You are connected to event: CFI-RPC9

FINISHED FILE

INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM 2016 ENABLING INCLUSIVE AND SUSTAINABLE GROWTH
JALISCO, MEXICO

8 DECEMBER 2016.

ROOM 9 BPF-CYBERSECURITY 0900

* * * This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication
Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate
communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the
proceedings. * * *

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> (Yes, I can hear you).  More volume, please?.  Yes, please. A little
more. That is better.  Thanks. Test test test test test. Sounds.  Yes.
Thanks!.

>> YANG JIANG:  , Yang Jiang,.

>> CHUANG LIU:  , Chuang Liu, naives naives, naives, robe robe, Ricardo
Israel Robles Pelayo,.

>> VINCENZO SPIEZIA:  , Vincenzo Spiezia,.

>> FLORENCE TOFFA:  , Florence Toffa,disapg Zach, Xiang Zhou,.

>> JING MA:  , jing, Ma,

>> JIAO YUHUA:  , Jiao Yuhua,.

>> XIANG ZHOU:  , Xiang Zhou, CACC.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

ancance, yans, DotAsia.  Joins joins, annis Li,.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  ,.

>> SEGUN OLUGBILE:  ,.

>> RICHARD LEARNING:  ,.

>> ISABEL SKIERKA:  ,.

>> KERRY-ANN BARRETT:  ,.

>> BARBARA MARCHIORI:  ,.

>> GRACE GITHAIGA:  ,

>> MATTHEW SHEARS:  ,.

>> HIROSHI ESAKI:  ,.

>> BRIAN GUTTERMAN:    Be cybersecurity, ICT, bap, BPF, RIPE NCC, digital
society institute, organisation of America kick tan net, kick tan net,
Freedom Online om Online , Freedom Online ICTANet, Freedom Online
Coalition, cowlings, coalition, uniep live, case GC data, data, 'GCdata,
Ghana ODIP, UNEP-LIVE, CAS'GCdata, ODIP,.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> 12/8/16. BPF Cybersecurity. Room 9

>> MODERATOR:  Good morning, all, my name is Markus Kummer.  I'm co-
coordinating the session with Segun Olugbile who is sitting there.  I won't
say much, I mean, hard lifting has been done by Brian from the IGF
Secretariat and by Martin who will be the moderator, just a few words on
the history and where this comes from.  The past two years we had two Best
Practice Forums dealing with related issues, one with the C CERTs and one
with unsolicited communication.  Martin was involved all of them so he has
the history, and this year the experts involved, we had discussions under
early this year on wards how we should maybe continue. And the idea was
maybe we should broaden the scope a bit.  This is also in line with the
resolution that extended the mandate of the IGF.  It has a fairly strong
emphasis on cybersecurity.  So the experts concluded that it will be good
to have a slightly broader look at this issue and Martin will say more on
the definitional aspects of cybersecurity as it means different things to
different people. But another important part of this discussion was this
was conceived not as a single project.  That was not the idea that we solve
all of the problems and issues by the end of this year, but that this is a
multi-year project and the IGF, I think, can have a prominent place in this
discussion.  There is an increased concern of Governments in the UN
framework, cybersecurity is discussed in the first committee, the first
committee is the committee dealing with disarmment and peace issues and
that is a so called global group of experts and that is a Government only
commission, Government only group of experts. We think it informs
Government experts if they actually discuss with people technical experts
and also Civil Society and we hope that in future we have also this
interaction of the IGF clearly as a role to play in this aspect and can
inform also Governments and with that I hand over to Martin.  Please run
the show and take it away.

>> Martin Thank you for being.

