Thank you very much, VINT. You have to choose your
life-long partner very carefully.  If you are going to be married for 60
years instead of 30 years, this is a real challenge.

>> VINT:  My wife and I just celebrated our 50th anniversary. [APPLAUSE]
And we were asking ourselves okay.  So how come that works.  Also, where
did all those decades go and I travel about 80%f my time.  So we did the
math.  And it means we've only been married for 10 years on the average.
So it's no big deal.

>> Megan Richards:  Let's see if Lorenzo is with us.  Go ahead and speak.

>> Lorenzo:  Thank you very much.  First of all, I would like to mention
what other people are saying about the sector we are promoting now for 10
years in a row workshop on this issue to show that we really think it's a
assuming partner for the sector to approach and imagine this issue on work
transformation.  I have to say this is a quite complex issue because we
have a place not to just a digital transformation, but it is also an
important demographic.  And this is some contradictory phenomena.  Think
about the distance of the society. We have a combination that has a longer
life span and we determine future aging in regions of the world.  We have
an issue because people are still quitting jobs.  We need to keep up with
the living standards.  From this stand point, for instance, we look at
migration.  Mycomes from the younger -- migration comes from the younger
population.  And the labor and in their receiving countries.  With we look
at digital technology, I think that the extremely important to try to
understand if we really think that the technology of work is only one side.
The other work is displacement.  He stated if they can be some type of a
complimentary between humans and machines.  In other words, helps and
machines can compliment themselves.  I am referring to what Michael
POLANGY.  We know more than not we can tell.  There is an interplay between
-- (losing sound) computers are very good in replicating this knowledge.
But they are not very good in promoting tasks with them, knowledge.  I know
that artificial intelligence has made progress and there is direction and
still room.  This is basically that the sector has been -- think about the
construction industry.  Although, this is quite a labor inten intensive
sector, but helps still play a major role no matter if we're using cranes.
In other words, automation is complimentary construction workers.  There
are some interesting cases.  General Electric is relying on machines.  They
traditionally make the majority of the revenue by selling industrial hard
work. They provide machine and service to perform and task.  For instance,
to provide services for the plane engines.  It also has an effect on the
changing work force.  The work today has people and also softer people to
be in the services and economy.  I think that this is one way to look at
this relation between machine and the human.  They need to strongly reach
to people.  This is work in telecommunity that we're trying to do and I
think this is also a very strong private partnership to try to compliment
to allow this type of new relationship.  Thank you very much.

>> Megan Richards:  Thank you, Lorenzo.  Now we have Hlengiwe.

>> Hlengiwe Mkhize:  Previous background on what's happening.  Let's look
at the very commodeitized type of work.  It's happening on technology
platforms.  Free Lansing and various names and even here you see sort of
that greedation of work from how people and how do people make money on
YouTube.  It's because people in south Asia sit down and click on ads.  So
it is a very, very, very low-income  work even by south Asian standards.
You move higher up, you work for half an hour.  You create a logo for a
company or you could create that gift and that can be significant income
for a lot of people.  As you move higher up in the value chain, you could
be inserting payment gateway on a website. You can be doing graphic design
or whole website design.  If you are really good at it, you form one on one
or repeated relationship with the buyers and move your work offline.  So
there really is that whole range of work when you talk about micro work.
We're starting this in south Asia.  For example, in Sry lanka, we thought
this is a huge opportunity for unemployed people and for people for whom
flexible work is important.  We find that in Sri Lanka, people are doing
this on a part-time basis.  They do full-time government jobs and set in
their offices that tells you about government work, but that's not the
point ever the panel.  They do this as part-time work and choose when to
work and how much to work. It's a huge narrative of exploitation and I
think that is valid about how much these people make, but also gender based
exploitation.  Other researchers have documented in order to get paid,
women need to do other things.  Otherwise, you don't get paid. But what --
those narratives are valid.  But in a systematic study, what we find is
that it is people who already have other income, very low-income obviously
in a full-time work doing this having significant uptaking their income
because of this. So, for example, if you look at average individual of $80
in the last time in sir lankad. It was up to $140 on top of that.  People
who work full-time was a lot more, but the average was this much.  There
are real problems.  The exploited end of this, which is the ad clicking and
you can't get payment because you need to accrue $1,000 before you cash
out, there's a skill problem because there are companies who charge and say
we will teach you how to work online, but they teach you how to do ad
clicking, not to move up the value chain.  How to get your first gig online
is a big, big problem and you never sold your skills online.  You maybe
need a friend to buy your first logo design.  It's a PR learning thing.
And we have real problems with getting cash because Sri Lanka doesn't allow
PayPal which is the dominant payment on all of these platforms.  So they're
reduced to other modes of payment which take a lot more out of the money
than they can get.  What we also see through the more qualitative where I
search and not the quantitative is that there is very soft skill absorption
when people move up these things.  It is preparing them for other work
because when you negotiate, you keep your deadlines and things we don't
learn in school in south Asia.  It is not just about coding or designing
something.  The biggest problem is financial not being able to get payment,
but also not having financial services.  They can never get a loan by
saying I'm a free Lancer and I earn $500 which is so high because of
income.  You cannot prove it.  You need to come to this formalized economy
in some way if they can take this up in a meaningful way.  And there's also
a low awareness and a huge opportunity.  In our survey, we found like give%
ever the population had heard about this. And most of them say yes.  I
would really like to do it, but I had no Internet connection and I have no
skills are the biggest problems that they cite.  So there's a huge thing
for people who want to do capacity building to bring the people into the
formal -- some form of formal employment.  I'll stop there.

>> Megan Richards:  So perhaps in the discussion afterwards, you can give
us an idea of solutions you see to some of the problems.  That's very
interesting.  Let's go next to Gabriellea Rocha.  I am a partner at
Laborraitoria here in Mexico. Basically we identify young women from Latin
America from low-income  backgrounds who demonstrate a lot of potential but
have not had access to quality education because they're from low-income
backgrounds.  And we train them to become software developments in about
six months and Connect them with jobs in the job sector.  I want to thank
you for inviting me because I think it is an interesting example of a
proposed solution in a way to the problem we've been discussing all morning
which is how do we get -- there's rise in inequality and there's going to
be a more low-income  population having to be employed in high skilled work
which is work is going more towards high skilled people. People mentioned
robots.  And I want to talk about three things.  One of the things that
continues to be a problem is higher education is still an extremely
important path to a high skilled job.  And it's a problem because low-
income  populations don't have access to quality higher education.  One
because it is extremely expensive and they can't afford it and two, because
the ones that are affordable don't give them the skills they need to have
access to quality jobs afterwards.  So not everyone in Latin America, very
huge part of Latin America, not everyone has the luxury to spend 4 to 5
years in a university that later won't give them the jobs they need and
that's why they drop out of school.  So we have to start thinking of
alternatives to train and educate the population to fill the jobs in the
future.  Just so you have an idea, in Mexico, 80% of youth in poor
households don't go to college.  When you consider poor households being
the large population, we need to find jobs for these people.  I work
closely with tech companies and they're constantly complaining that the
universities aren't teaching what they need from their developers.  So it's
a problem because you require university, but universities aren't giving
you what you need.  And so that's going to continue to be a problem.
Something that Vince said earlier is so important.  We have seen that in
our own experience with our students.  We're so obence isd with teaching
technical skills and yet every employer I have spoken with complains about
the lack of soft skills the employees have.  And I think we're so focused
on vocational training was mentioned is so focused on low skilled technical
work and no one's providing the educational fundamentals for soft skills
that are super important and important to learn.  We have an awesome
teaching team, but we encourage students to learn on their own and goggle
things so once they're in the work place, they're able to continue learning
and continue to grow in their profession.  And yeah. Finally, I think we
need -- there's a huge shift from low skilled to high skilled work and I
think we need to really understand that there is so much potential in a
population that we've currently assuming that they will automatically do
low skilled work.  We need to find and shift vocational training to high
skilled work, which is possible because we have seen it at LABORATORIA.  We
have seen students going from corner shones, call centers, mechanical, they
help out with their family's businesses which a lot are like mechanical
techs.  So in high skilled work, so I think it's important that we start
considering the possibilities for the population in high skilled work and
obviously shift the education towards that.  So thank you.

>> Megan Richards:  Thank you very much.  I think there's another important
element too and that is the role of women.  Many of these soft skills that
you refer to are learned -- I'm sorry to say it -- at your mother's knees
or in the family.  Let's call it that.  And the more women that are in the
work force, the more they're adopted even before you go out into the wide
world.  I'm exaggerating a bit obviously, but I don't think you can go to
school or learn the soft skills.  I think there's an element to that too.
Let's open up the floor to questions. Absolutely.

>> I can't resist this observation.  I have probably the best chief of
staff in the world and I was trying to figure out what is it that makes her
so good.  She used to be a cub scout den mother and it turns out that's how
you manage engineers.

>> Megan Richard:  That's the only way to manage engineers.  Somewhere
there's a mic.  Stand up so I can see you.  And again, please repeat your
name because someone may not have heard you the first time.  Make your
questions short.  End with a question mark or if you're making a comment, a
brief one.  How did we lose our microphone.

>> Okay.  Steve with Labor Net USA, San Francisco.  I think we have to look
at technology is a beautiful thing potentially.  Freedom.  And then
technology was presented, computerization.  There was the idea that people
would have free time and develop their skills and talents, which is what we
want to see.  But the reality is quite the opposite in Silicon Valley.  The
workers are on the internet 24 hours a day and you don't have freedom.  You
have greater expectation using the Internet.  That is something you have to
address.  You could in the United States have a six-hour day.  You have to
have more workers and more freedom, but the opposite is taking place.
Workers are now working 12, 14 hours a day and two or three jobs.  This is
the reality for millions of workers when you want to look at Trump.  The
other is education.  You have to have literature, art, other things, but
what has happened as well is privatization of education.  Private tools
corporatizing education so they want to make a profit.  They're getting rid
of art and culture and other things like that in the United States and in
programs.  For coding, for example, we can make money from coding or you
can get a job doing that. I think we have to look at what is the effect of
education and technology in education?  In Mexico, senior teachers are
being driven out of work for younger teachers and computers are being used
to say we need less teachers.  These are Contra dictions developing in our
new world economy.  Thank you.

>> Megan Richards:  Any other questions or comments before we turn to the
panel?  Please go ahead.  If you are behind me, you have to --

>> Hello, everyone.  Hi.  My name is James.  I'm from Kenya.  There's one
thing I feel that is not being talked about and this is about access to
credit.  In Kenya, most of the people working the digital economy ION and
most of them can be able to access credit if they see that each economy or
the business in each economy needs and have the right support and probably
sometimes like the lady -- I can't remember which is -- but some people
don't get -- (Multiple speakers at once) they don't get paid enough money.
Sometimes they just need support to access credit.  So I think my question
is: How -- this is -- I am throwing it out there.  How do we make sure that
young people in the economy, especially in developing countries have access
to credit?

>> Megan Richards:  I think in the case of Kenya, it helps with that mobile
payment system, but I don't know if it helps in the credit aspect.

>> It certainly does.  One thing that they have facilitated is that for
people especially for really, really end businesses (sound cutting out) (no
sound) so people pay in advance and then (sound cutting out) because, of
course, cash is complex and then cash and (sound cutting out) and
especially because these people sometimes are not the agency to say (sound
cut out)

>> I just have a quick response.  The access to credit is a real problem
for all people who work in any size sort of sector.  We have line workers
who don't have asset in order to get credit.  We do not have a practice of
cash flow landing or real credit assessment and that's a real problem.  So
one of the solutions that is emerging in Brazil or even the work we do is
to use other forms, order proxies of credit worthiness and one of those is
mobile phone pop ups.  The fact that you can maketain a transaction of
record and keep topping up your phone is a proxy for your credit
worthiness.  That picked with micro loan repayment schedules.  For example,
they can create learning alga rhythms which then predict people's paying
back alone.  And real work is coming out of Brazil.  I can refer you to the
specifics and big data work.  We're trying to do that, but banking
institutions and one of the learns repeatedly that we find in study micro
enterprises and micro work is the institutions really need to move to at
least cash flow based lending.  Owners can help, mobile operators can help.
This is not eye solution.  This is something we're trying to do.

>> Megan Richards:  Thank you very much.  Mary , you had a question and
then Jenson.

>> My name is Mary from Nigeria.  My question is what the call operation
between the education industry and the business or the tech industry.  Is
there any (low sound) they have this opportunity to web access and what is
happening in the tech industry.  The collaboration.  I am so happy that
many people from the universities where we're teaching students what -- do
we get the collaboration and then I want to know:  How do you identify that
you want to reclaim or bring?  You said.  Do we do away with formal
education?  All right?  And if we don't, do you still send them to do
formal education because there could be a point that formal education skill
would be needed in whatever they do.  And the way you say for high skilled
jobs, what do you define as high skilled jobs?  Thank you.

>> Thank you, Mary.  Maybe I can comment on that very briefly before I open
it up to the panel.  In Europe, we have started a few years ago called the
grand coalition for digital job.  Sounds very grand. But it's been expanded
now further and it brought together educators, governments, tech industry,
ICT, experts, Technical Community and local people to try to make sure that
digital skills were developed better and there are some wonderful examples.
It includes also the non-ICT sector.  It's a drop in the bucket, but it is
working and it means everyone has to work together.  There are many
wonderful examples of completely unemployed uneducated people that have
been brought through the job centers and trained quickly in coding and then
go to jobs,less same thing Gabe real is talking about.

>> I hope people don't think that the only job you can get in this economy
is writing software. That's just dead wrong.  It is fair to say that there
will be a lot of software surrounding us.  I wanted to make two
observations.  In the U.S., we're maybe discovering that having a college
degree may not be as important as it was thought to be.  For two different
reasons.  One is costs are very high and students who graduate with heavy
loans are really at a disadvantage.  It is hard for them to start a new
business.  It really suppresses instinct, but the other reason it might not
be necessary is that format of intense education followed by nothing may
not be the right way to approach learning.  So we may end up with less
quantity and intensity, but a period of preparation and soft skills,
learning to learn and all that. And then you keep learning as the jobs
change and as your career interests alter.  So I think we really are
entering into a very interesting and appear opportunistic moment when the
old paradigms really don't work and we have to recognize that and get
creative.

>> Megan Richards:  I think Gabriela wanted to speak, Eli wanted to speak.

>> I will be brief.  I wanted to answer your question.  So, first of all,
how do we identify these women?  In Latin America, people don't have a lot
of things, but they have social networks.  So most of our marketing or
advertisement of our program is done through social media and we -- we
basically inform the general public of what we're doing and we target to a
specific population, which is 18 to 35-year-old women who think this might
be an interesting opportunity for them.  So that's how we identify them and
then they go through a rigorous election process before we select our
students. Your second question:  Do we do away with formal education?
Absolutely not.  I'm a product of formal education.  I'm not suggesting
that we need to get rid of it.  I'm suggesting there need to be some major
reforms in formal education so that it makes sense for the changes in
society for the rising number of people who are currently not benefiting
from that structure.  And a lot of what Vince said as well.  It's not the
best way to continue learning, for example.  It's a very structured process
and I just don't think it works for everyone.  So I think there's been very
little innovation in education in the last several decades, maybe even
centuries and I think we need -- I think it's a really serious problem that
we need to think about.  And lastly, just define high skills.  Again, I
want to reiterate what Vince said.  I am not suggesting we all need to be
software developers. This is a niche we found that would be interesting
because of the rising demand for software developers and the fact that
software -- like tech companies are no longer requiring university degrees.
But there are a lot ever high-skilled work that I think could be a
possibility for this population in healthcare, in different types of
services, sales and it's not all software development.  So thank you.

>> I just wanted to really redirect reskilling and continual skilling.
It's so important even at this commodeitized end of the market that I'm
talking about.  The people who have high income who know from the
commodeitizedd to the most skilled then are the ones who learn online who
take the exams online.  They're all not degree holders. These are people
who have usually a maximum of six-month deployment in the formal education
seconder, but they really move up because they are skilling themselves
really on an ongoing basis.  And the other last point is I looked at this
and we came into this research and I thought oh, this is really an
opportunity for underemployed women and youth because we are very high
youth and employment.  If you look at a countedly like Sri Lanka where the
first redesign was done, you retire at 55.  That's at your peek.  So
there's really a story about skilling and bringing those people in because
we have very, very high dependency ratios in some of south Asian countries.
We have to look at these other solutions instead of pensions and social
security.

>> On the issue of formal education, it's important.  I kind of disagree
with VINT in the following way.  It is true for many of the jobs you don't
actually need the four years and graduate school of college.  That is
actually true.  But for the credential, the resume, the aspect that it will
get you into the door that will get you hired, you absolutely need it are
it many of the jobs and people here, the younger people understand it,
which is why they're consuming more and more education. They could go to
the public library and get the same amount of knowledge, but they want the
piece of paper that says MA, MBA.  So the question there is: How do we deal
with that?  There are several ways. One of them is to require any college
degree to have two components.  One of them is a fun topic that they like
to do, sociology, for example. [Laughter] And the other one is a job
oriented skill, oriented software, accounting, stuff like that that would
actually get you a day job.  Maybe it's a safety net, but that's not bad to
have for many people.  And secondly, to have college degrees or
professional degrees have a limited shelf life. After 10 years, it expires
unless you take advanced courses to upgrade extension to bring you up to
date.  Otherwise, your degree evaporates.

>> Megan Richards:  Doctors, lawyers and others have to do constant.  If
you were a heart surgeon 40 years ago, you are useless unless you have done
upgrading.  Professor Jenson has to leave.  If you don't mind -- I got the
microphone.

>> I want to respond to how do we get funding. So there's a skill going on
called ponsy scheme and MMM.  I don't know if you are familiar with it.
What do you think about that scheme of getting fund, you know?  You waste
some money and you get 30% within 30 days so you can go around the world.
So there are people going to it.  This is a safe way of getting funded.

>> Megan Richards:  Okay.  Jenson?