>> MODERATOR:  This best practices Forum came out of a set of best
practices for yums ha took place over the last few years and one of the
core things we learned during the Forums is it was difficult to get
multistakeholder engagement around the topic of incident response teams.
During those discussions, we ended up having a lot of incident response
teams around the room.  We did also have other stakeholder communities but
quite often there were issues around definition.  What is it really that an
incident response team does.  We worked for two years to address those and
this year we wanted to widen the scope a little bit and really review what
it means for different stakeholders to work on cybersecurity together.
Cybersecurity has typically been a topic where Governments take the lead in
many cases and that has always been met by concern with some of the other
stakeholder groups and the participants to the BPF saw this as an
opportunity to engage wide or audience and get everyone around the table
that is important to our social life, our economies and the way that the
Internet as a technology operates. So I greatly appreciate that this year
we have a standing room only session and all of you have come.  Very quick
administrative overview of what we will be covering today, and I don't know
if we can present the slides for a second.  But I would like to walk
through how we will spend the next hour and a half.  The first 15 minutes
are really there is a quick introduction to the BPF, where did it come
from, what has it done.  Then we will spend about 15 minutes talking about
the current draft and the comments that were received from various
stakeholder groups and I will actually ask Brian to walk us the process a
bit as he did a lot of the hard work at getting everything together for
this session. We will spend about 20 minutes giving all of the speakers
time to provide an opening statement on how they see cybersecurity within
the IGF, how they see cross stakeholder group communication and
coordination happening, and we will also have input from Mathew Shears from
a feeder session that took place earlier in the week.  Then we had have a
half hour for group discussion and questions and answers.  If you have
particular input that you haven't been able to provide through the review
platform or you haven't been able to bring up in the mailing list, today is
a great place to bring the questions forward and we will do a wrap up and
look at next steps for the best practices Forum in future years. I will
actually hand it over to Brian for a second to talk about the process and
how we conducted the meetings over the year.  Brian.

>> BRIAN GUTTERMAN:  Hello, everyone, thank you for joining.  I will be
brief.  Marcus and Martin already covered some of the background, but as
Markus said, this Best Practice Forum was conceived sort of decided upon by
the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group in April and we had our first few
meetings that spring.  I think we had, it says seven, seven in the slides
and we had more than that, about ten in total.  Our first few meetings were
about asking the community what we wanted to do with this Best Practice
Forum, what might be most useful to the multistakeholder community that we
had.  For those that don't know much about best  best practice forums we
convened on WebEx platforms, we had a dedicated mailing list where everyone
was able to subscribe and exchange views there. This is a similar process
to the other Best Practice Forums.  We built upon the work of the spam and
C CERTs best   Best Practice Forums that took place over the past couple of
years.  That knowledge we built was extremely useful.  Vowt is a friend and
colleague and he led a lot of that work so we are appreciative to him for
that. We decided early in the process that the community wants to have a
multistakeholder dialogue including all stakeholder groups on how to engage
and communicate with each other when it comes to cybersecurity issues.
Clearly very broad, but that seemed to be what the community wanted.  As
Markus said, there was sort of agreement that they wanted the process to be
long term so we can, so sort of ideas could bubble up and we could take
forward different threads in different ways. We then sent out a call for
contributions using the IGF website and other channels to solicit inputs
from all stakeholders.  We got some very good feedback.  We asked questions
like what are the typical roles and responsibilities of your stakeholder
groups in making the Internet a secure and safe place for people, what are
the typical communication mechanisms between the stakeholder groups, how
can cooperation and collaboration be enhanced and what are some of the
common problem areas. We list some of the contributors here.  We had a
diverse range of contributions, many of which these organisations and
individuals are here with us today and we thank you for that from Civil
Society, from business, from technical community, from Government, to that
was really great.  So just quickly some of the feedback, but way we want to
do in this session is allow the contributors to explain a bit more about
their perspectives and then leave it up in the second half of the session
to those that might not have been involved yet.  I think Martin mentioned
already that there is a review platform that's open for public comments on
the IGF website which has the draft output document there and we think it's
a pretty good space for everyone to read it over, contribute, come up with
even new ideas for the future.  So please, we invite everybody to visit
that. A summary of the dialogue, some of the things we heard quickly.  The
involvement of all stakeholders in handling cybersecurity is essential.
All stakeholders must understand, respect and trust one another's expertise
and competencies.  The term, the definition cybersecurity is often loaded
with context and associated with Government or commercial solutions.  It
was said by many that the IGF actually offers an opportunity to redefine it
as a common goal and to work towards a common understanding of cooperation
when it comes to cybersecurity. It clearly means different things to
different stakeholders and roles and responsibilities of stakeholders are
evolving.  The debates around cybersecurity have rapidly broadened and
place an important focus on policy that requires input from multiple
stakeholders.  It was said by some that initiatives should be built on
Democratic, multistakeholder processes in insuring meaningful and
accountable participation from everyone.  It was said that the community
must promote robust, effective and timely information sharing among
stakeholders, cooperation and collaboration is key so as to not duplicate
work. Within the C CERT community specifically automated information
exchange and setting expectations around the use of shared information was
seen to be critical.  So I think next we can pass it back to Martin and
allow some of the contributors to share exactly what they said.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you very much for that great overview of findings.
One thing I would like to stress is that when you look at these slides,
what you see is a reflection of what is in the actual text.  The actual
text is a little bit more dense, but that didn't really fit very well on a
computer screen, so I would highly recommend reading through the materials.
Also seeing how the group came up with certain recommendations, because
there was a lot of vibrant discussion being contributed that was helpful to
them disstill it into these outcome statements so I highly recommend
reading the actual text and going through it in detail. What I would like
to do next is have a look at some of the comments that were submitted as
part of the review platform.  So as Markus mentioned the review platform
has been open for a little over a month and has been open for comments from
everyone and we have done our best to advertise this to different Forums as
possible both in Government, technical community, academia, Civil Society
and other stakeholders that have an interest in this particular area. We
received a number of interesting comments, and I have them here, and what I
would like to do is walk through each of the comments and then give the
group the opportunity to provide some very brief comments, especially if
you see anything that is a topic worthy of further debate instead of simple
inclusion.  The very first submission we received was from Adam Backas that
estimated in terms of collaboration and cooperation between those with the
knowledge and skill sets necessary to improve the security of the Internet,
implementation of vulnerability coordination and bug bounty programs seems
like a key function which thus far hasn't been explicitly called out in
this text. Any entity which is responsible for protecting data should have
a process in place by which they can acknowledge and fix identified
vulnerabilities in their infrastructure as reported by external entities.
This allows organisations to scale their efforts towards identifying
vulnerabilities in externally facing properties as well as provides
invaluable data on where their existing security processes have failed and
need improvement.  So a contribution by Adam Backas that some nor attention
in the text on how to deal with reports of security vulnerabilities would
actually be a useful addition.  Is there any discussion or comments from
participants or speakers here today? Okay.  You will also have the
opportunity to comment on the mailing list even after the session.  The
next comment that we received was from USUDIATAL IS and I apologize for the
pronunciation.  It was important to make conscience about cybersecurity in
the people and the only way to do that is showing them in real time how
insecure could be an Internet provider, a PC, mobile device, et cetera.  In
Latin America the people have a poor cybersecurity knowledge and for this
everyone could be exposed to be hack or personal information stolen.  It is
important to make more campaigns about cybersecurity issues and how easy it
is for a cybersecurity criminal to steal or hack a device or system. The
Governments around the world should be working more together on this topic.
The IGF should have more of these spaces and workshops to work with all
ages people that have to know that their devices or personal data are under
risk and the easiest way to fix it.  So a great contribution that security
awareness is key to actually building a secure Internet Ecosystem.  I will
add that at the very beginning of the effort, the issue of user awareness
was raised and was considered during the discussions and based on this
comment, we can definitely look at whether we can include some of those
initial comments in the final  outcome document.  Are there any comments or
discussion on this topic?  Yes, Isabel.