>>Jenceon:  I would like to stress again the mindset and to ask the
question how can digitalization help address some issues -- certain number
of issues, some of them were there before even digitalization.  I think
skills is a pointing case.  For instance, if you look at training with much
more information now through (inaudible) song and what kind of skills are
needed in which specific areas and now the things change.  I think that can
be used more with trade unions and other people with responsibility with
training in order to meet the demand for.  A number of digital technology I
used in school to do education about soft skills, about emotional skills
and there's a lot going on there for which we need to take stock.  Again,
the fact of that information is useful.  So I think the political side of
that is really to put all people and experiments are allowed and is
possible to learn about this.  Experiments and to improve on them.  So I
think that's a really big change in the mindset in this field.

>> Megan Richards:  Thank you.  I know we have a lot more questions and we
were supposed to finish a few minutes ago and you don't want to hear me
talk for 15 minutes and we have exceeded our time, but I will try in one
second if I can to sum it up.  I think one of the most useful things is
terminology. And trying to identify exactly where the problems and the
different greedations and types of skills that are needed for the different
types of jobs and the areas.  So I think that's already something that's
quite useful and if we can all work together instead of saying digital
skills, we say here are the areas that need to be changed and here are the
Jones and these are the kind of skills that need to be improved and this is
where we need to take work. The other is having all the actors work
together. Multi-stakeholder forum and it's absolutely clear that these
kinds of activities need contributions from government industry, technical
community, et cetera.  If we don't work together and identify with each
other, the problems we will never find the adequate solutions.  And then on
education, it's also clear that the old paradigms of the way in which
education has been dealt with in some countries has to be adapted.  Some of
the thing things we were talking about.  I have a lot to say and I'm sure a
lot of you do too.  Thank you fur y for your contributions. [APPLAUSE]
Ended at 10:35 a.m. WS91:  The Power of the Noncommercial Users on the
Internet

Internet

					   >> Okay.  Hello, everyone.
We're going to start the workshop on the power of noncommercial users and
Internet governance.  I am Farzaneh.  I'm going to tell you a little bit
why we have this workshop. And then go through the agenda.  So, the
rationale behind this is we want to measure the effectiveness and non-
commercial users in making policy changes and Internet Governance.  And
also we want to contradict the assertion that any society by showing that
who we and are what we do.  Also, we want to show our collective effort has
worked.  It was supposed to be a debate.  It was supposed to be that one
side of the table would say we've done these great things within society
and we made these policy changes and we make the life of some businesses
held and you have achieved what we want, but the other side of the table to
tell us that no.  Actually what you've done was really bad because you had
inefficiency and you started folding innovation and all this sort of
things.  But unfortunately, no one was really willing from the other side
of the table, which is the non-civil society to come and tell us how bad we
were.  They just like to criticize us in the back.  So we are going to --
we are going to cover the negative part ourselves by just saying there
might be some -- a level of one sided story. But we are working on that and
I actually invited someone from the government to come and criticize and he
said, well, one hour and a half is not really enough, is it?  So, um, in
the beginning, we are going to talk about the positive effects and what we
have done and what we've achieved.  And second segment, we are going to
talk about the negative and the failures of civil society.  We have here --
so would you like to just introduce yourself?

>> Good morning.  I am a researcher and work very closely with human rights
and ARTICLE 19.  Tattiana will cover --

>> Tattiana Tropina from Germany, a member of the non-commercial
constituency at ICANN.

>> Rachel Pollack.  Some of you may know I work at UNESCO, but I would like
to clarify I am here as a nun-commercial members constituencies -- non-
commercial members constituencies.

>> Thanks a lot.  Giovanni is the only non-civil society member we have
found.

>> You promise to be nice.

>> No, we won't be, but you shouldn't be nice either. [Laughter]

>> I'm fine.  I'm fine.

>> You're going to talk how we like to go into this session.

>> Okay.  Wonderful.  So we start with coding and then we can -- so coding
will tell us a little bit like the broader perspective and how research
space can be be implemented and how we can uphold values and then we go to
tattiana and tattiana will talk about her efforts as a civil society member
in ICANN.  And then we will go to Giovanni and Giovanni will tell us about
the civil society at first and ccTLD.  At the first segment, we only cover
the positive parts and then we criticize heavily in the second segment.
And their ratio has crowd sourced a lot of civil society stories, failures
and successes and then she will cover that.  Okay.

>> All right.  So first they asked me to focus a little bit on setting the
broader scenes and how that places in civil society successes.  I want to
talk a lit bit about the research I did as a master student at the Oxford
institute where we focused on the Internet and engineering task force as it
relates to human rights.  So, the internet engineering task force just for
those who don't know is the organization that makes the standards and
protocols that enaim us all to have the Internet that we have.  It's a
crucial part of making this Eco system work.  And so there had been some
discussion there specifically obviously on security and privacy
considerations where there was a group of civil society who thought it was
very important to look at the potential human rights impact on protocols
and standards.  So they started by attending the ITF floating this idea of
talking to people about it.  Initially, there was some resistance on the
part.  Obviously not because this is a community that doesn't support the
notion of human rights, but because it is a community that solves technical
problems and they didn't necessarily see how this work would directly
relate to what they were doing.  So, in order to sort of address the
issues, a research group was started on the Internet research tank force
which is a subsidiary of the ITF, which very much focused on trying to
figure out what is the relationship with human rights and protocols.  If it
exists, how can we insure that any potential impact on human rights gets
documented with the results.  What we will focus on doing are if the last
two years is develop a document for the human rights protocols
considerations document which pretty much gives a set of guidelines to
engineers, a set of questions and that way they can see what potential
impact exists or doesn't exist and the next would be figure out a way to
(low sound) we see a group of people coalesce around this topic.  We see a
number of people actually joining the group sessions from Itech meetings
going and going.  So it is really a conversation there on human rights in a
more structural way and this is a huge success for us and a huge step
forth.  The document drafted by research is the last call and that means it
will become an official Internet research.  And the next step for the group
would be to then move it to the ITF and see if we can redo the process
there and that also might be a top of that I can address what we're talking
about the challenges.  So if you're interested in this work and want to
know more, you can look at HR PCIO and you can see all the documents that
are going on.  But this is an example of where we started from pretty much
got to a place where we have a documented place where you have a really
interesting and exciting group conversation on this.  That is a huge
success when you're talking about how to engage with the technical
community on the topical things.

>> Thank you.  Can you tell us a little bit more about your research side
so you first started researching and then kind of implemented thattest?

>> I started out as a research student at the internet institute and then I
started working for ARTICLE 19, the human rights.  In the research that I
did, I sort of identified several entries or several barriers to enter into
the ITF that are now being addressed and the focus on diversity, for
instance, insuring that the space is successful to people who don't
necessarily have the means and the resources to come.  It's like the IFG.
It's conferences that travel.  So you need to have visas, money, you need
to be able to come to these places and you have to have a pretty
comprehensive knowledge of the English language.  So there's all these
other things that are very important and that's something that I'm working
on, but not through the human rights support.

>> Okay.  Great.  Tattiana?

>> Tatiana Tropina:  I will cover the commercial stakeholders in ICANN
facilitating the adoption of the human rights by law.  So a bit of history
on these.  As far as I'm aware, I jumpd on to this topic one and a half,
two years ago during the process of transition of ICANN from the U.S.
government.  And I know that the calls for inclusion of human rights
considerations into ICANN by law. By laws processes have been made since
ages.  So we are not in any -- they came during the transition. Sorry for
using acronym.  It is transition of the ICANN from the U.S. government.
Just to clarify. So, the calls for human rights by law didn't come from the
very beginning of the process of IANA transition or the ICANN
accountability.  The process has been announced and there was a meeting in
Los Angeles where ICANN do respect human rights and they think that human
rights are ready available to anything.  But they don't see any events for
ICANN.  But for me, it was incredible how in the short period of time non-
commercial stakeholders collaborating with other constituents and other
stakeholders were able to put human rights into the agenda and to achieve
the adoption of this bylaw. Again, a bit of the timeline.  The first text
for human rights by law was proposed on the second draft of the ICANN
accountable proposal.  So they were not taken into account from the
beginning.  They were not mentioned in the first draft accountability
proposal.  When they appear, there was still big resistance from different
parts of the community especially from the board and very few people of the
non-commercial stakeholder group were able to bring together different
interests including business of registered and registrars and get a formal
support for first of all drafting the text of the bylaw.  We called it
commitment to human rights, to respect human rights to explain people that
it will not mean that ICANN is going to turn into human rights or to
enforce human rights law or human rights in relation to the third parties
so that ICANN will take human rights into consideration in the policy
development processes and its operation.  It was very important in one of
the main arguments was that U.S. government before the transition or the
final stop if something goes wrong as human rights they could always say no
or they could intervene.  When ICANN goes to the free fly, they have a
concern that in addition to being completely unaccountable, ICANN might
value human rights or not take them into consideration.  What was really in
all these experiments.  Well two things.  Achievements of these by law
provision and adoption in a very short period of time just to give you an
idea.  The proposal was adopted in March, approved in March this year.  In
January, we were still arguing with the board with the cross community
working group whether we should have bylaw on human rights.  The board told
that maybe the commitment of ICANN just a simple commitment, a statement
would be enough.  And the second thing that we wouldn't have achieved this
if we wouldn't have gone out of our silos and incomponentd with different
stakeholders.  We got immense support from registers and registrars.  We
got support from governments and members of this cross community working
group.  So, it was a very good experience in terms of creating this basis
to work together and this was the lesson that we learned during the whole
process that while big non-commercial stakeholders, we are supposed to
protect human rights and speak loud about this.  We are supposed to pursue
our interests, but all of them, all of these interests could be -- could
find the common ground, could intercept with the interest of other
stakeholders and once you're able to articulate this clear, once you are
able to channel the communications, it is much easier to pursue your
interests as non-commercials because they might align this others.

>> Thank you, Tatiana.  Giovanni, are you ready to tell us what trouble we
made?

>> Giovanni:  Thank you.  I always like challenges.  So I'm here to speak
about country code top level domains and civil society.  The way country
code top level domains engage with a lack of communities.  First of all, I
like to underline how country codes have been always strongly advocating
the fact that they're independent from ICANN policies and procedures
because they serve communities.  There are those who decide about the
policies and the procedures.  And there's a lot of best practice sharing
among the value of this community.  But the main point is they do decide by
themselves about the lack of policies and procedures. Many ccTLD policies
are indeed, driven by the local communities including known commercial
stakeholders.  And let's say that the biggest example is the so-called
liberation policy that has been introduced in many country code in the past
decade.  Many country code until 10 years ago were restricted in the sense
they were a limitation for registering a domain name because not everybody
could register the domain name.  There were limitations because you must
have been in a countedee or must have had a company or because you were an
individual, you could have not registered more than one domain name and
things have changed. They've changed quite rapidly in the past decade for
many country code top level domain.  This one is called liberalization of
the policy and has help those ccTLDs to grow.  In some cases,
exponentially. At the same time, all of the country code top level domains
is perceived as quite a strong role.  Also support new things.  There are
registries even in Europe. There's been in the past in 2014 an interest in
worship that was coordinated by center, center is the Council of Europeeen
top level domain registry. This organization is mainly for European and
cord manager.  If you go back to that which has a good somebody, which is
supposed to have been on the IGF side, you would have seen the work done by
CCLDs and it has been great and instrumental to facilitate the
participation of many more people in the Internet governance processes.
And I would like to stop here for the moment.

>> Thank you very much, Giovanni.  Rachel, you can please tell us about
this.

>> Rachel Pollack:  Yes.  As Farzaneh said, we have a project to seek
inputs and examples of successful civil society efforts and also failures.
I have to say in response to that, we only received one example of the
success and one example of a failure.  So since I've been here in Mexico,
I've been speaking with civil society organizations to add other examples
as well.  So we have a broader variety. First has been discussed in ICANN
the non-commercial users cons tip of wingsy achieved a better balance
between trademark law and intellectual property interest and use free
expression and due process.  So I heard from Kathy who is one of our
members about how throughout the last 10 years and even earlier, NCNC has
achieved this plan in the universal dispute resolution and then more
recently in the uniform rapidus is peng and trademark community house.
Just to quote her. She said we have fought for the more traditional balance
of trademark law and due process.  We have taken is this balance to the
technologist and communities creating infrastructure rules and one of the
many issues we fought for.  Domain registrants, past, past and future are
protected.  Some on the theme of protecting free expression and fair use
against intellectual property interests, we can look to the case of the
SOPAPIPA registration in 2011 and 2012.  So that of the SOPA is stop online
privacy act.  And they would have had an impact on free expression on the
Internet namely the possibility of creating a black list of sensor
websites.  It can have a domain name impact.  So there was a campaign led
by EFF, the electronic frontier election together with other civil society
groups as well as private sector companies such as Google and Flicker. So
what happened was together they were organizing the campaign and had a sort
of blackout of content on Wikipedia for one day redirecting users to
information about this ledgelation.  They also had announcements on the
pages of Mozilla, Google, Flicker.  So as a result of this campaign, 3
million people e-mailed congress on 4.5 million signatures were collected
by a Google petition and the two bills ultimately failed.  This is a clear
example of a successful civil society movement together working together
with private sector partners.  And then the third example I wanted to
discuss was the coalition led by Access Now the Keep on On coalitions.  It
was launched in spring 2016 following an Internet shutdown in Ubegana
around the time of the -- Uganda around the time of the elections.  They're
had discussions with freedom online coalition of governments that sent
freedom of expression online. They're also successfully worked with the
African commission which just in the last few weeks was also issued a
statement against internet shutdowns.  And just last week around the
presidential elections Access Now learned that shutdown was possible.  So
they mobilized to their coalition and sent an open letter to the
government.  They also coordinated with governments that supported this and
in the end, a shutdown still happened, but it was shortened and it was two
days still.  But on the day of the election, the Internet was back on.  So
we can see three examples within ICANN, SOPAPIPA and the easy is keep it on
coalition and how civil society can have a impact and especially when it is
able to mobilize partnerships.

>> Thank you very much, Rachel.  I would like to go to participants and see
if there are any positive stories about effective civil society and nonever
had commercial users.  Maybe I can call on you, Chris.  I know it might not
be positive on your side. [Laughter]

>> Chris:  It's not negative.  My name is Chris. And so we also facilitate
through our work with the community policy development process, which is
open inclusive and bottom-up.  People in our service region have developed
policies about the distribution and management of internet number sources
and IP addresses, autonomous systems and the like.  I think it is fair to
say in the past, there hasn't been a great deal of formal society
development.  I think it's coming still from operators from business and
more reportly from government and law enforcement.  But I think there is
some exceptions to that.  We have in the right community and at the right
meetings and working groups and one of those cooperation working group and
that's actually been a release for venue in recent years.  And I think
Colin at the understand of the table can speak more about it.  We also have
a program called racy, which is to get academics a bit more involved and
bring that voice and then beyond what the right one is doing, they have
been working on that same Eco system.  So that's funded -- well, a huge
number of projects in Africa, south America, the Asia Pacific in recent
years have related to civil society and projects. So the organization that
facilitates the right communities have been proactive in setting up things
like the corporation working group and the Racy thing.  We want to get more
involvement there.  And that really comes down to not just we want to see
nor civil society people at our meeting and hang out with them, but that
community based development for its accountable.  But for it to be seen and
it needs to live up to that idea of being inclusive and relevant
stakeholders being able to contribute and be part of that.  We're going to
continue to try to get a bit more civil society and a bit involvement. What
sort of issue is being discussed in internet sourced.  I am happy to tell
you about it and perhaps the academic initiative.

>> We does not participate in the process.  I invite you civil society
members to participate. Would you like to add something or not?  You are
like the right --

>> I am also a member of NCUC.  It's an example that we have been
discussing in the IGF for quite a few years.  It is always good to
remember.  Some years ago, Brazil was living a difficult moment in terms of
many bills being sent to congress that tried to criminalize very common
behaviors online such as downloaded music or unblocking our cell phone with
time in prison, with time in jail.  It was quite a harsh view and simp
society groups in Brazil joined together under the label movement called
Mega No.  To say a big no to this bill.  They were quite successful with
campaigns they put online.  They cons Vinced a government, which was at
that time the government of the President who put this Bill aside and
before discussing anything with criminalized online users in Brazil to
discuss what should be the right responsibilitying they should have.  Users
and companies to the state itself and throughout the very low process, but
very interesting one that I was not going into details, the Bill approved
and with open participation and people wanted to see it written in the
Bill.  It is a successful story of how something very complex can be
written in an open and par participatory. Complete the information because
the skies are not so blue in Brazil right now.  This Bill is in threat, but
many positive examples that Brazil has with Internet Governance and
Brazilian internet committee to take the committee for the policies in
Brazil.  The new governance which many of us consider is now questioning
many of the things that we conquered in the last few years.  And many of
the provisions of Markus sevill.  If you are in a less civil society, many
things have cirque united asking for civil support.  This is much more
picky because they had a very good dialogue with the government. The
dialogue has been broken with the current government.  It is difficult for
them is to go from Brazil as they acted before.  So that's why we are
asking for international support.  So if you are one ever these lists that
received it, please make sure it circulates and sign the manfesto if you
can -- manifesto if you can.

>> Any comments? Okay.  Now we go to the fun part, which is is the negative
impact of the stories and failures of civil society.  How we failed and
didn't change or if is they have a negative effect that was positive to
uphold human rights principle.  And it had negative effects.  So I can
start from you, Tatiana.

>> Tatiana Tropina:  I have to say with my example, I was full of
negativity at the end.  This process -- but what we discovered in the
process of the different groups in civil society fighting each other and
couldn't align.  It was much easier to talk to order stakeholders and it
was much easier to align yourself with commercials.  It was much easier to
explain them what our interests and our rationale compared to some of other
civil society stakeholders who just didn't want to listen.  Who for
example, had on their agenda the prevention of IN transition or some agenda
to design it in a way that give it some transition periods, some trial
period or wherever you name it.  And these two still track me about civil
society because we cannot truly define our interests.  Sometimes it looks
like human rights or privacy or whatever we said as our aim they're just
words.  We do not and we cannot always agree what we put into these words,
how broad is the definition, how we are actually going to achieve our goals
and also I see in civil society the lack of common strategy.  So I do
believe that it is because of this diversity, which is not necessarily bad,
but it becomes a big issue when it comes to the lack of strategizing.
Thanks.