>> ISABEL SKIERKA:  I think it is important, it says the Governments around
the world should be working more together on these topics and I think
Governments are an important stakeholder here but I think there is already
a lot of organisations actually doing a lot of good work in this space.  So
maybe one could work on the text in saying, you know, there are these
initiatives and maybe we can find certain ways to bring them to the fore,
provide better funding for certain initiatives and so on just as a side
comment.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you.

>> AUDIENCE:  Just a quick administrative note for the speakers, when you
take the floor for the first time, can you please introduce yourself.  So
Isabel, and Martin should have induced you.

>> ISABEL SKIERKA:  I'm Isabel Skierka and I'm from the Digital Society
Institute where I'm a researcher on cybersecurity and digital policy issues
and I'm from, I'm based in Berlin.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you Markus, thank you, is bell.  I will move onto the
next and that is from -- I'm sorry, that is the same comment.  Okay.  The
next comment is from Zihou Rakman and he or she had three individual
comments which all relate to the implementation of UUID which has been a
topic of discussion at this IGF.  And really when you read the context of
where the comment is provided, it is more about unique identification of
individuals which then makes it easier to identify specific discussion and
specific sources of discussion. One thing that I would argue here is that
since this is about a specific technology, I think it would benefit a
document.  The focus on the underlying issue that's being addressed rather
than an individual technology or solution for that problem.  I don't know
if we have the submitter either as a participant here or a remote
contributor.  Do we?  If not, are there any direct comments on this
proposal? Okay, then I think what we will do is engage with the submitter
and try to understand what the root issue is that he is trying or he or she
is trying to address as part of the comment.  We will see if that is
something that deserves further discussion on the mailing list.  And then
we have one more submission also from this person and in Ecuador we have a
C CERT but until today it does not work as it should.  We have
cybersecurity issues not being reported by the Civil Society and our C
CERT.  It is poor in resources and not very open to listen to the society.
Maybe in this IGF we could be guided to another countries or C CERTs that
works together with the Civil Society.  One initial comment as part of the
BPF on C CERT there was actually some documentation on roles and
responsibilities of individual C certs and I in that of the material can be
useful as well.  We can have a discussion as to whether this is worthy of
inclusion in this document, but some of this has been addressed in previous
years. Are there any comments on this contribution?  Do people think this
is valuable to include again in this year's document?  Okay.  If there are
no comments, then we will actually move onto the speakers that we have
here, and I'm very proud to have a wonderful panel of experts in the area,
and both in adjoined areas to cybersecurity that are going to contribute
some of their thoughts.  First of all, we have learn from RIPE NCC, we have
Mathew Shears under the Freedom Online Coalition and he ran a feeder
workshop on inclusiveness of security policy communities which he will be
contributing here as well.  Then we have Isabel Skierka from the Digital
Society Institute, Grace Githaiga from KICTANet, organisation of American
sites and Hiroshi Esaki from the board of trustees of ISOC and we will get
started with rach charred because I know he has a dense agenda and may have
to leave early.

>> RICHARD LEARNING:  RIPE NCC.  Just a bit of context, I was a law
enforcement 30 years dealing with cybercrime, so I have an interest in both
from a previous employment and what I do now.  The first thing I would like
to say is what is cybersecurity?  I know that's been mentioned many, many
times, but what is cybersecurity?  What's interesting to me is that the
national cybersecurity centre in the U.K. which is a U.K. funded
stakeholder engagement organisation actually came out with a glossary on
the 23rd of November because we don't even know what cybersecurity is
ourselves so we have to write it down to let people know what is
cybersecurity, and I will just quote you what they are saying cybersecurity
is from the U.K.'s perspective.  The protection of devices, services and
networks and the information on them from theft or damage. That is what the
U.K. believes cybersecurity is.  If you speak to law enforcement officer
they will say something different.  So on this Best Practice Forum for me,
where I we like to go is exactly what it is that we are doing because it's
like saying let's have a Best Practice Forum in solving crime.  Are we
talking drugs?  Are we talking murder?  What are we talking?  Cybersecurity
encompasses everything, so we need to narrow down what it is that we want
to let people know, and how to make a little bit of involvement help the
ecosystem of cybersecurity. The thing I liked which came out now is that
everyone is concentrating on things but not on the human beings that are
using those things and every investigation I was ever involved in as a law
enforcement officer had a human element of error or misunderstanding of
something in there that allowed the crime to happen.  So maybe tweaking
that around, cybersecurity, maybe we should concentrate on the human being,
the educational part, the awareness, the cultural changes or businesses,
companies of how the employees look after the devices and the things that
they have secured their companies from being attacked by cybersecurity
criminals because that's what we are talking about in infrastructure. So
that's -- I do have to leave in 25 minutes, but I will stay here for as
long as I can, and answer questions either now or on line or through the
moderator.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you very much, Richard, and very important and
interesting topic that was a big area of debate and we will definitely talk
about it later as well.  Then I would like to move onto Matthew from the
Freedom Online Coalition who will contribute a bit about his feeder session
he ran on Monday on day zero of the IGF.