>> Thank you.  CORIN, in E:  I think the channel did a great job on
focusing on some of the issues I've run into.  I think another thing that
is also mentioned before is just a question of how do you do this?  So for
a lot of the civil society initiative that exists at the content layer of
the internet, it's quite clear what we can do.  You can look at regulation.
You can lobby your governments.  You can look at market forces and see what
kind of positive incentives you can create that businesses are going to be
open to your line of reasoning.  But especially the work that ARTICLE 19
does, it's more at the technical level or logical level of the layer of the
Internet.  And some of these things can be used, but not all of them.  And
additionally, you really have to go and figure out how to do this. There
are many organizations, other organizations that we can look towards and
say this is something that worked or this is something that didn't work. So
it is very much trial and error.  And that means that sometimes we fail.

>> Thank you.  Rachel?

>> Rachel Pollack:  Yeah.  Just to quickly share two examples of what one
might call a failure of civil society or areas where the ultimate goal was
not issued.  Sod first I received from Stephanie PARAPRINE who wrote her
PHD dissertation on why it hasn't adopted better society adoptions.  This
is one area where civil society has continued to try to push for greater
privacy.  There are two aspects. One is who is database, which is where
domain name registrants have their names, phone numbers, physical addresses
listed publicly of people and organizations.  This can include a political
ethnic reLidge only and sexual minorities.  There's also a requirement of
registers Acreditation agreement. And from a data protection perspective,
it's problematic because it requires registrars to collect more data than
is needed to publish registrant information and who has database to retain
this data and also to escrow the data in the U.S.  So this is one area
perhaps too harsh to say itsy failure of civil society, but a failure of
ICANN and not being able to strength and privacy protections.  The second
example is really to surveillance legislation and the last few years
following the revolutions of mass surveillance, there was a great deal of
civil society activity namely the necessary and proportionate principles. A
lot of awareness raising campaigns, but a lot of rather seeing positive
developments in legislation. More and more we see the existing processees,
exist and practices being put into law and one example of this is just in
the last couple of weeks and the U.K . with the investgaer toy powers.  And
the open race group, Internet society UK to try to bring attention to the
problematic aspects of this, but ultimately it passed through parliament.
Those are two cases. And again, in speaking with individuals from open Race
group and group and chapter of ISOC, they say similar to the case of ICANN
that it's not a failure of civil society, but regard of the overall context
of not putting enough importance into the multi-stakeholder model and
having open discussions. I guess that's something we can discuss and why in
these two cases the efforts failed.

>> Thank you, Rachel.  Giovanni, would you like to enlighten us?

>> Giovanni:  I'll try.  First of all, I would like to catch up on what my
colleague panelists have just said.  First of all, I was quite surprised to
hear what is going on with CGI Brazil.  CGI has Ben for many registries
world wide one of the best practices to look at.  And so I'm really sorry
to hear what is going on.  And I met selfrepresentives of CGI over the
years.  They went even on a tour European live to tell the different
governments and registries.  They were managing Internet policies at a
national level.  So my advice and recommendation would be for them also to
look for support from all the world wide registries and I think it's very
-- in many cases, there's a special situation where it impacted registries
and they look for the haven't at international levels and the support was
very precious to prove to local for the authorities how much it was best
practice.  You just said who he is and registrar agreement.  As I'm
representing a country code top level domain, I would like to underline
once more that what you said refers to generic top level domains.  That's
quite important. It's also important in terms of the policies.  It is true
that registries and registrars request wave of the policy and modification
of the policy to comply with legislation, which is also important to
mention.  And the same is for the standard registry, registrar agreement
and registry ICANN and registrar ICANN agreements.  They're all sent to
possible Mod modifications because of laws and things they may require.
They will operate differently.  To the best of my knowledge, ICANNa you go
is to the guest of -- probably one of the most around the world because we
are heavily regulated by the European Commission.  So behind us, there are
two regulations.  One of the European parliament and the council and one of
the European Commission.  It specializes moo to say it is nice for this
becausey -- it is it is not really a failure, but for us it was also best
practices to open public -- it insults not only the members of our board,
but also all our stakeholders and I would like to invite you because it is
possible now as there have been changes in here to come up to us because I
think it would be really valuable not only forever us, but probably for
many order registers to have your input.  In many internationalized domain
names, what you think about internationalized domain names?  I think it is
very important and sometimes you are not well heard as you should.  So
please speak up stronger than what you have done and go to some registry
operators.  And we'll be happy to listen to you.  I always like to listen
and we are listed and serving 31 countries with 28 member states plus and
three countries from the European economic area.  So it is really important
for us to listen and learn from what you have to say.

>> Thank you, Giovanni.  Is there a new remote comment? So are there any
comments from the participants? No.  Okay.

>> I think another thing that Tatiana also touched upon shortly, but that's
something that really needs further emphasis is the need to -- especially
as civil society actors to make sure that we understand what is going on
technically.  So ICANN and DITF in my case, these are not easy spaces to
navigate if what you're used to is dealing with regulators and dealing with
executives.  I think that this is something where some of the -- I wouldn't
say failures because I think it is too strong a word, but places where we
don't nibblely get what we.  Or we're not able to properly communicate what
the issue is also comes -- it comes from two sides obviously.  It is lack
of understanding on the part of whoever we're working, but also a lack of
our understanding that it is really easy when you're a civil society actor
to be so deeply engaged with the topics that you understand the urgency of
it and you understand or you feel you understand why this needs to be done
now and in the specific way that you're proposing. And I think what we need
to focus on when we're turning in the more technical issues is making sure
that we really properly do that translation.  And obviously that means that
we need to have a willing actor on the order side of the table.  We're
really to bear with us as we go through the process, but we can do a lot in
terms of scaling up and learning how to speak tech and learning to
understand and appreciate the order side of the table even if you don't
care the point of view because we're not going to get very far with an
adver air isual stance. Civil society activism and adverse aerial stance
works and I found that is not the case for the work I've been doing.  I am
being very specific to working on human rights issues at the logical layer
of the Internet, but I think it is something to consider moving forward.

>> Yes.

>> I work in the IGF.  And one of the things I wanted to reinforce about
that is that a lot of ways in which organizations like the IGF were very
much open there's no membership to the IGF participation in a particular
topic means you're doing a mailing list and start contributing your ideas
and your energy to it.  And that often means because of that openness that
we don't have the same idea of stakeholder communities that order types of
organization might have.  So a very interesting example of that is actually
around privacy questions.  Many of the people who initially came to the IGF
to work on privacy issues either already were or became sufficiently fluid
in their discussion of these issues that no one ever thinks of them as
anything other than just IGFers anymore. A great example of that is Daniel
Congilmore.  He's the contributors and I think the number of times people
think of DKG as coming from civil society in that content is about zero.
Similar would be folks like Alyssa Cooper who originally started coming to
the ITF from the center for democracy and technology is currently an area
director for the art area.  So there's a mechanism by which the dialogue
changes through engagement, but one of the things that really happens in
that from the experience on the ITF side is that after that engagement,
people don't perceive you as from a stakeholder community.  You are simply
working on this topic.  And that turns out to be very successful, but it
may mean a longer engagement process than would be comfortable for very
urgent topics.  And that's why I think it's very important to have
identified folks in a community who we all understand are sort of
bilingual.  Avri Doria, EKG, Corinne and others can help navigate this and
find people who would understand and speak both languages while that
engagement progresses.  And I sincerely hope that people take to heart that
it is an open participation process in standards development and there are
a lot of the issues around especially things like internationalization or
particular transport protocols or messaging protocols like EAI where
further engagement by affected communities would be very, very valuable.
One of the realities is that if you're somebody who builds technology, the
number of languages you speak may be higher than normal, but there are
7,000 different languages in use in the world.  And the fact is we don't
have 7,000 participants in the ITF.  The chances we understand the impact
and all of them is zero or very close to zero.  So more participation.  As
members of the ITF, whether you come from civil society or not would be
very welcome.

>> Thank you.  I see Klaus.  So we first go with Klaus.

>> Klaus:  Thank you very much.  I think we -- especially now with the
upcoming enhanced community, we have to look at the fundamental new ways of
how civil society engages in policy making.  I think we did very good
efforts, but it time to change.  I would like to suggest three major points
which we should look at.  One of them is classman's engagement.  We need to
find more contacted to the general civil society users.  Basically who
knows ICANN?  Who knows that we exist?  Who knows what is going on?  We
need ways to communicate.  And the second one and I hope you don't
misunderstand me here, but we need -- we are a unique precision -- you
professionalize somehow this kind of engagement becausewe'll always end up
with a few people who buy some academic or some personal lottery event to
be able to participate.

>> Great.  Thank you very much.

>> I have one more point if you don't mind.

>> Yeah.  Sure.

>> And the third point is quite simply how we see our engagement, the form
of engagement.  It's no longer good enough when we just talk to each other
and try to find the consensus.  We have to talk and work together.  What
you just mentioned is we have to start.  Just talk, talk, talk.

>> Thank you very much.

>> I am Alfredo Calderon from Puerto Rico.  I'm from that civil society
sector that got involved in ICANN and I actually participated as an
observer in that working group and I also work in other groups as a
volunteer.  And I got involved because about three years ago, by the way,
I'm a chemist.  So that's my background.  And I got involved in ICANN
because as a civil society member, I wanted to know and learn the impact
that the IANA transition would have within my profession and within what I
do. Now, what does that mean?  That I had to do what Tatiana mentioned and
what he mentioned.  I had to learn the language of ICANN, the language of
ISOC, the language of ITF to get involved.  And that's why I'm here so I
can contribute, but I need to learn the language to get involved.

>> I'm going to open, but three years ago, we have like many other
organizations in the Internet, we have what we call the academy.  That's
for anyone interested in learning more about the A the environment that we
work.  Education and awareness and education to be able to contribute.  So
the academy starts for anybody and we have students from universities
around Europe who may like to learn more.  Hour registries managed from a
technical perspective, what is -- anybody who is interested.  It's not
slavery because you're going to get paid.  First, you will be trained and
then you're going to get a project to develop the project.  It could be one
week, three weeks, two months.  We had students for different timeframes
and you get also travel and expenses and it's a contract.  It's a nice
experience.  So I would recommend again if any of you is interesting,
please go to our site and Aby for it and we'll be happy to welcome you.

>> Thank you.  This is very interesting.  So you actually initiated
something to educate people and how to get engaged.  Maybe ATF can do that
too -- maybe ITF can do that too.

>> Sorry.  ITF's organizational home is ISOC. And ISOC does do that through
ISOC policy fellows and a number of other programs.

>> Yes.  I am aware of that program which is normally addressed to
regulators.  It's very difficult to get into.  But I might be wrong.  Just
got rejected, you know.

>> Perhaps we should talk offline about that particular thing, but if there
are extensions or many other folks are here and I'm sure we would be very
interested in talking about how that could expand.

>> That's very helpful.  Thank you.  Are there any other comments?

>> I think the ISOC program is definitely a very good step into the ITF.
We always give trainings to them and talk about the work that the human
rights considerations group is doing.  They're always an extremely smart
bunch.  The problem is that they're having is retaining the fellows after
the one week because the problem is these are all people who have other
jobs and it is extremely useful for them to know what is going on in ITF,
but it doesn't necessarily lead to structural participation in the
processes.  That indeed, is an open question and something that is good to
hear that ICANN is struggling with.  Doing all the work that is either
based because you volunteer your time or because you have another
organization that is willing to pay for the time that you spend working on
whatever technical stuff you do.  And this is something that you see often
and especially something that I've seen within ICANN is that you do run
into these issues of the people who end up being able to volunteer their
time.  They have other homes that pay for their rent.  And that leads the
selection of who actually is able to participate here to be not as
representative as you would ideally want to have. The question of resources
is something that as civil society, we haven't figured out yet and that's
because we can do more strategizing on how to pull resources and at least
make sure our participation is structured and that there is funding for it.
So it doesn't depend on people who decide that this is so important that
they're volunteering their own time to it, but rather that we can have a
good concrete approach to doing that.  It is very much an open call to the
people in the room of who has ideas of how to fix this or who has examples
of other places where this has been done in an effective way. I think a lot
of ground can be gained for civil society if we can figure this one out.

>> Thank you, Corinne.  So there is the issue of funding and how to source
funding.  And that might be difficult, but also we have theern of conflict
of interest, which civil society itself within it criticizes other cell
society members if they get funding from various sources which limits our
access to various sources of funding.  We have to consider. Are there any
other comments?  Okay.

>> Just a very quick to the comments.  There are models, but we have to be
brave.  For example, we have to redefine what it means non-commercial.  We
have to do a lot of things.  We have to jump over a lot of things we built
ourselves.  But the models are liveable and some are implemented.  We just
have to have the guts to do it.

>> Yeah, actually, two remarks.  One of them is on funding.  I think
another problem of funding that even if you have it, even if you have
limited funding, did is a laidoff.  New faces and new comers or veterans.
Who are you betting on.  Who will do my job?  How will you get more people
involved if you bring people who are already doing a job?  And of course is
diversity.  You want to insure that all the regions are represented.
Sometimes it becomes hard for people in some regions to be shoot and
they're always in demanned.  So volunteers do a lot ever work and you have
some other things, but in ladin America and other regions they're really
struggling.  And back to quite a long time ago to what Corinne said about
understanding deeper the technical issues.  I also think that understanding
deeply any issues about the process you're involved with not only technical
and what I mean by understanding, it is understanding of the concerns whom
you're talking to, understanding of the concerns whom you're actually
fighting against.  In the example of the surveillance and in the example of
us protecting human rights in digital investigations talking to law
enforcement agencies trying to change the laws there and practices and
policies, I think it is really important to understand for civil society
the concerns of other parties.  Governments do have to protect their
citizens.  Law enforcement does have to investigate crimes.  Sometimes we
run into the wolfs and we don't make ourselves heard.  Why?  We're not
offering solutions.  We're not offering to meet in themis.  We just reject
what's been proposed.  We've not proposing the ways to move forward.
Proposing the ways to move forward would mean listen to other side.
Negotiators was the other side.  Without compromising the values, but
listening to the other side and get what they actually want.  I experienced
this myself with some of the successes of change and legislation and law
enforcement agencies told me why don't our lawyers tell us what you are
saying.  Why don't our lawyers -- why are not our lawyers able to
compromise, for example, able to sit together for many hours and talk.  I
think this is what we have to learn how to do.  Thanks.

>> I think he would like the mic.

>> This is tricky.  If you have one mic, you movie single --

>> Rafik speaking.  I just want to highlight civil society is quite diverse
and I think we are quite distributed.  And this can be strong point, but it
is also weakness.  It is hard to coordinate. I don't have the answer for
that.  I think we have to leave with that challenge and see how we can use
it.  I understand about the issues about funding and so on and the problem
even if funding is create some competition between civil society actors
among themselves because the source are not that diverse. People -- they
create sometimes even a different interest in that matter.  Another issue I
see more is about attention.  We are competing for the attention of the
expert or the volunteers or civil society.  So, each organization or
activist will define his or her priority and what matters they want to
work.  So it is really hard to bring them from other spaces.  Let's join
ICANN or let's join ITF because there is kind of learning curve to go
through and to spend time where there are issues they want to work on even
at the local level or global level.  If you're an activist in developing
countries, you will have a hard time to work outside.  You want to focus
what's happening in a local level.  You will work around it.  So, expand as
much as possible, but help.  I don't have the answer.  It's again about
resources.  Yes again, we need to accept that it's okay to get resources
from Google.  We have, I know, it thrives a lot of questions from other
organizations, but there is -- it's not diverse.  The resources are not
diverse. Few foundation, open foundation or Ford foundation, but there are
also restrictive on the topic they want to work on.  And this even happened
at the other levels.  Coming from Mina and Arabs spring. It's not that.
It's just revolution.  There is interest from many foundations to support
activities in those countries.  But those foundations don't have that and
they're in term of priorities.  At the end what I want to say, we need also
to stop as a civil society to kind of serve regulation about our
limitation.  That's okay.  We have to live up with that and see how we can
improve and be a little bit more optimistic and positive.

>> Okay.  Thank you very much.  So it seems like our negative stories were
not that long.  So that's good. [Laughter] And if there are no questions or
comments, I'm just going to wrap it up and we can just go early. Adam?  So
would you like to make comment?

>> Adam:  Why not, Adam peek.  I now work for ICANN in civil society
engagement.  But I've been very active in IGF and various other things.  I
think the observation really is -- the nice thing about this meeting today
is that you're thinking about positives and one of the things I look at if
I look at something like both the NCUC is probably the most diverse group
in ICANN.  You know, between you, you have almost 600 members probably
almost 200 organizational members representation from at least 120
countries.  So within the ICANN content, you are the most diverse group.
You have more members probably than any other group and sometimes you
really aught to say that because I'm quite sure that unless I say it to
board members and so on, you're not doing.  And you aught to because it is
a group that is with limited resources as you said and you do an
exceptional amount of work.  Some of the most active members of the CCWG
account ability all there civil society.  You can look at the mailing list
and see the measures of it.  I think being a little bit more positive about
your achievements will actually help you get more of the resources and more
of the respect, more of the acknowledgment that you need to have your
policies than better accepted within not only ICANN, but other of the
Internet policy processes that we are dealing with.  Just carry on what
you're doing, but be a little bit more vocal of how well you're doing it.

>> That was very positive from ICANN.  Okay. There are no other comments?
Okay.  I'm just going to wrap this up from the success stories that we're
got and of course we're on the Internet Governance space and we work with
more transnational.  That's why the stories come from this space.  I kind
of think that maybe we have to look at in the future what sort of venues
and institutions that are not multi-stakeholder and are intergovernmental
can be -- we can participate and make changes there because -- well, of
course we can payment at ITF and ICANN because they're a multi-stakeholder,
but whether we can be more effective in intergovernmental organizations or
processes.  Even when the intergovernmental organizations say that they
have multi-stakeholder process, it is really sometimes close.  So, I think
that would be another step for us to look at before next year.  And thank
you very much for all the success and failure stories. [APPLAUSE] Workshop
ended at 11:58 a.m. CST

					WS81:  Internet and ICT for cube an
Medical Cooperation WS81:  Internet and ICT for Cuban Medical Cooperation

>> (speaking Spanish) (video shown in Spanish) (speaking Spanish)

>> Alfredo:  (speaking Spanish)

>> (speaking Spanish)

>> (speaking Spanish)

>> (speaking Spanish)

>> (speaking Spanish)

>> (speaking Spanish)

>> (speaking Spanish)

>> In Cuba, we have Internet connection.  We have a policy government to
make it easier to have Internet in the universities, in the research
centers, in the hospitals, in the schools, institutes.  Also the public
service they have Internet.  We -- they have Wi-Fi free of spaces too.
They have a policy to grow for more access and more Connectivity. And
international collaboration too.  Do you have another question?

>> Do they allow foreign companies to invest for giving service people
Internet and cell phone?

>> They have a lot foreign investment.  They get -- they have made a new
law three years ago.  They have an international affair for in Cuba to get
more -- to get people to know the organization and they have new laws --
when they get with other persons to get collaborations even though it
doesn't matter if they're foreign.  In here, they have that too.

>> (speaking Spanish)

>> (speaking Spanish)

>> (speaking Spanish)

>> (speaking Spanish)

>> (speaking Spanish)

>> Workshop ended at 1:30 p.m. CST.Test test

>> All sessions are being live streamd and interpreted so you can watch
them on the website.  So we wait -- we're waiting for the signal to get
started.

>> Once again, good afternoon.  My name is Markus cammen. I was the co-
facilitator of the coalition session together with Avri Doria who is
sitting down there in the second row. Avery was also a member that's taken
it on her to observe the Twitter sphere and will report back what she sees
on tweets going on about this session.  Let me say a few words on the
Dynamic Coalition and on these sessions.  They started with the very first
IGF meeting in 2006.  It was then a kind of compromise between those who
didn't want any entersessional activity and those who wanted to start up in
working groups that would continue their work throughout the year.  So the
Dynamic Coalitions are selfforms, selfappointed and very much in a bottom-
up way.  Now the first nine years or so, they all had their own live in the
margins of the IGF.  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 achieved and also to get feedback from the
broader community.  We continue with calls and also preparing some common
principles and all coalitions would abide to.  That would be open archives
and open lists and be open to membership and those that would agree to make
doesn'ting opinions public.  And this session we thought it would be
tedious if we allow each Dynamic Coalition to read out a report.  They have
prepared a report and all the reports are on the IGF website and I
encourage you all to look at them and to read them.  There's a lot of
substantive work that has gone on.  But we thought in order to make it a
little bit more dynamic, we would ask a moderator to be a kind of
provocateur to engage in the dialogue with the coalitions and also we hope
to have a dialogue with an interactive session with all participants.
Before going into this session, I would like to invite our host country
chair.

>> I think this is working.  I hope so.  Anyway, welcome to our little
workshop on Civil Society Experiences from the INS transition process.  And
-- there are people behind it on the middle.  Martin Sylvia and on the
right.  I hope they get this pre-fixed.  Anyway, we can't wait.  Okay.

>> Thank you.  Good afternoon, everyone.  So we're talking about civil
societies and the focus is on the CCIG, but the broad topic is the IANA
transition.  A lot of people have been here and heard people like Larry
Strickland telling us the transition was the most successful of the multi-
stakeholder approach we've seen today and I think that's probably true.  I
can't think of any other.  I had a bit fortune to work on the transition
about six months before turning over to civil society engagement and
witnessed the work that was done and it's extremely impressive.  I think
the community should be proud of what they're done.  It's been interesting
that there's been positive comments and very little negativity, which again
is something that's a good thing for us.  Am I being over eighteen
enthusiastic.  Did is a very good example.  The engagement and achievement
and there hasn't been a great deal of criticism of the outcome.  I think
that what we'd like to hear today is both from you about the successes. The
work that you did and the work is continuing.  That is what I understand
the session is going to be about.  So we're going to begin.  Unfortunately,
robin is not feeling very well today and Robin gross cannot make the
session.  We will talk about the key issues of civil society during the
transition debates.  And to fill in on the beginning, we'd like to hear
some comments on civil society's concerns and positions on issues of
transparency and accountability as they were discussed as they appeared in
the final recommendations and then ongoing from there.  And I wonder if
Milton Mueller and Mr. Badii would like to make some comments on set of two
issues.  Accountability and then transparency.

>> Meetings, everybody.  I just learned about five minutes ago that I'm
going to do it.  But accountability or answerability as some people might
say are -- is one of the major problems with ICANN.  It was noticed early
on in its history.  The issue at the very formation of ICANN is what keeps
this organization accountable.  Originally the idea was that the board
would -- the organization would have members.  Those members like half the
board and then the supporting organizations would appoint half the board
through their own internal processes.  As we all think, the initial board
stayed in place for almost three years and there was that they're probably
starting around 8 or 9. There was a crisis of accountant as we went into
the new detailed program.  And the issue was always if we can't go into the
U.S. government to complain boo ICANN, who can we go to?  And there is
still a very progressive people to this day who fear the fact that ICANN
has been cut loose from this high level form of external accountability.
So, the accountability process went through a really interesting and highly
legalistic process.  So deciding how to replace ICANN at -- replace the
U.S. government oversight.  Not to replace ICANN.  Nobody wants to do that.
So, with respect to the I--  most people were concerned and what became
clearer and clearer as we went along in the process was that most people
were really concerned about the accountability of the policy making
process.  Not so much IANA per se.  And that is where we got really
complicated.  We had to work within the framework of California law and
typically civil society members were pushing for stronger accountability
mechanisms such as membership that could remove board members or spill the
entire board.  Eventually we ended up with this hybrid. I don't want to go
too much into detail about California law, but we have something called an
empowered community, which consists of representatives of the advisory
committees and supporting organizations.  And if enough of these ACs and
SOs decide to do something, then they really have some formal authority
under the bilaws to fire the board, reverse a decision, remove board
members and so on.  Now, in addition to this empowered community
accountability, you have two forms of accountability.  One is the
independent review process in which you can appeal decisions as being
inconsistent with the bilaws and we're still in the process of implementing
the IRP and there are some issues with that that I will probably bring up
later.  And there is the -- I lost my train of thought.  The fact that the
board cannot change the bilaws now without approval of the community.
Particularly a set of special bilaws called the fundamental bilaws so that
in the past, there were instances.  For example when ICANN lost an
independent review appeal, the board quickly changed the rules of what it
takes to win a review appeal and that can no longer happen.  That's a very
important form of reform.  So that's a quick overview of the accountability
reforms.  Do you want me to explain more about how civil society related to
other interest groups or is that enough?  Is that all you want at this
group?

>> I think genreally if we can keep it 3 to 4 speakers. But if you want to
say more about how civil society was particularly involved, if there was
any particular aspect of that that you thought was pertinent to civil
societies either interest or even successes in driving something through
those recommend anticipations and change.

>> Well, I think civil society was a critical part of the separation of P
TI from ICANN.  We wanted something a bit more strong in terms of the
structural separation, but we did get some form of separation.  Civil
society had some important role in the transparency procedures, which I
think Farzaneh will talk about.  We had a big debate within the concept of
the empowered community about the role of the GAC, the role of governments
in that.  I think civil society was concerned about -- whether GAC had
privileged powers and tried very hard to limit those powers.  Again, as
with PTI, we reached a middle ground which was acceptable, but not
particularly wonderful for all parties involved.

>> Moderator:  One of the things we'll try and do is leave question and
answer for the end.  Unless there's is some massively urgent clarifying
comment or question as we're going forward, then we'll leave questions and
answers for the time 15, or 20 minutes.  Allen has one.  Yes?

>> Alan greenberg:  Not all of civil society was union formed.  I have lots
parts of civil sort and we didn't agree with everything Milton was saying
was a civil society position.  So --

>> Milton Mueller:  What a surprise.

>> Alan Greenberg:  Not at all.  Just saying.

>> Moderator:  Farzaneh?

>> Farzaneh:  So I was involved briefly with a transparency efforts.
Accountability working group and the work stream.  One there was in this
major problem with ICANN document sis closure policy that they had these
broad criteria that they could just reject document disclosure requests.
So what we tried to do, we tried to look at these criteria and bring reason
why these criteria should change and kind of make it more open for the
community to ask for certain documents that are not published.  So this was
a good effort we actually achieved.  On work stream, we work on those
criteargra and those other things to make ICANN more transparent.  And also
as to the transparency of the -- for example, for GAC and the board and
some of the deliberation of the board, it was pressed upon that at the time
of their deliberations should be transparent and open also GAC discussions
should also be open and transparent. That's about it.

>> Moderator:  So.  Thank you.  One of the things that are going to be
melt.  Can I see people familiar with ICANN because they're members of
committees and board members and so on and so forth.  But a couple of
things we will be mentions like work stream 1 and work stream 2.  Work
stream one with the accountability mechanisms -- enhancing it will deem
necessary to be in place committed to so that the transition could go
ahead.  So all of those have been completed or committed to and that is
when we're talking about work stream 1.  Work stream 2 were the issues that
we felt had to be put in place but could be worked upon after the
transition.  So work stream 2 issues are ongoing now and we have issues
around diversity and ICANN support and then supporting organization and
other volunteer participation accountability staff accountable,
transparency which Farzaneh just mentioned, human rights issues which we'll
discuss, jurisdiction, the ICANN and working on some other bilaw issues.
This work that was implemented was part of the transition, but it is work
ongoing.  It is back to you. The next part of the agenda is to talk about
-- the next part of the agenda is to talk about community and
responsibility.

>> Farzaneh:  Yeah.  Sure.  I'm going to be ever have brief here.  Well,
there's a lot to say, but we have nine speakers on this panel.  So as to
the stuff accountable, we have a group that's working on stuff ICANN stuff
accountable.  And there isn't behind working on stuff accountability
because staff is in charge of kind of -- well, most of the time coming up
with the reports and also implementing the recommendations of the community
and writing down.  For example, that was Robin.  Can we just tell her to
come here?  Yes.  And so -- and for example, if staff can advise the
community on the process and that advice is not correct, well, I think
staff members should be accountable for such actions.  So that's what --
that's the reason behind it.  That's why we have the staff accountability
to see how we can actually have staff accountable to the community.  And we
also worked --  we are working on recommendation for enhancing supporting
organizations and advisory Acountable.  We discussed this a lot, to whom
they're accountable to their stakeholder groups that are designated
communities that are indicated in the bilaws.  And, ah, for what they are
accountable, we are having -- so it's about representation and so an AC and
also NLAC should not be captured.  They're capturing mechanisms for
preventing capture and these are things that we are now discussing and how
to enhance the accountability of.  I have to say that these mechanisms
already exist in ACs.  They just have to be enhanced.  Thank you.

>> Moderator:  Thank you.  It is trying to apply some of the standards into
the organizations that are developing policy.  Is that one of the things?

>> Farzaneh:  Not all the criteria.  They're diverging. Some argue that we
are in the communities and cultures.  And the same thing that you do and
the ones that are going to get elected.  So we cannot have the exact same
standards. That's what we're discussing.  Yeah.

>> Moderator:  We're jumping around the agenda a bit. Not physically, but
-- anyway, the next discussion we're thinking about is we empower and talk
about service societies and interest and concerns about the new roles of
government that have been brought into place through the accountability --
through the recommendations and implementation of the new bilaws.  Further,
I know you began to touch on that in your previous comments, but if you can
expand on civil societies views and take into account Alan's point on
governments.

>> Alan Greenberg:  There was a distinctive society and people at large
with advisory committee that tended to support more power for advisory
committees oddly enough. So, there was a big debate about the GAC.  And
ICANN status as a non-governmental form of governance is very unique and
many people have always been concerned about governments inserting
themselves taking over.  Whereas at the same time, governments have given
advice that the board didn't always follow.  And there have always been
tensions caused by the fact that we put governments in a room by themselves
at ICANN meetings.  They developed their own ideas about what the policy
should be.  In the mean time, the rest of the community is over here
developing policy and at the end, the policy goes to the board from the
GNSO and then the GAC gives them advice and you enter into negotiations
between the board and the GAC.  And there can be a lot of conflict over
that process.  Now, one of the key issues was the GAC operational rules
which means when they give advice, what are the requirements for it to be
considered advice formally advice under the bilaws because if it is
considered advice, that means that the board has to enter into a
negotiation process with the GAC and even though it can ultimately reject
that advice, it has to go through a long process and it is pressured by the
bilaws to come to a reconciliation with the GAC position.  The GAC has a
lot ever last minute hold up power over the policy making process.  The
reform process wanted to make sure the GAC had informal advice if it had
complete consensus among its members.  No member of the GAC, no state
anywhere in the world would object to the advice.  As long as there was one
objection and the GAC could not be forming that advice.  At least a
fraction of the GAC didn't like this requirement at all and fought very
hard against it.  To cut a long story short, there was a bargain at the end
where they said in order to overturn GAC advice, it would make a little
higher thresh hold.  You have one more vote on the board; however, GAC must
offer advice through formal consensus making process.  Is it a member of
the community at all?  Or should ask be outside of that community offering
advice.  They wanted to be a voting member of the empowered community, but
they also wanted a special role of offering advice under the bilaws and
civil society members at least in the non-commercial stakeholder group were
very much against this and wanted them to make a choice.  Either you're
just another stakeholder group and your advice has no more authority than
anybody else's or you have and advice powers, but you're not a member of
the empowered community.  The compromise that was reached here is they did
become a part of the empowerd community.  Many of us are still
uncomfortable with that.  We think that if there is fights over censorship
or rights that governments might have trouble supporting the commu
community.  --

>> Robin Gross:  Hi.  My name is Robin Gross.  Some of the reasons why we
had to create these accountability reforms.  So, a couple of years ago when
we heard there was to be -- there may be a transition, pretty much everyone
in the ICANN community joined together and said there can be no IANA
transition wait accountability.  And right now, ICANN lacks accountability
and we need to do some fixes in that department before we can have an IANA
transition.  Really this was an unprecedentedd movement because all of the
stakeholder groups, everyone from the governments to civil society to
business, to the contracted partners, we're pretty much all on the same
page.  It was a diverse stakeholders that agreed that we need
accountability reforms before there can be any IANA transition.  Any U.S.
government seem to agree with the community and said that ICANN had to
listen to the community and undertake some of these reforms before there
can be the IANA transition.  So some of the problems that led to this
feeling routine violations of ICANN's bilaws, robberies with issues top
down policies that contradictd and superseded the up developed policies,
concern about empire building within the large government space for example
here in the IGF, concerns about mission create, very keen on getting ICANN
and involved and enforcement and expansion on intellectual property rights.
They were not supervising the staff and reconsideration requests for board
decisions were routinely denied.  So there was a lot of concern about what
were some of the problems with respect to ICANN accountability that needed
to be fixed before we could have an IANA transition.  So one of the major
reforms was the creation of this empowered community which is all these
different stakeholders come together and basically are granted new rights
over the board and to oversight of the organization.  So the empowered
communities created basically as a check on the ICANN board and staff.  And
some of the rights that were granted to the empowered community were things
like the right to recall board members, which is pretty typical in a
traditional nonfor profit organization.  We had a reason to appoint board
members, but we didn't have a right to recall them. So that was one of the
major reforms.  Another had to do with the empowered community having
oversight on the budget and the strategic plan that ICANN put forward.  And
another important reform was having the independent review panel process or
the IRP as it is called being more effective and accessible to the
community with respect to non-compliance of some of these ICANN policies
and bilaws.  So the empowered community, creation of that concept was a
major reform platform and glued a number of these.  Of course, one of the
major reforms also had to do with increasing transparency at ICANN because
the concern was that how can ICANN be accountable to the community if the
community doesn't know what is happening, what is going on.  We needed more
transparency.  And so we had reforms.  Some of these reforms, particularly
the transparency reforms are still in play, they're still being worked out
in work stream 2.  So there is still opportunity to get engaged and to join
in some of the working groups and work on some of transparency reforms.
Reforming the disclosure policy, which is coming to the information act
where you can get access to documents and information that led to the
decisions that were being made.  More transparency with respect to board
deliberations really trying to create a culture of transparency at ICANN,
turning that around.  We need more transparency with respect to discussions
with governments and the lobbying that goes on.  And we need a more
improvements with respect to ICANN's whistle blowing policy.  So these are
some of the thans pairencey reforms that are currently underway.  This work
is not at all complete.  So there's still a lot of opportunity to get
involved in the next couple of months and get engaged with some of these
transparency reforms in what we're calling work stream 2 at ICANN.  Thank
you.

>> Thank you.  Hello.  We got I think Robin's called for help is
particularly important.  The thing about work stream two we have a set of
discrete issues that people can get involved with.  You can see around the
room that many people are involved with ICANN, but the issues are complex
and there are many.  If you're working on some of them, it takes an
enormous amount of time and a great range of knowledge. What we're look
think at is some of the work stream 2erns that really call for expertise
that are quite specific topics.  An expert who understands transparency and
bringing transparency to organizations and our next speaker at then, Niels
is going to talk about human rights.  I knowledge that's also a very good
example of the type of specific expertise and knowledge that can be brought
into this process and calling to people at the IGF to get involved and help
people like Niels who is most definitely an expert.  So thank you.
Continue.

>> Niels ten Oever:  Thank you.  Before starting monologue issues, I will
ask stuff from you, people.  So you're going to get active.  I would like
you all to raise your hands right now.  Raise your hands everyone in the
audience.  You can take your hand down if you do not know the meaning of an
acronym.  GAC, PTI, CCWG, WS2, NCUC, ALAC, IANA, SO, AC.  So everyone who
has their hands up is not about you. [Laughter] [APPLAUSE] who are the
people that did not have their hands up.  Can they now put their hands up
now?  So you're the audience. [Laughter]

>> Moderator:bet most people don't know what the current definition of PTI
is.  Only the old one.

>> Niels ten Oever:  Let's not dive into the connoisseurs meeting taste.
We have ICANN meeting.  I think we're here to show people how to engage and
especially civil society in this process.  ICANN is not only relevant
because of the domain name system because actually that's a relatively
small part.  But another reason to have a close look at ICANN is that it
somehow developed model for the multistakeholder model.  So it's also
interesting for people from governance or people who are interested in
deliberative democracy and things like that.  So try also looking at that
through that lense.  And also try to understand how all these acronyms are
prohibiting other people from participation.  Right?  It is what
anthropology call our goal, which is a language that shows who is in and
who is out.  Right?  Soy if we really want to make this a credible
instrument and a way of doing governance, ask what is the -- is that we
should make it really accessible for everyone, not only the experts.
Because last ICANN meeting I realized it was the first time I did not feel
a complete outsider anymore.  After two years of participating and that
both frightens me and made me happy at the same time.  You know? You can
understand.  So a bit over a year ago, one and a half years ago, we asked
the chairman of the board Dr. Steve Crocker what he thought about ICANN and
human rights.  And he replied that human rights were all fine and good, but
he had no idea what it had to do with ICANN.  And here we are one and a
half years later, we have a commitment to human rights and ICANN's core
values.  So that is an example of how things -- when you swim through the
sea of everything can get done.  Well, can get done a bit.  Because the
commitment to human rights which manage to get in ICANN's bilaws is kind of
a bracketed bilaw or a sleeping bilaw that will only become active once a
framework of interpretation has been developed.  And that is what we're
currently working on in work stream 2.  So again the work streams, work
stream 1 was everything that happened up to the transition.  Work stream 2
is everything that happens after. And that is actually exactly a risk
because there is the risk of work stream 2 becoming the grave yard of the
potential of the IANA transition.  So, let's make sure that all the things
to be said that we should do during work stream 1 that we would do during
work stream 2 that we really get that done.  Now, for the human rights
work, we're making some good progress.  The first draft of the framework of
interpretation, we've reached agreement on that consensus in a sub-group.
And we're now going to discuss it in the plenary of the cross community
working group on enhancing ICANN's accountability and then the next part of
our work will be how do we go forward?  What will a framework of
implementation look like?  And we have things to look at at examples that
have been made, how other parts of the internet are doing so, but it is
really pioneering work.  We still haven't really worked out in detail how
non-state actors and insure they respect human rights, but multi-steak
holders and governance like ICANN are also still very strange beasts for
that concept.  So, if you want to join, it is a very interesting challenge
and you can make a change and you will learn a lot.  So, if you want, you
can join the traveling circus.

>> I'm not sure what we are in all of this.

>> Lots of plans.

>> Thank you.  I think so, Niels, is that a success or a failure of ICANN
process so far?  That's the next subject really is successes and failures
of where we are in civil societies view.  It sounds like you're saying that
from 18 months ago, there was a major barrier and now we've at least moving
ahead, the circus.

>> Niels ten Oever:  The circus always continues.  That's the thing.
Declaring success is something you shouldly to historians because we're
still so close to where we are, but I think what we have achieved and
agreement and a language within the community to make progress.  And so
I've maybe been a bit stepgen you'rous and I talked about all the language
and ooh briefiations.  Maybe this language is exactly what we need to
Connect people from very Technical Communities, diplomatic communities,
civil society communities.  We share different backgrounds, different
knowledge and different languages and sometimes to reach agreements, you
need to invent new words and new concepts in a negotiation to make a step
ahead.  So that is exactly what we're doing and whether that actually works
remains to be seen.  But I'm very hopeful.

>> Thank you because the next part we will have two speakers.  Excuse me.
Bhavana who's been one of the organizers of this session will talk about a
point of view as a new comer.  I think you joined into the CCWG work
account as someone who is new to ICANN and got very much involved in your
organization producing a lot of good work. So that's one point of view and
new barriers from a new comers perspective.  And we'll talk about expert
adviser to the accountability working group barriers, successes, challenges
and all of those things.  So I think if we can have those two things of
points of view with 4 or 5 minutes each, that would be an interesting way
to move forward with this.

>> So we have been following this process especially CCWG accountability
process over the last couple of years, you know, with participating as well
as the cause in the mailing list.  This is very fascinating study of multi-
stakeholder.  You tend to read about, but this was very real world case
that you were a part of on a day-to-day basis.  You could understand the
way the different stakeholders are coming together presenting the viewless,
the differences in opinions, the similarities in opinions across
stakeholder groups.  So we recently came out of the report where we studied
in the stakeholder and IG forum including ICANN, but we plan to extend this
accountability as well.  This is an extremely interesting example to look
at how even see the diversity that existed within a stakeholder group as
was mentioned a while ago. The IANA transition was eye huge draw for
newcomers.  It was something that drew the attention of the world and
brought in a lot of new fresh blood to the table.  So I would like to take
a couple of moments to talk about what it was like as a newcomer to
participate in the process.  When I joined, I jumped right in the middle of
the second public amend process that is going on accountability.  So it
takes months to be able to camp up to where the discussion is at. And
something that I thought could -- you have to do all the reading and you
have to go through the mailing list and the call transcripts, but one thing
I thought would help is what some groups do at ICANN is that they have
monthly updates of discussions that took place.  They have summaries and
that is something that definitely could help not just newcomers, but people
following the process closely.  We tried to do that with block posts that
summarize the things, but what is come work scream and one becomes
complicated in work stream with many sub-groups.  They have one or two
calls a week. Another barrier is not only does the catch up take a lot of
time, but the continue time commitment that is required, which is a huge
barrier to anyone wanting to join the process.  But I really don't see a
way around that.  I think that is something worth considering.  I think
that I noticed was that a lot of discussions tend to evolve around a few
people.  It is the same few people who are talking about multiple issues.
While that does bring in an element of stability and continuity, it becomes
difficult for someone new who is trying to join the process.  One thing
that does happen that you learn over time is that a way to break into this
would be through your stakeholder groups and through your constituencies.
So, working through the NCSU to raise your concerns and having that been
that CCWG accountability is an example.  But that is something that
newcomers would take a while.  Being on a CCWG call with that and you're
between 60 and 100 people and you're trying to raise an intervention or
raise a point can be overwhelming for quite a while for the initial few
months that you're on it. Overall, that has been an extremely fascinating
process and it remains to be (inaudible) which has a lot more extremely
important issues that have been discussed.  So that's all from me for now.
Thank you.

>> Moderator:  The issue of newcomers you have heard is somebody will make
a point and it will generally be ignored and one of the more experienced
members will make the same point and everybody responds.  That sounds like
being a man as well, but there you go.  If you see what I mean by that, I'm
sorry.  So yeah.  If you would like to -- okay.

>> Thanks, Adam.  I was indeed -- I don't know what I was in this process.
I think I was called an adviser.  I was an adviser in the process, but I
think I was called in because I was a researcher on civil society in global
governance. And in a sense, I was the same as Artie.  I'm making
observations of a similar kind to some extent.  I was asked by the
organizers to emphasize the limits to participation. Soiz bought this
qualified -- I'm going to follow my orders. But if I wasn't given those
orders, I would have done all these marvelous things because I do think
it's been an incredible experience and being incredibly creative, but I've
been asked to emphasize the lack of complete openness. So we have 5 points
along those lines.  I think we're using it to mean the non-commercial users
constituency plus ALAC. They have bigger constituencies and bigger
associations as opposed to firms themselves as being part of civil society.
And technical associations would be part of that.  The term civil society
I've witnessed in the two years to quite heated debates about whether the
civil society some be used in ICANN at all.  So anyway, put that as a
background.  But on these limitations, I observed civil society in general
to be some what on the sidelines when it came to crucial junk turns.  Yes
on the mailing lists and yes on the meeting hours and all that.  But
relative to business, technical and government communities, it was
relatively second and at the crucial moments, the discussions that were
outsided room that were in the corridors that were in the back rooms, I was
-- and at those moments, civil society wasn't there in terms of the things
you see.  So I think that it is good to be aware of where you weren't as
well as where you --

>> You can identify those moments?

>> Well, a lot of it would be in terms of being -- one -- well, let's say
there were calls that board and so on would make.  Sometimes it came to us
as advisers and there was no civil sort involved with the calls that were
not public.  I don't think I should go into more detail.  Let's just say
there were occasions and meetings and calls.  No matter how much is on
transcripts, a lot of stuff still happens on the phone behind the scenes.
I think that's -- when it gets really crucial and tough.  And then deals
are done behind the scenes and presented in the open forum and everyone
rallies around.  This is politics.  It's real politics.  I wouldn't
romanticize the multi-stakeholder arrangement. There's a lot of exciting
things.  And the other political process that I've observed, but it is a
political process and so people are trying to reach goals and people have
diverse power positions and they will use those power positions when it
comes down to it.  Anyway, I would say maybe a limited scope and a second
limit.  The limited scope of civil society.  I think by civil society,
we're talking about NGO's and research institutes and in particular social
movements were not involved in these processes.  So civil society is
formally organized, professionally staffed. That's the civil society that
was in the IANA transition and a wider civil society which would probably
regardd characterization of the process as being rather curious. Those
social movements at the bottom of society would say it was top down in a
curious way.  But anyway, people's definition are relative.  Depends on
where you are looking from.  A limitation is mentioned sometimes.  Access,
resources, it is such high barriers to entry.  Archie and I have been
fortunate enough to be able to get into this process.  Why?  Because --
well, we have to be very quick in learning technicalities and so on and so
forth.  Niels said it is after two years you can finally put the sentences
together.  You need considerable funding.  You need a lot of money to be
able to do this.  And really the remote participation is definitely
secondary.  Definitely secondary.  All those discussions in the corridors,
you can never do that when you are remote.  You really need high English
fluency.  The Native speakers don't realize or non-native speakers are
struggling to follow and all the humor and everything else that comes in is
quite difficult there.  A lot of cultural codes about dress, public
speaking, mailing lists, chapters.  You have to know how to do it.  It's a
global tribe that's moving around.  You have to know how the global tribe
works and most people find that quite difficult.  And then the social
capital being recognized as a member of the group.  I walked in the first
week and who are you.  I think there is some match.  You become part of the
gang and that's great, but it is only then you become to have some part of
civil society.  Once you are a little bit honest about that.  I think it is
some bigger structural hierarchies, geo political.  You look around those
IANA transition discussion rooms and the civil society that was
participating too.  A little bit from India which artee is an example.  But
as eye whole in north American and European, very little civil society
participation from other parts of the world from no participation from the
local areas.  Those are big parts there that are not there.  You name it.
The civil society it reflects and reproduces the structure hierarchies of
society at large and there is nothing different.  There is nothing
different here.  I'm not saying it is horrible.  You recognize it.

>> What is your -- so why are you -- so what are your expectations based
on?  Are you comparing ICANN to kind of like an international organization
or like a government? These expectations are just too high for I think such
an organization.

>> They're not expectations.  They're observations.  The observation would
be that you go to a civil forum.  You would fine different varieties.  The
social completionon, the cultural complexon, the range of argumentation
would be different than what you find here.  I was quite struck. Don't know
if it in the opening session someone from IT for Change who made a talk and
I'm endorsing the talk, but they talked about the -- things like the
despotism of an identified world and a digital capitalism and it's a
consumpative predatory Internet.  I'm not saying that I necessarily endorse
it, but it really showed where the limits of the discussion of civil
society insiders would be. And that kind of discussion would be outside.
That's just an observation.  It is not an endorsement or otherwise. Sorry.
I have gone on too long.

>> Very interesting.  We come towards questions and answers and comments,
it would be interesting to know if people have answers to these problems.
Do we have ways to do it better?  But that's not where we're at in the
agendaality the moment.  We would like Matth Matthew Shears to come in and
then we'll run on to some thoughts on strategies for the future and we'll
have -- Matt will talk a little bit to introduce those talks and then we'll
have Alan Greenberg will talk about civil society's thoughts for how to go
forward in this.  Marilia Marciel will do the same thing and at the end of
the table, we'll do the same.  What should civil society do as a strategy
both within this process, but perhaps thinking about some of the questions.
Comments, I know you heard them, but if you have a response to those and
then we can perhaps have questions and comments from everybody else.  But
Matt, over to you, please.

>> Matthew Shears:  Thank you for taking it to another level of
interesting.  That was very good.  I will come back to the comments you
made in a minute. So's bit like Niels, I came into this process at the time
when the transition was announced working for CDT and doing into that
governance.  It was decided in the organization that this was probably the
most important Internet Governance issue that we would face for this period
of time. And therefore, we should be involved.  Coming in, I had none of
this background or understanding of the steak holders and things you get
from being in ICANN for a period of time.  It was an interesting loading
experience.  What I did have was a general understanding and experience on
the Internet governance space as a whole.  That was a significant let go
when it came to understanding the ICANN environment.  So, if you're already
in this space, not necessarily in ICANN, it makes it a whole lot easier.
The point that YAN is making about how representative and how much
diversity there was in civil society or for that matter across the
stakeholders says a whole, I think we have to be very careful about how we
look at that because at the end of the day, the ICANN -- what ICANN does
and the space that ICANN sits in and its role and therefore, the
stakeholders engage in it and it is necessarily limited.  I think we have
to be careful about how we look and compares ourselves to.  So what did we
get out of this?  If you come to this set, I think we're here at this
session yesterday evening on ICANN post transition. And there was a whole
series of -- I asked much the same question as do what were the success
factors.  There were a couple of pages of them and I think that from a
civil society perspective, there were some important learnings that people
touched upon so far.  And rime going to exaggerate them a little bit.  So
for my civil society, colleagues don't jump all over me.  I think what the
IANA process did is it showed us the absolute value of having a common goal
across the stakeholders.  We find ourselves that odds as stakeholders
within ICANN and having this common goal was imposed from outside of ICANN
and then further elaborated on buying our own communities was roin credibly
valuable.  It forced us to be cooperative.  It forced us to compromise.  It
forced us to sit with individuals from other stakeholders groups.  And all
of those things within the framing of the ICANN work in the IANA process
really helped bring another level of awareness to how we can work together
on issues constructively.  It also encouraged us to be flexible but still
firm.  YAN might have some of background discussions, but I think we have
to be careful that we don't attribute some special magic dust process to
multi-stakeholderrism and multi-stakeholder models and working groups.  At
the end of the day, what we're talking about is group dynamics amongst a
group of sting holders that are often at odds with each other and are
seeking power of some sort or the other.  So to think there wouldn't be
back room deals going on is naive.  That's just the way the group dynamics
work.  We have to be careful in that sense in terms of understanding.
These things aren't special to ICANN or CCWGs.  This is just the way we
work at human beings and social entities.  So I think the big learnings
from my perspective is how important it was to sit down with other
stakeholders and how important it was to reach across the aisle and get up
at that white board or that flip board during the times when we were doing
the stress tests and talk through the various options that work for PTI.
We worked from completely different directions. Icame into this discussion
with a clear idea I wanted to see a completely separated IANA function.  It
didn't work out that way, but I think at the end of the day, as soon as we
were going to get with the parties in the interests that were around the
table.  I think that's at the end of the day what prevailed that sense of
common purpose.  I think unfortunately that sense of common purpose can
quickly dispate and I will come to that in a minute.  So a couple of
thoughts.  What do we need to be careful of or what can we built on going
forward?  There is things that came out of the IANA transition work that
have been touched upon already continue to bedevil civil society.  These
are issues we need to think about quite strongly and think about the
future. We have a participation challenge.  We still have a participant
challenge and civil society as a whole.  But again, we have to balance that
against the resources that are available, the space that we're in, which is
is a small very small detailed defined space that not many people want to
operate in in the first place.  We need a little bit of a real right check
there.  We also have a core versus periphery.  I think there is always the
four people doing all the work.  Well, that's absolutely true, but again,
that's a group dynamic thing.  But that same challenge that we found in
ICANN, we find in civil society in ICANN more broadly.  Again, we need to
think about how we address that going forward.  It has not gone away T. is
still there.  It is more a function of group dynamics and again, something
for us to address as we go forward.  The learning coming out of the IANA
working groups that was we can actually get over that.  We can actually co-
chair and Niels has only been in ICANN for two years, but he's co-chairing.
So in many way, chairing.  This can happen.  So you can get beyond the
three or four people of the core.  The difficulties we face I think are not
so much about resources or funding.  People will take me to task on this.
It's not so much about the language.  But it's about the expertise that you
can bring to the table because that is where the difficulty lies. There is
is a huge amount of ICANNa in all that goes on across the different policy
development processees, across the whole scope of the organization,et.
That expertise is something you only get by being in this space for a
considerable period of time and that's a reality.  So bringing people up to
speed is great.  There is still a limitation.  We have to do with that as a
civil society. Couple other things.  Accountability.  Accountability is a
key issue that we've dealt, vis-a-vis ICANN.  We're now dealing in work
stream 2 vis-a-vis supporting the organizations and the advisory
committees, but we also need to deal with it ourselves.  This is another
issue that we can't duck and we need to continue to work at it.  And then
finally, again I will come back to one thing I think is really important.
We work together across stakeholders. The moment and now this is my
personal experience.  The moment that transition occurred, we have seen a
folding back into our stakeholders silos.  Interest and concerns that were
there before had bubble d to the surface again.  One we're thinking about
how do we change the bilaws and the different parts of the community to
reflect that ICANN's new bilaws are already seeing these things come back
to the surface?  So my -- certainly I would urge this community to think
how do we keep that common purpose alive when we're looking at the future?
How do we continue to work with stakeholders and work constructively,
compromise about we need to, make sure it's across the board compromise and
I think we can find ways for it.  So I hope that set us up for a next part
of the conversation.  Thanks.

>> Moderator:  Thank you, Matt.  Yes.  Let's move ahead. Alan, would you
like to think about strategies for the future and how we're responding to
the accountability development.

>> Alan Greenberg:  I will talk a little bit about our experience in the
process first because the answer to your question directly follows from it.
You can see from the little interaction of Milton and I in the beginning,
we were not in lockstep with civil society on many of the issues. On many
others, we were very much in agreement, but there certainly were some
strong differences.  We ended up in a position where I think we upon pretty
well satisfied with most of what we ended up with.  In some cases, it was a
hard time getting there, but certainly we're moderately satisfied.  How we
did it I think is perhaps a lesson in going forward.  We had a pretty good
commitment of people working on both the CWG Stuartship and the CCWG
accountability.  Between 5 and 7 people heavily committed to it in terms of
either being members or being very active participants.  And, you know,
despite YONG's comment from all regions, we had a lot of very active
participation from Africa, for instance, which was relatively uncommon in
the grouping as a whole.  We worked as a team.  Although, we often
disagreed with each other on specific points and if you listen to the
various people talking, you'd see that.  But overall, those differences
were also discussed outside of the actual meetings.  We did -- we had
coordination meetings that rival the number of hours that the CCWG and CCNG
held.  That was not only coordination meetings of the people involved in
the group, but a much wider community.  So when we went into a meeting, we
could speak with some assurance and we were talking about what at large,
not just the person who was speaking felt. Occasionally, there were
differences.  That prep work, I think, helped a lot because it allowed us
to look at the various options and try to understand what we really wanted
to achieve and at the same time what we could live with. And in almost
every junction point, we outlined both of those.  So sure.  We will push
for this, but we can live with something else.  And those changed over the
period of time as the things that the particularly the CCWG we're looking
at varied and the mods we looked at very heavily over time.  We had moving
targets on both what we wanted to achieve, what we thought we might be able
to sell and wa we could live with.  And I think going into it with that
kind of prep work allowed us to both speak with some what unified voice,
occasionally not, but usually.  I think that help -- that's one of the
things that helped us move forward.  At the same time, we did lots of back
room core door destructions with other people and tried to find common
ground both with other parts of civil society, with other parts of the
ICANN community overall to make sure that what we were talking about was
something that was going to be sellable.  There was no we were going to get
what we wanted to the exclusion of everything else.  And I think that
overall methodology that we used then is a good model for moving forward
and how do we do it and we're containing that on the work stream to as
well.  Thank you.

>> Moderator:  Marilia, would you like to follow up on that.

>> Marilia Marciel:  This is Marilia speaking.  I was asked to talk about
lessons learned and with so many experts in the room, maybe it would be
more useful if I try to draw a conclusion to multi-sting holdinger
processors.  One is IANA dansition and the second one is the Net Mundual
meeting.  It is interesting because I am sure most of you are familiar with
it, but it was a meeting organized in 2014 by Brazil.  After the snowedden
relvacations, the meeting was intense and it turned a very bad environment
it was fractured and fragmentation and into something positive.  It created
the environment for a positive multi-stakeholder collective response to a
challenge.  So I think that some lessons can be drawn if we compare the
true processes, but the first point is the need for us to document the IANA
transition and I say that because after Net MUNDIAL, one of case study was
-- it is not a document you can find on a website.  You try to document a
process like this and you 93 to go to the drafting and documents and
negotiation positions so much valuable material is exchanged through e-
mails, for instance.  Not so public and (inaudible) public but you need to
know what you're looking forward to find an e-mail in the pile of e-mails
that get exchanged in this list.  So it is very hard for someone who is not
deeply involved in the process to be able to document.  So one of the
things that I urge is for us to document this process because I am sure
that it will be extremely valuable when another one similar and vented
manner.  I think what both process have in common is they show it was
possible to produce a concrete multi-stakeholder outcome.  For those of us
that are in the Internet Governance, we know that this was (inaudible).
Many people said that spaces that are multi-stakeholder like TIGF are too
diverse to produce something that was meaningful.  I think that the IANA
transition showed it was possible for the community to work together and so
did NET MUNDIAL.  Going back to a few lessons we extractd and tried to
bring them here to the table.  The first one is that trust is key to the
process to work.  NET MUNDIALhelped it to draft the outcome document.  It
seems that trust was very much placed in the process itself.  The multi-
stakeholder dialogue that happened in the transition was very much
structured.  The parameters for the transition were a very clearly put
forth boy NTIA.  We knew what we had to do for the transition to be
approved.  We knew which were the red light and this was something very
important and there were also key rules of engagement.  If you wanted to
payment, you knew exactly what to do to be part of one of these committees.
Building trust into the process is something very important if you can
align thrust into the process and trust into the people and even better.
The second lesson from NET MUNDIAL is the committees were an important way
to engage to give this bottom-up nature to the outcomes that were produced.
It's very important to reach out to the grass roots levels of each cons tip
of kinsy and the fact that the composition of these groups are reflected
and it is very important.  In Net MUNDIAL, we had the transition
coordination group.  We had the CWG accountability.  The fact we expressed
the diversity of the community into this working groups is a very important
as well.  The third one would be specialization of tasks and the assistant
of assistance of experts.  The topics are so diverse that you cannot just
expect to understand everything.  If you go into accounted ant discussions,
the person that gets very specialized in what is going on in human rights
will probably not be the saint one that gets specialized on transparency.
So we need people that are really digging deep and we need to bring many
times external experts to the process.  That's what we did in Mnet MUNDIAL.
There were organizations that specialize in human rights. We have here in
the IANA transition organizations ARTICLE 19 and otherrings that got
involved in the process and when we specialize and put name tags into the
boxes that we are discussing, it becomes visible as well that we're talking
about human rights.  It would not be clear for them what they're going to
do in the IANA transition.  But because we said there's a human rights
discussion, then they show the process and found their box and became
evolved.  So this specialization is important as well.  The importance of
on site participation and on line participation is something that ICANN
does very L. I do take the point that many times if you don't attend the
meetings, you lose the corridor dynamics.  Most of the decisions or the
outcomes were the final line because people were not seeing each other.
They were spread across the globe.  The moments in where the discussions
moved forward were during the calls.  So it helps to leverage the few for
those that cannot real attend the meetings face to face and that was a very
good thing. Another thing that I think that we need to document it somehow
is that U.S. dynamics after we had the propizza. That was -- proposal.
Other actors from across the globe when the transition started to be an
issue in the U.S. congress, we just lost the capacity to participate and I
think the organizations in the U.S. did a very good job in following up the
discussion in the congress and what they did on the national level is very
important to document and to take into consideration as well.  So let's
document the process while we can and while it is fresh in our memories.
Thank you very much.

>> Moderator:  A couple of PHD topics.  Milton, you can get a few of those
together.  Study the transition and create a doctor.  Klaus, please, if you
make some observations.

>> Klaus Stoll:  Let's go back to the circus.  The circus took 2 and a half
here's and put together the best possible program.  We've all proud of it.
It's a wonderful program. But yes.  We worked together.  And it worked.
But what about our audience?  I think we have to look at in the foot if we
have to do two things.  We have to actually let the world know that I can
exist at -- these processes exist and not be a circus which tip toes, the
elephants tip toe into town in the miss of the night and lines have taken a
vow of silence.  We have to become more vocal in governance and what we're
actually doing.  So the second part is quite simply I think we forgot one
fundament basics is what we are doing and what we are trying to do is
secure and stable. This is a product.  But I think the value proposal,
which is a DNS is over the last so many years is now getting lost more and
more to the people who actually are using it.  The reasons for that is
simple things like social media, but there's also privacy and security and
things like that.  We have to work on reestablishing the proposal of the
DNS.  The second point as you might have noticed, the second thing is that
yes.  We have in our circus the jugglers.  We have the people who train
animals.  We have people who play the band. And once we constructed our
wonderful program we worked together, but now we all come back to doing our
own thing and forgot own that our product and our show is ten times better
when we actually have an elephant -- a line riding an elephant and have
some music on top of it.  We have to do that to learn and get the culture
to work together and not just trying to find Auld the compromise by talking
things out, but also to think about and work on learning and incorporating
by doing it.  I think the outcomes are much better if we're trying to work
on the win-win situations and look at just simply what is the lowest
possible common terminated. The last one I changed this morning because I
mentioned it before and, Farzaneh, correct me.  We have to free the slaves.
One simple society we're really in a situation where you all mentioned it
in one way or another.  We are -- all the people we are dealing with are
financed in one way or another.  Matthew is right when he says you need a
long, long time.  If you're not age to do that, you need to -- I can't
develop that expertise and knowledge and in depth and equality and
widespread of opinions.  So what we have to do as a civil society look now
also how we actually can get ourselves in a more fair financial footing and
get these things going.  I think there are models and ways.  It's just now
the time after the transition to seriously look and say hey, how can we
deal with it?  So I know this has been said before, but I thought it would
be repeating.  Hail to the traveling circus.  After we once said, the
Internet has that curious urge to travel and I think she's a wonderful
sentence.

>> She is right.  We do send to travel a lot.  Thank you very much.  We got
two people asking for the floor.  So first of all over here and then the
gentleman here.  I think I stole the mobile mic.  So I'll start walking
around.

>> Thank you, Adam.  Sorry.  I was a member of the, some CUC constituency
some time ago.  That was -- sorry?  We're not active now.  I once was
active and a representative.  I just wanted to get back to the observations
made by YAN AARTI.  The first question was:  What were the expectations and
what was he comparing to?  And he's right to say those observations, but if
you want to frame it in terms of expectations, I will say the words that we
use, the words that we use there are expectations embedded in them. When
you say we are a civil society and someone shows that there are a lot of
serious movements that are not respectd in your civil society, then the
sales why not.  Why we are observing all those civil society components
that are outside and they are not reflected here.  So I think it's related
to the question to be raised.  And I think it was Matthew who at the end
said the interpration we have is the availability of expertise.  But yes.
That's true.  But the expertise, you (inaudible) that a lot of people are
trying to attend these meetings and trying to keep up with the date of work
that is going on.  But because it is in English, they don't raise the same
pace as you.  And they won't get that expertise as quickly as you.  So
that's a problem and it was not that long ago that all the ICANN documents
were exclusively produced in English.  That was not long ago. And even now,
they are producing multi-languages most of the time if not all the time.
Those are the final documents that I translated in those multiple
languages.  So there's a lot of work that has -- that is involved in
getting to those final documents.  How do you want to get people from
different corners of the world speaking not being that comfortable in
English as you to contribute expertise.  If they're not contributing
because they're looking expertise, but is they don't have the language to
convey, on their insides and maybe the expert ease they've got -- expertise
they're got.  I want to improve those challenges.  Thank you.

>> So my name is -- I am based in the Canada.  I will just make a quick
comment on the participation issue.  It's my first -- it is by first Ig F
meeting -- IGF meeting and I suspect most of the critickists that were made
about participation and I haven't seen it in practice, but my gut feeling
is they're correct, but I am sympathetic to your question.  How do you
compare is because the of the multi-stakeholder forums and I am here
instead of the OGP in Paris that was timed at the same time, another big
meeting. I think that this one is a lot better that we're having this
discussion at all.  I was surprised to see that you can register as a newby
and get assistance or whatever.  One criticism that has an impolice it
recommendation, many have -- there are far too many speakers and time
limits which were not enforced leading to the result that there was less
than 10 minutes for audience participation and questions, which is not only
a pass participatory failure, but an efficiency challenge because I presume
there's a lot of expertise around the room that could have engaged better.
In terms of transparency, it is an area which my organization is highly
specialized in.  Although I haven't been involved in it at all, my
colleague Michael Conia a colus has been quite engaged in this.  I don't
know exactly. I am desperately e-mailing him trying to get the update, but
I think there were some working this area.  I would point to some headways
and end up with one recommendation.  Many people have said that this is an
odd looking beast.  It's not NGO.  It's not an IGO.  It is a multi-
stakeholder governorrance entity used to describe it.  But I think that's a
challenge in terms of looking for mods and the kinds of places you're going
to look NGOs and IGOs have very poor track record is on transparency and
transparency policies.  So please don't look to those constituencies. And
the policy comes out and is a robust world leading one that I think there's
a real opportunity within this form. Within ICANN to set and storm
globally.So some head wind; it took us the open community 10 years of sort
of heavy battling with the international financial institutions to shift
them because they had started out in the wrong way. If you do that, it's
going to take 10 years to move from that too.  I learned from that
experience.  There will be a lot of opposition.  There will be a lot of
players.  There always are a lot of players that are resistant to openness
especially the kind of radical moves of openness that are now becoming
common place at the national level due to technologies and just changing
values around information. And then finally in terms of my recommendation,
I think it's probably an area where civil society whatever exactly that is,
but quite a few of the stakeholders can probably come together and form a
strong lobby.  It's an area where we find it is very easy to unite
stakeholders who are more outside of the process and governments and power
brokers inside of the process are resistant to that.  I think bringing
together the study really strongly to fight hard for top level transparency
is a very important goal.

>> Moderator:  You are right about the timing.  I apologize for that.  We
have a remote question.  Yes.  Thank you.  If you can go to that.  The
remote question and then I have Matt and Farzaneh and the gentleman here.
If you read the remote, that would be great.

>> Okay.  We have a remote participation from -- I'm sorry for the
pronunciation.  Hello, everyone.  Apologies for not being there in person.
I will start with a big thank you for all the participants and speakers
sharing their insights.  This is an engaging discussion that's brought out
engaging discussions and insights.  It is inherit the diverse nature and
rather fragmentd views are challenges to working any stakeholder model.  My
question: Where did you experience observe the most during the IANA
transition?  Examples of substantive issues.  I am giving this -- I'm
sorry.  I'm giving the continuing opportunity with work stream to how can
this challenge be addressed in the future from a procedural perspective?  A
related point of discussion is consense of building aligning point of view
for civil sort actors.  If yes, then how best can we achieve this?  My
question is open to anyone wishing to share their perspective on this, but
I would love to hear professor shut and professor (inaudible) on your
thoughts.

>> Moderator:  I think we're out of time to answer the question and we have
it on record.  Can I ask the people who have spoken.  There's a gentleman
here who hasn't spoken.  I don't recognize you.  So somebody who might be
new to ICANN, if you would like to make a comment, observation or question,
then --

>> Ask the question?

>> Moderator:  Yeah.  It may be difficult to answer.

>> Thank you.  My name is Alex.  Internet freedom advocate and former
member of parliament in Iran.  It's vice chair.  I have two questions.  I
understand that previous CEO of ICANN testifyd in congress about the
proposal and later on, I think in September 2016 and the new CEO testified
again in congress about this proposal.  I would like to get an update from
the position of congress because it should be approved there, I think, the
proposal. And the second question, my second question, you know, after the
election, U.S. election because this proposal and activity happening around
Obama Administration.  What is your analysis that will happen later on in
the new administration, the position of the new U.S. administration in that
regard.  Thank you very much.

>> Moderator:  Just very quickly on that is that the translation has
occurred.  So the United States government no longer has its previous role.
It has stepped back and has ended.  So the congress has no particular role
as of now.  And it would be what happens in the future happens in the
future, but there is -- there are positions on this.  So I will probably
try to find them and share them with you. Thank you.  We have to close the
session.  Thank you very much.  The remote moderator.  Thank you to the
speakers and everybody else.  So you can close.  Thank you very much.

Workshop ended at 4:32 p.m. CST.

BPF-IXPs-room 7

>> Participation remote streaming is to be ready.  We just have to wait one
or two more minutes.

>> It seems we are okay to start.  Welcome, all of you. It's great to see
you here in the room.  Apologies we started off a little bit late, but we
had to wait on a late incoming flight.  Welcome to this year's bet practice
forum into the exchange points.  My name I'm Wim Degezelle.  It was a
pleasure for me to work with the group of people that were involved in this
year's best practice to come up with not only documents, but also organize
this workshop and some other work.  We will tell you about.  I will quickly
take you through the agenda of today's meeting.  I will give a short
introduction on BPFs and let you know wa we have been done and then the
main part of our work will start.  First of all, we will have Bastiaan who
will tell you for the people that are not coming from an IXP and he'll
clearly explain what an Internet exchange point is and why it is important
and why it can be great value to have one in your community.  After that,
we will have a long are panel discussion.  I will leave it to the panelists
later on to introduce themselves.  Who will explain -- who will explain
what I have been doing in their IXPs and their communities and come up to
discuss best practices that can be used in other parts of the world so that
people can learn.  And last but not least, we will have a little look out
on where there are other forms, other possibilities to find information on
IXPs and exchange best practices.  I don't know.  You can move the slide.
I think we -- you can go already to the second slide. So the best practice
forms for people that are not aware of the concept is part of the IGF's
Intersessional work. You have one IGF meeting and then a year almost
nothing. And then the next one.  I. sessional work started to get the
community involved, have people work discussing on specific topics.  So
there is something happening in between the sessions and the longer
continuation.  Specific for best practice forms is that it starts from a
very, very simple concept namely the concept is there is a lot of
knowledge. There is a lot of experience in the community, but it's not
spread equally everywhere.  Not everybody in every organization or in every
part of the world has the same knowledge, has the same experiences.  Best
practice forms are there to collect those knowledge and bring those people
together so that it can exchange their information, but also collect it,
produce it, put it in one resource and then in a way give it back to the
community so that they can use it, can look into it and look at what's
happening in other parts of world and use it to their benefits.  Next
slide. Sell best practice forms started to the work after the  the last IGF
meeting.  It continued its work that started last year.  They started to
work and I think it's very important to look at the forms in terms of their
outputs.  I think their outputs are not only documents.  They're first of
all the information sharing that happened during the year.  The fact there
was a mailing list where people came together to discuss best practices,
the fact that it were regular virtual meetings that were open for people
from the community.  Where they could come up and say look.  This is
something interesting.  This is an important example to share with other
people in the world.  Also because they're proud of the work they have done
and others could make use ot it.  So I think the that's the first very
important output of the best practice form for the process to bring people
together to discuss.  The second part is have people in the room and you
will hear from experience from the panelists, but also hopefully we'll get
some input, further input from you, experiences from your country.  I think
that's on its own a second input.  And then last but not least, there will
be a document that there is a draft document online on the IGF website with
experience with the input.  That document will be produced together with
additional information we get today.  It will be finalized after the IGF
meeting and will be available to everybody online on the community to make
use for it.  Okay. I think that's enough from me to give you the boring
lecture on what we have been doing.  I think it's time to hear more
interesting story.  First we'll hear from Bastiaan who will give a brief
description on what's a United States point and the second element as
important that you all understand the value of it and why it is important
and what it is comparing to the community.  Bastiaan?

>> Bastiaan Goslings:  Thank you very much, Wim.  Good afternoon, everyone.
I am Bastiaan Goslings.  I work for the internet exchange and the
regulatory fair as a spokesperson.  As we mentioned, I was asked to briefly
introduce this session and touching on the topic of IXPs, what are they and
what functionality do they perform.  Most importantly, of course, what are
the benefits of having one? What can be the spin off of having a well
functioning Ix P. And there are some other points I would briefly want to
talk to you about.  I have to say that both the definition and the
advantage of having one.  I took from the draft document that Wim referred
to best practice form on IXPs outcome document.  I would highly recommend
anyone to read it and to give you feedback on it.  But that's a starting
point I took especially chapters 1 and 3.  So before I talk about an
Internet exchange, I would another first look at the internet itself.
After all, we are at the internet governance forum.  I'm sure all of you
are aware that once you Connect to the Internet, maybe if you had the hotel
Wi-Fi network or you fool you are able to contact with every other end
point connected to this wonderful big thing called the internet.  A machine
or an application running on a machine, everything is available.  Actually,
it is no one thingd internet.  It is a collection of thousands of
independently managed networks which we call autonomous systems.  There are
more than 55,000 of them.  So, if you have 55,000 of those independently
managed and run networks, how is it possible if you Connect to the Internet
experience -- for you it feels like one thing.  Well, the way that works is
that these networks need to Connect to each other.  Seems very obvious, but
there's a lot of them. So how does that work?  As a document describes,
there are two forms of underconnecting IP networks.  The first one is
called transit, a paid for service.  It is willing to Connect to the rest
of the the internet and there's a large everybody network that sells a
transit service to the smaller network.  You pay us a certain fee and then
we will see to it that you are reachage with the other networks and you as
a customer network will be able to reach the rest of the Internet.  So
that's called transit.  And there's necessarily mean that this particular
transit provider has global Connectivity.  So they will need to Connect
with other networks as well.  But I don't want to make it too complex at
the moment.  Next to transit, we have another concept called pairing.
Pairing is the direct InterConnect between two networks where they exchange
traffic of themselves, of their own users and customers.  They agree with
each other and feel they are interested to do so.  They agree let's
InterConnect directly and exchange traffic and we do so without any further
payments.  So most of the time it is then free of charge because it is in
both the networks.  So end users can exchange with each other.  They have
providers and it means -- they may be called private InterConnect.
Networks directly Connecting to each other. You can imagine if those
networks Connect to each other and do so, it will become very, very
complex.  There are too many connections you need to manage.  So then a
second form of that comes to mind.  That's what we call public pairing.
Public pairing brings us to the concept of Internet exchange.  There is a
community exchange.  You can find out on the IXF website.  That's the
global relation of -- internet exchange association.  A meeting at exchange
point is network facility.  You have a connection of more than two
independent systems primarily for the purpose of facilitating the exchange
of Internet traffic.  So it is a network facility and it interconnects more
than two autonomous systems.  We established that.  We know the network too
is connected.  Otherwise we don't feel that it is one that we -- first of
all, connected to an Internet exchange can reduce networks operational
costs.  The establish the fact that if you use a transit, you have to pay
for it.  We also established the fact that managing a lot of private
interconnects is complex, but it is also going to be costly.  Every
InterConnect will cost you a rout router port.  The Internet exchange you
can Connect with all the other networks that are present there.  So that
means you are stating your network operation costs.  Another important
point of having an Internet exchange is when local networks connect to you
and traffic exchange traffic with each other and that particular traffic
can stay local. That's also beneficial in terms of cost.  Who knows what
happens.  Maybe it goes international and then it comes back.  The so
called effect that's being mentioned a couple times before today.  Local is
an important part of it.  And can you imagine it networks directly Connect
to the internet and exchange traffic with each other, that particular
performance imagining the content provider and content is delivered much
faster, at least potential works much faster than having -- having via
transit provider.  This protection is also very important.  The fact that
the networks Connect via the Internet exchange gives it more control.  You
know you appear and you know who you are exchanging your prefixes and your
prefixes and you determine your peering policy and that means you have more
control of how your traffic is routed.  You can imagine paying a transit
provider for it. Have good enough quality for a good enough price, but
actually use and have control of how the traffic is routed. So that's also
a benefit of pairing.  Having control of your routing offers more stability
as well combined with the fact you have InterConnects, you have transit and
the Internet in a particular period.  You have connections available.  That
increases the stability especially stability of your local internet.  As I
mentioned because of the cost savings, you can reach the Internet exchange
as a network.  These cost savings will trickle down.  So that's been
beneficial for the local Internet community.  The last advantage that we
touched upon is a good exchange and all of the developing things that we
mentioned will contribute and stimulate local developments.  So it comes to
long-term investments in the infrastructure and we mentioned the pant that
we had a performance and enterprises and usage.  That would be available
and it has developmentd that head off, but also local content that would be
made available.  So it's like a case that (inaudible).  I think -- I had a
couple of other points.  I would like to allow because I am out of my time.
I hope it gave you some review of what it is to Connect some I am going to
have the functionality and exchanges.  Thank you very much.

>> Thank you very much, Bastiaan.  Very interesting.  I'm pretty sure that
most of the people or a lot of people in the room know very well and
probably know way better than I do what an IXP is doing and how it is
functioning.  I think it's -- thank you very much also to via the benefits
for the local community and the function to touch upon the team of the IGF
to say look.  If you have an IXP, it can help to develop your local
Internet community.  That way it can contribute to inclusive growth of the
Internet.  So the team of the IGF.  I think it's time now to go and dive
into concrete examples, hear what people are doing and how they are running
their IXP.  Before we go there, I want to make one specific point.  The
BPF, the best practice form really practice on everything that is not the
technical part of how IXPs work because there are plenty of other forums
with very specialized people that can help you with that.  The best
practice form is there to really look at an IXP and how it is run.  Last
year we focus more on the environment and how can the right environment
help to develop an IXF this year. That's still important, of course, but we
try to move further and dive into how an IXP can be managed and successful
and what can be done to help them grow and play their role at the fullest.
Time now I give the floor or panel and our panel lead is Jane Coffin.
Thank you very much for joining and also for participating in the work of
the forum.  The floor is yours.

>> Jane Coffin:  Thank you very much.  Welcome to the IXP practices.  I
will try to speak slowly because I have a tendency to speak very fast.  We
will speak slowly.  The panellives will have five minutes each to explain
their perspective of the best practices and what the situations in the
countries that they're coming from.  I just want to note that last year has
been said that it was more of a start up phase of IXP.  We're now looking
at thing out phase and looking at professional IXP on some of those best
practices. As a level set, the IXP can help create as Wim had said this
whole Eco system not only keeping local traffic local for better quality of
service, faster traffic, a better Technical Community as well because you
have experts being trained from IArs to other IXPs.  We have many people in
the room from cabasy that IXP in Argentina to my colleague Christian and
they do some work with respect to IXPs as well.  So we have lots of
experience in the room.  Can everyone just raise their hand if you're
either an IXP, have worked with IXPs in the past?  You can see -- if you
have questions, please ask afterwards as well.  I want to note that in this
region, we have IXs like the one in Ecuador that's deploying our PKI.
There's training that goes on from team to team of IXpictures and again
with the IARs. Local content development can be accelerated thanks to local
hosting which can be triggered by having an IXP.  Value added services like
time servers, route mirrors and local hosting companies coming is go the
IX.  So we will focus on what that leveling experience is and I will turn
over first to BDIX of banga dish to Sumon Sabir.  It is over to you for
five minutes.

>> Sumon Sabir:  Thank you, Jane.  Bang  Bangladesh in the 1990s well they
started the internet, it is connected research and somebody is down looting
to singa fore and some in Hong Kong and some in Frankport.  They may be
sitting in an apartment, but if they want to transfer a file, it travels
almostd whole world.  So we thought we should have one.  Otherwise we
cannot survive.  We had a lot of discussion, debate, finally before we
agreed to an item and we set up an IX.  In the very short time, we saw the
performance that all IXPs started to join.  It was a membership built.  And
we have an opening policy and I try to PCH to help us technically as well
as a policy relations. So we didn't do some mistake with some of the IXP we
saw earlier.  From the beginning, we would have our data and all in a very
short time.  They're considered as another good IXP.  It keeps local and
performs amazing from this time or that time.  Now actually we move to 1
gig in activity. That's the beginning.  Only five minutes time.  We have
around 75 plus member.  All IXPs, development, controllers, content
providers and it becomes a hosting place for the route servers and some
like that last and some order.  So enables environment for the internet.
So we get to any kind of query every -- all the still lead and four servers
are there.  So for that local (inaudible) is really playing an amazing role
at this moment.  Now, we have a channel seeing why they became interested
and would like is to have a license at this point.  There's a stretch
policy that all the IXPs should be purely digital.  They're starting to
cover a little bit physical at all.  Now you understand and now it is time
to make the government understand that it is not a very good idea to do
that at this point.  Thank you very much.

>> Jane Coffin:  Give me a minute.  I have to reset the clock here.  Thanks
to the team in Brazil.  I want to make one point about the government.  For
IXP, it is very important to work with government to develop a good
relationship and I think this is something you're highlighting because if
you don't, you may misunderstand your role.  And that's an important thing.
And then you have something to say.

>> Wim Degezelle:  Yes.  I want to say the different case studies or the
different people talking on the table here there is a larger case study or
a case study in our document.  If you want to read more about what we have
today, they're reflected with?  You can find it also by the Internet
governor ants website home page.  Next is Antonio Moreiras.  This is one
ever the larger systems of the IXP. Brazil is a very big country, but I
think you have 26 now. Over to you.  They don't want to hear from me.

>> Antonio Moreiras:  The non-profit organization that is related to the
true internet committees that is stakeholder committee that is the most
important lookout organization in Brazil.  We have network BR a lot of dink
functions related to the internet.  We manage the local CCLD.  We are the
local, the national internet registry.  It means that we registered with
the IP on the autonomous systems working together with lock need.  We have
a lot of projects and true foster development of the Internet in Brazil.
One of them is IX.VR.  The Internet exchange.  So, we found the Internet
exchange with the money that comes from the domain names. The doname names
we charge about $12 per year, per domain. Dot com, dot VR.  There are about
4 million names registered.  So it is our source of financial research for
all other projects Nick.VR takes care of including IX.  We have 26 exchange
points in Brazil.  We have a model where we at Nick.VR create and manage
this Internet exchange, but we have an agreement to private our even --er
even government university that the centers host points of connection of
our IXPs.  So, we call it it's a point of interconnection for the IX.  So
for example, in Sao Paulo, we have Internet exchange that have very
different points of connection.  One of them or two of them are data
centers that are own it by Nick.VR.  They are the center of the Internet
exchange.  But the others are our commercial data centers that collaborated
to create it.  So, they give us the space, energy, et cetera.  We put the
implement.  Very well.  For now, we don't charge the parts of the Internet
exchange for our users.  It's free of charge for them.  And we are starting
to think of more sustainable because we have the money domains growing this
way kind of a linear way and we have the money that we have to spend with
internet exchange going this way.  Some sometime in the future, the two
things we will cross, we have a problem.  Then we are trying to get more
sustainable model and we are going to charge for the parts at least in Sao
Paulo and Rio dejanarrow.  We have a lot of concentration in Sao Paulo.
There are two or three million IXPs and the other are malware ones.  We are
also working to -- trying to attract the CDNs and the other content to this
mother IXPs in order to be more interesting for IXPs to Connect and for
them to grow more in a more sustainable way.  Please next slide. Okay.  No
slide.  No time too.  No problem.  Just one marking.  With -- we have a
vision about the development of the Internet.  So we had in the first place
the Internet core with TR one networks and the other autonomous systems
connected to the one.  Then we evolve to a model that we call done it
Internet where the aircraft S or the smaller IXPs and autonomous systems in
the border that connected between and help with that a lot.D consideration
DN is on the content and infrastructure is growing on the Internet. I think
our IXPs have to think about this to create conditions for the CDNs and the
content providers to put their caches inside the IXP or connected to the
IXP so the content be available.  I think this is the main challenge.

>> Jane Coffin:  Thank you very much.  That was Antonio from Nick.BR.  We
now have an IXP.  Carlos riverra.  Carlos, POR favor.

>> Carlos Vera:  I am Carlos Vera.  We are helping to the IXP Ecuador to be
in data way.  I have light presentation. Please next slide.  We finishedd
situation and we have four or five big players for Internet in Ecuador like
in English countries.  2 or 300 small IXP.  So in a sorry symmetrical
competition and prices for sure in a short time, and known friendly and
users for IXP.  Ecuador is a small country that you can see there.  The
lines -- the letters in white and in yellow and the points you can see
where the notes of the IXP are now in this project we are developing or
help to develop it.  So with this situation, the economy of the small and
mediums -- small IXP was not so good and then we have -- we rephrased the
situation or the economic scenario was the worst.  So we decide to organize
these guys in order to make -- in order to share or to add one capacity
from one small IXP to another and have the numbers that they need or ask to
give us a servers.  But we have two or three main problems in order to do
that.  The first one goes the lack of knowledge of technical knowledge.  So
we go to ISO, Internet society has a lot of papers about this shade, a lot
of experiences.  We see six different mods of how to incorporate and IXP
from an NGO for mode and we analyze some best practice.  They show around
the world.  So we learn a lot from this kind of paper.  Also help a lot of
people like Christian.  All the time was advising us and shading knowledge,
answering e-mails and talking with different actors.  That's a rollover
organization as like ISOC.  So we solve in this way the lack of knowledge
of technical knowledge interferes.  The second weakness was a lack of
coaming speed.  So this small IXP doesn't understand why they have to
corporate.  They know they must do, but because of the different education
from providers, for example, some years ago, they ask for 300 mega bytes in
order to give you a server.  Later one gigabyte.  Then two gigabytes of
traffic, I mean.  And now somebody told 4 gigabytes.  So we need every time
more people, more IXP working together. That's why we were to Google.  We
work with Google also and they are helping in order to have the first
server in Santao domino.  So we deal several notes around the country and
we InterConnect those notes also.  It seems it is going to be working fine.
Finally we find an investor, who provides the service to the majority of
the small IXP.  So they provide the sixth capital that goes to new places.
They need servers.  They need UPS.  They need more things, et cetera, and
even need to pay for administering people and technical proposals for
public ITs or ASM.  So they have found them. The company.  We have a
company like IXP, but in the conceal of the company are all D200 small IXP.
So the decision is executive, but not -- we hope to have a bit of news for
you and the next year when we have a new meeting with you. Because of the
time, thank you very much.

>> Jane Coffin:  Thank you very much, Carlos.  What you are hearing from
the panelists is the change of the Eco system of the IXPs from cutting down
milsuccesses in Bangladesh and dealing with a more sophisticated level of
government and what you're doing in Ecuador.  Thank you very much, Carlos,
Antonio and Sumon so far.  That's a local of people.  We've had three
speakers so far.  Next up is Thailand.  Before if was started, Thailand has
nine transit IX and not all of them connect to each others.  So we saw the
need to have a neutral exchange in Thailand to help create local Eco system
with help from ISOC.  We received donation from loosens and sisco.  We also
received a lot of help from other organizations like NSICand Google.  We
had national broadcasting and telecommunication.  They support our idea and
hosted two of our meetings with IXP.  The Connects was launched in February
2015.  So we asked they were 2 years old.  Clearly we have 10 members.  One
more operator has connected since last year and we will get two more early
next year.  That will make the top more operators become our members in
term of the 11 new.  Can they get funding support from the foundation for
operations so far. Last year, we offered one year for E-connection to all
members and just started to collect a fee from members in the last few
months.  IXP think that we should try to get haven't from the manager
BTCin, which we will try in our proposal -- MBTC, which we will try in our
proposal.  Some members have automisd cash.  But we put -- we have 500
mixed from IAG to cache and we distribute 2.5 gig to our members. So we are
trying to get some so IXP can become our becomes city and cache few is
knight a bit cost is to us and we are looking at a cost.  The peek traffic
is 16 gig in September this year.  And we are excited to see next year
traffic as we are getting more members.  We are running to about now. It is
a bit far from down town.  As we face a lot of fiber cable cut between
mechanics and member problem in the past, the idea was in the years.  So
that member can have alternative connection to mechanics and to promote the
idea. We gave this call to members that want to have the second part at the
port in town to attract them.  We organized -- next slide, please.  We
organized the next forum in May 2016 with more than 130 participants from
all over the world.  And we were organizing the next building 15 to 16 in
May -- visit mechanics.--

>> Jane Coffin:  This is an example of a really fast growing not only IXP,
but region.  The number of the amount of traffic, the number of customers,
the IXPs is growing every year and your testament to the importance of the
IX. By having appearing forum, BK brought many players where they need help
as well and it was a great place to exchange. In AP, Nick, the registry in
the region in that peering forum also had an excellent training session.
PH opened and Phillips Smith who many ever you may know who's a guru on BGP
and many other things on setting up IXPs was there.  So it's just a really
interesting environment.  This also happens at meetings, right meetings,
other peering for in the region.  So it's important to know there are other
places you can go.  As Bastiaan had said, the internet registries and the
IX federation very important roles as well.  So the next person up is Allan
McGill vary.  We will turn it over to you.

>> Allan Macgiliveary:  Great.  At 50,000 feet, I had the same story at
Nick.DR.  We're the ccTLD manager in Canada that gives us revenue.  We have
taken that revenue and foster IXPs.  Run like Nick.DR, we don't own them.
We don't run them.  We work as a catalyst to see them started. I think this
goes back to 2012.  Canada had two IXPs, which when I did the kind of
benchmarking and a lot of order countries, I don't think our government
would be pleased to be standing there in Brazil, for example.  So we chose
to see what we could do to create some more in the country. And here's the
end of the story.  We actually went from 2 to 7 and I'm gonna try and
extract what some of the things we thought helped us get the success we
have.  Jane told me this is non-technical.  So I'm a non-technical person.
I don't know what the letters BGP mean.  Okay.  But -- so just very -- so
these are lessons learned.  So it's not a narrative on what we did, but
number 1 lesson, you have to work with the local community.  Right?  You
can't run it. Canada is the second biggest country in the world.  Each of
these communities are small.  You go in.  We call the first meeting.  We
have contacts in the industry.  And yes.  We're helping a little bit
financially.  We bought switches.  We paid transit in some cases.  So we
had a little bit of leverage and we said you're not ready yet.  We're not
giving you the switch.  And so -- and that moves to the second point.
There has to be trust.  I mean, we see some of the debates on some of the
communities where one ISP has network close to that, but not the other one.
So you have to wait and they have to work that out and you just have to
wait until they work it out because they are the people establishing the
IX, but they're also going to run it.  All of these are volunteer basis and
no stuff.  That's the second lesson.  It took some cases four years before
they worked this out.  So that's the second lesson is build trust.  The
third lesson is what I'll call good governance. My company is not for
profit.  We have a board that is very strong and we certainly didn't want
to find a situation where we donated $100,000 switch and then it's gone.
So we -- they were very serious about making sure there was a
accountability and financial management.  So for example, where we were
making a financial contribution, we insisted they incorporate so that any
financial contribution or switch was given not to some very well meeting
local technology guy, but actually a corporate entity.  Through that and
through this leverage, we could insure they put if place proper governance
structure.  So one of the things we try to insist on is they have a
director.  You get the four technology guys and they're so enthusiastic,
but maybe they don't have the right business acumen to run this.  So that's
something we did.  Third thing is we insisted upon a minimum of what I call
business planning.  Even the fact just to do a budget.  And they're often
surprised that some of the things they would have to spend money on like
insurance for the service agreement for the switch.  In Canada, you have
insurance for the directors.  You have to pay to have your books audited.
There are costs that are not anticipated. So, we knew all of these because
over time, we developed a template.  And so that worked quite well.  And
then, of course, then they have to have offsetting revenues.  So question
to port fees comes out.  There were different approaches.  We have one that
still has not moved to port fees.  I am not saying this is all universal.
The third part of business planning is some rudimentary marketing. And we
worked with people who didn't know where to start and just to tethem find
ASs in your neighborhood.  And just make a list and certainly what we do in
montreual on the board in montreual is we just make a list and everyone
gets on the phone.  And so -- so far, five years later, they're ail still
running.  So far so good.  We're calling CAIX.  So that we can kind of
finalize a bit the interchange that I think we've created and we're very
proud to work with these people.  Right on the money.

>> Jane Coffin:  Thank you very much, Allan.  So thank you very much for
what you're doing.  Many have noted, ccTLD is part of that Internet Eco
system and Internet expertise.  We are now going to turn to a panel
discussion. And we'll have about 20 minutes for that roughly.  And I'll
start off the questions and perhaps, Allan, as you have spoken and it is
embedded in your mind, can you just enlighten or elaborate on why an IXP
need a business plan as you said before?  Can you highlight more on that?

>> Allan Macgilvary:  I can't engine them trying to run it without that.
They might make it a few months into the business and then they have to pay
for the colo.  There has to be some money somewhere.  And this is very
simple. I'll just say, for example, we did a spreadsheet.  One page.
Expenses, revenues.  That's it.  It's not sophisticated, but it really
forces a thinking within the board and this is all run by the boards.  So I
can't imagine them doing without it.  Even though it's simple, I haven't
added any information.  I'll have to think about it.

>> Jane Coffin:  I know you have been moving from a start up to a business
model as well.  Can you explain how you have added in a business element to
what you are doing?

>> So start off that we also have like Excel file.  We need to spend
operating cost and then we try to come up with a fee and clearly we have --
the network we need to provide fees.  So we then need to come up with a new
business model so that we can share the cost with our members.  We also
want to get support from the agency that is another plan. So --

>> Jane Coffin:  I will ask Bastiaan because he's sitting next to me.  The
next question.  How did you cope with grows at M6?  It is one of the
largest IXPs in the world.  Can you give us an idea of what M6 did when
they were growing?

>> Bastiaan Goslings:  That's a very good question.  I was very surprised.
For us over here, we have to struggle. It was a technical challenge of
dealing with a doubling, tripling of the amounts of traffic exchange.  You
plan ahead.  I think it was emphasized by previous speakers or may be more
the financial part of it.  You have a great and you start planning for the
next step.  That was I think for us the most challenging part in terms of
growth.  We have been able to humble out very nicely.  But still, we will
run into the situation that technology does not -- the road maps of vendors
is what we would like to see and support the growth.  I'm not quite sure.
This is maybe too positive of a story. [Laughter]

>> Jane Coffin:  I think it's important.  I think if your traffic does
start to double and tripel, what is your plan? This happened in a country
in Africa that we know and they went from 300 gigs of traffic to go 800 in
2 and a half weeks as soon as the Google cache came in.  At that time, they
couldn't handle the traffic.  So they had to go over to another ISF to help
out -- ISP to help out.  They also host banks.  So you should know it is
not just ISPs and content delivery networks, but banks and research and
education networks coming into IXPs.  I wanted to ask you.  Do you have
volunteers at your IXP or do you have staff?

>> We have a staff and monitoring and some new counts to have them out.
That stuff we have.  We support them for meetings and to exchange board
members.  We have a meeting every six months down the line, we get together
and discuss issues.  Just to point.  We have a different experience
initially.  We get support and we entered a big room and set up everything.
Initially, we made a plan to run with our cost.  Especially from them, it
is sufficient and we're running.

>> Jane Coffin:  How do you manage volunteer fatigue on the board?  I hope
you know what I mean by this.

>> It is a bit of a challenge I should say.  All the surviving (inaudible)
some people move to other businesses. But yeah.  Still.  We have a country
of population.  So you always find those that want to work.  So far it's
been fine.

>> Jane Coffin:  Allan, when it comes to your visibility and I will ask
Antonio after you answer this question, the same question.  With visibility
and branding, do you know in Canada do the IXPs brand themselves?  Do they
market go to peering for them?  Do you have an IXP form for people to get
to know each other?  What do you mean when you think of marketing for an
IXP?

>> They're all very small.  We have Torix, which is our oldest and most
established IX in Toronto.  We were not involved in establishing it.  They
get a little more active. They go to all of the peering forms within North
America. The small ones that we helped establish really don't have the
financial capability to travel and that's in part why we have established
this CIX as I mentioned before, which is sort of moving from a list base
forum to something a little more formal.  We had an exploratory meeting
this fall.  It was there.  As I said, marketing for a small guy is just a
question of getting the AS numbers.  I'm on the board inman treual.  QIX is
what we call ourselves.  Some of you know civilian.  She's the real
manager.  At the start of the year, we have our targets for new peers and
have our quarterly reviews about how we're doing and we happen to have a
gaming industry in Montreal.  We're engaging some of the gaming companies
to actually who don't have an AIX number.  Companies don't understandd
value of having an IS number.  There's a lot of education that has to go on
and we're doing that -- I'm not personally involved in that, but hasma
we're doing in montreual.  There's -- montreual. There's quite a difference
in montreual versus win peg.

>> We don't do ads and things like that, but very well. We do have training
for systems including IXPs such as banks and government chances and
universities.  And this trainings about for example, good practice on BGP
or IPD6.  We do talk about the importance of IXPs.  We are also present in
the meetings of associations, IXPs associations in Brazil.  And we talk
about the importance of the bigger networks to become autonomous systems
and to be part of this.  We do organize and events national events about
IXPs in Brazil. That is PTT forum.  We started that and it was across for
IXPs.  We do participate in associations and international events to learn
and also to know it by international companies that we would like to --
would like to Connect you to our XPs.  For the next year, we are also
planning to do meetings locally.  Not yet for the 26th IXPs, but for some
of them for at least 10 or 15 of this community.  So we are going to start
to organize and look at our event for the IXPs and other systems to come
together and talk about the local reality and solutions for them.

>> Can I just make one more point.

>> Jane Coffin:  No. [Laughter] absolutely.  Go ahead.

>> As I said, we have established an association and one of the projects we
want to do this year is actually to develop marketing material on the value
of IXs, which is we haven't done yet.  This is -- you know, actually,
people who are technology mind get it, but they're not the decision makers
usually.  If anyone has done this, I would very much like to hear from you
because the story is the same around the world.  If anyone has developed
some paper, that would be very useful and we'd appreciate that.  Thank you.

>> Jane Coffin:  It's interesting that you say that because we've had this
internal discussion about the business case and how to promote that more.
There's a small internet exchange point in the U.S. in Denver that just
started up.  And they're agreeing to work with us on sort of a slide deck.
We would be happy to open that up to everyone to help us refine, but to
your point, a one pager is also helpful.  There are a lot of CEOs and IXPs
if they're not peering already, they're skeptical as to the benefit.  But
once they see what pairing can bring, it's very useful for them to know
this.  Carlos?  I'd like to ask you a question about technical
sustainability.  What are you doing from that site with the IXP and the
IXPs in the country?  How are you promoting to the technical sustainability
as a team?

>> Carlos Vera:  Thank you very much.  I also have a question about that.
We have a technical staff because the investor of the company is an
Internet provider.  So they have stuff.  And we go to -- we go to
(inaudible) and Carlos Martinez and how the technical things manage and we
learn a lot also.  And then later we went to CAVASI.  They have a
successful business model and technical model.  And they show the system.
We learn a lot also from them.  And we are working in that way because we
have emergency electricity systems, we have air condition.  We have removed
content. We have optical fiber.  So this is is a lot of money.  So this
initial money is the guarantee of the sustainability along the time.  I
would like to ask to Brazil and Canada because they say that the ccTLD
funds the IXP in their countries.  But I would like to understand if the
ccTLD is the company, is the university, is the NGO because in our country,
the ccTLD is a company.  We were interested to know a little bit more about
the model.  The way they funded that through ccTLD the IXP.  Thank you very
much.

>> Jane Coffin:  I have one more question I would like to also ask here at
the table, but if you could, Allan, one minute -- that would be great.

>> Allan:  I don't think one can do justice to the question in one minute
because every ccTLD is different and that's really my story.  So I'm happy
to take it offline. Our particular situation is we've not for profit, but
in order to get the delegation, you need government approval. So in special
countries, you're part of the government and other countries it's for
profit and in our case is not for profit.  I am happy to chat at another
time if you like. Thanks.

>> We are a company not for profit that are related is to the internet
cheering committee that is multi-stakeholder organization.  Get together
with the government and to others.

>> Jane Coffin:  Ariel, what did you do to professionalize what you were
doing?  Do you have a board? How does it work?

>> Aerial:  We have a board and we have a lot of monthly meetings, a lot
of.  A lot of.  We have professional staff and also volunteers.  In fact, I
am a volunteer.  But we run each month at least two meetings for each IXP.
And one at least one meeting for all.  And we in fact we are hiring an SCOO
because we need it.  It's a fact.  And and we are not for profit.  So we
cover our costs momly and we recover from the momly expenses that we have.
And we are growing our staff because the size of our project.  I guess it's
a step by step that we need to complain and -- and do on a daily basis.  We
have both.

>> Jane Coffin:  Thank you for that.  I think we need to give Sharada 10
minutes.  So I want to ask him to maybe take the question.  Would you like
to ask a question?  I'm sorry. I don't know your name.  Could you tell us?

>> My name is LASEAR.  AX is not InterConnect.  No interconnection is IX.
The costs and events, the interconnection in the IX --

>> Jane Coffin:  Ask I ask you.  You speak Portuguese, yes?

>> Yes.

>> Jane Coffin:  Maybe this is something you can talk to Antonio about.

>> English.  No problem.

>> Jane Coffin:  But it's a bandwidth question, yes?

>> Yes.

>> Jane Coffin:  They don't charge for --

>> (inaudible) for IXPs.

>> Jane Coffin:  Do you understand?

>> Yes.

>> The same request we had in the other workshop in the morning.  Very
well.  In Brazil, we don't underconnect the different IXPs because of -- we
don't want to compete with our customers because we would have regulatory
problems.  We don't want to be considerate, considerate telecommunications
company.  We are not today.  We are part of in the Internet infrastructure
and not the Telecom infrastructure.  We would like to stay this way.  We do
foster the Telecom companies to offer this as a service.  In some cases,
they are doing a good job and in some cases, not so good job for it.  There
are in many cases options to participant in one and IXP to get to the other
hiring some Telecom operator that is also in the IXPs to do this kind of
servicing.  So I think cabecausa has another kind of model.

>> Jane Coffin:  Would you like to take a minute?  Thank you.

>> Yeah.  We don't have customer.  We have members.  So we don't compete
with our members like you say.  I think it's the world wide model.  Don't
compete with the members or the customers.  But in some cases, I want to
say that that is not the best practice.  It's a regular practice because
case by case, you need to resolve problems.  In country like Argentina
where we have large amount of space without cover, we need to find a way to
bring services. So -- also we don't came from nothing.  We came from
history.  The incumbent, the Telecom incumbents company made history in
Argentina.  They don't want to participate in this project.  They say that
we are playing.  We are not serious and they say that there is no way to
bring the beginning they don't recognize Internet as a service.  They say
that.  So they say that there is no way to Connect small CDs or small
region far from Buenos Aires, which is the main capital of the country.  So
we find a way to do it.  There is no other way to serve this region of the
country.  So there was a fact.  The only way was make the network.  And we
have 21 InterConnectd IXPs.  And also, we are InterConnectd now.  Uruguay,
we have some connections.  We have members to bring the capacity.  And this
is the way that we did.  But I say there is not best practice.  Auto a
regular practice.  It's a practice that we can find to solve our problems
and I'm thinking I know very well Latin America and I say every country has
a different situation.  And you need to solve case by case.  And the best
way that you find your countries is probably the best way you can solve the
problems.

>> Jane Coffin:  Thank you for that.  I will continue with the session, but
I want to thank everyone for all the comments and the information for
everyone in the room.  It's very important to hear all this great data.  So
thank you. Give yourselves a hand round of applause. [APPLAUSE] and just to
one more point is that we're hearing why IXPs are critical to Connecting
the unconnected and I would like to also flip that paradigm and say the
unconnected are helping Connect themselves when they come to you and
others. Sumon, over to you for the rest of the program.

>> Sumon:  I think we still have 5, 10 minutes left.  So I don't want to
scare you off -- Wim Degezelle:  I want to --

>> Wim Degezelle:  We have tried to do a little bit in parallel today.  We
first discussed the IXPs and what they're doing and how they can help if
they function well within their own community to build that Internet
community and then support inclusive and growth like we had today.En in we
had a good look in the PPF also very gross.  If you know and start to run
IXP, how can you make sure that after two years, after three years you see
that you're growing and you are developing and you don't come to the
conclusion that's what you have been doing was a nice try.  So we focused
on the work of our BPF of best practices, we collected case studies.  A lot
of the elements that have been discussed by the panel are also discussed in
the document.  And in the last part of the document and last part of our
meeting today, we also want to make very clear that the BPF may place where
you find information because there's a lot going on in the world, a lot of
organization, a lot of places where you can find information on IXPs and
also where IXPs come together to exchange information to exchange best
practices.  On this part, this is the last -- very last part of our
session.  Let's give a very high level of what you can find and what you
have to look.

>> Thank you.  It was a great honor for me to be able to work as part of
the best practice forum in IXP this year because I got to learn about so
much that's happening in the world of IXPs.  I want to go very briefly over
some of the things that exist outside of the VPF where they can be multi-
stakeholder corporations.  But at the regional levels, we have IXP
associations and meetings.  As IXP associations also have regional peering
for that, like they have meetings that have -- that occur every year.  We
also have meetings that occur along side other meetings like labor 52ings
and those happen around the year.  Like we also have global collaborative
efforts.  We have one that is the VPF on IXP, but we also have study groups
and interconnection for these. These are all places with collaborative work
that happens on IXPs.  Beyond that, there also projects.  The Euro mentor
IX program and the Euro X 29 program allows for knew IXPs to be mentored or
partners aircraft XPs so they're able to learn and be able to grow.  That
seems to be the theme of the session today.  We have peering and PCH last,
which we have great resources and the Euro is a great fellowship program.
These are a few of the resources that occur for people that might be more
interested in entering this area as I was when I started working with the
best practice forum.  There is a full list in the anex as well as in the
section that we described of the document that Wim has been mentioned all
along where you can get more resources if you are interested in
understanding or getting more involved in the IXP community.  Thank you.

>> Wim Degezelle:  Thank you very much.  This is also a great promotion for
the document that we are working on.  So it's time to conclude.  I want to
say what is the plan for VPPF?  I think this was one of the important mile
stones having this discussion online.  To document that is open is still a
couple of days open for review.  So if you have additional comments or even
if you have a case study of your own IXP, of your own, say this is really
something interesting.  It should go into the document please.  Send the
item to me or post it on the review platform.  The document then will be
finalized and I think it is important to just realize it will be published
as part of the outcome of this Internet Governance forum.  I will see if
there's an extra channel.  You'll have documents by the Internet Society by
the IXP federations and associations by individual IXPs.  Who explained --
that explained very well what IXPs do and I think it's important to realize
there will be another document that is put together by the experiments from
the community, but it has the logo of the IGF and the united nations.  I
think just having a document can be very useful to also use it to go to
governments, to go to your organizations and your own country next to the
existing information that is there as an additional resource.  Only left
for me is to thank the panelists. Thank Jane for leading the panel.  Thank
Bastiaan for giving introductions.  You didn't have to work so much, but
Michael, thank you so much for the moderator.  Well, I think -- well, if
you would have had this session earlier on a large part of the world
sleeping at this moment, I think that might -- lucky or unlucky for you
might have been a better situation.  Thank you all very much.  Well, look
out for the final VPF document that will be published very soon. Thank you.
[APPLAUSE] Copyright © 2016 Show/Hide Header