>> MATTHEW SHEARS:  Thanks Martin.  I'm not actually from the Freedom
Online Coalition, I'm the Co-Chair of the working group 1 of the Freedom
Online Coalition.  I'm actually with the Center for democracy and
technology.  and we had a feeder session on day zero that was very well
attended in a very small room, but the purpose of that session was really
to understand how we can encourage and bring about multistakeholder
engagement and cybersecurity processes so it was not only an opportunity
for the Best Practice Forum cybersecurity members to talk about their
experiences but also to try and tease out learnings in terms of why they
were successful or what the challenges were and how we can take those
forward as a part of the BPF generally. So just to give you a couple of
quick examples, we heard a lot about capacity building.  We heard from the
Dutch Government on the global Forum for cybersecurity expertise.  We heard
from different Governments including NGO in Canada on how various processes
are becoming open in the cybersecurity space recognizing at the same time
there are still many limitations in terms of participation. We heard from
the Council of Europe on the value of engaging with more stakeholders and
how sometimes that can lead to breakthroughs in terms of issues that they
are addressing.  We had representation from the OAS bell asario will week.
We heard from Japan where there is progress being made opening up to
stakeholders gut more can be done and we got great learning from the
experience from Nigeria.  And we heard from ISOC own the importance of
collaborative trust and security and how important that is as a fundamental
basis for stakeholders working together. We talk about trust, but we don't
actually understand how important it is and how difficult it is to gain and
I will come back to that when I talk a little bit about the Freedom Online
Coalition.  Some of the learnings were interesting.  One of the major
learnings, I think, for everybody in the room was that we have to be able
to put ourselves in the shoes of the other stakeholders.  We have to be
able to understand in a way what was just mentioned which is we have to
understand what we are talking about by cybersecurity, can we put ourselves
in the shoes of other stakeholders to understand what their angle is on a
particular issue we are trying to understand and deal with?  There was
comments about recognizing there are limitations.  We have to be realistic
that multistakeholder isn't a solution in and of itself in the
cybersecurity space.  It's one of a number of tools and there will still be
multilateral discussions.  It's not all going to be multistakeholder going
forward. There was some cautions about the notion that multi-stakeholderism
is equal to public-private cooperation and that's certainly not the case.
People said we need to be careful we are not, that we don't make the
mistake of assuming that that's the case.  And that we need to really come
to these meetings and, again, I will come back to this later with an open
ear and not a closed mind.  I mean, in a way, we stakeholders tend to come
in with a position that they have had for a long period of time.  It may be
in fact antagonistic and that's not the way to get to agreement or to make
multi-stakeholderism work in cybersecurity, particularly given that it's
such a sensitive space and so related to national security. So let me stop
there, but I think there are a whole number of learnings that came out of
that that we'll capture and feed into the BPF so we can build on those
going forward.  Thanks.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you Matthew.  Those are great outcomes and it was an
insightful session on Monday.  We will move onto Isabel Skierka of the
Digital Society Institute.

>> ISABEL SKIERKA:  Well, that was an introduction.  So just to say I read
the document only a couple of days ago for the first time and I think it's
actually an amazing document, very important process here at IGF since I
think the topic of cybersecurity has come in quite recently as I
understand.  So I want to start off with the same issue that actually
Richard raised, what does cybersecurity actually mean?  And I think there
is actually a good definitions in the document already from some of the
contributors, and we really need to distinguish between different forms of
security such as national security or the technical security of systems
when we talk about the confidentiality, integ ritey and availability of
information. So what is going to be protected and who is going to be
protected.  Those are really important issues.  If we talk about issues
such as encryption technologies and the use of encryption technologies this
can be framed as a national security issue, but it can also be framed as a
public security and individual security issue and this just illustrates how
important it is to involve all of these different stakeholders with their
respective states in these discussions how we should deal with that and
what kind of policy should be made. But I think one important point here
and maybe that's maybe a German or European perspective, the Government in
Germany or in Europe is still, still has most power in regulating
technologies.  So we, for example, recently adopted an IT security law that
makes information sharing mandatory, and information sharing on incidents.
So it's very important to recognize that not all stakeholders have the same
powers and some have regulatory powers that are actually written down by
law, and they will be the ones that side. So I think engagement with these
stakeholders is very important and I just want to reiterate one point from
the meeting from Monday, which was brought up, which was you really need to
listen to each other, and often people just go right into the room, start
talking, start, you know, telling their own positions, but I think the
first step should always be to listen even if you are a Civil Society
activist, you have your opinions about encryption.  Law enforcement
agencies have very different challenges that they face, and so we need to
-- this also means fleddism, right, that you actually find a compromise to
and that (Multi-stakeholderism) and that might not always work for you, for
example, when it comes to defining strict legal requirements under which
Governments can surveil criminal suspects.  So I think what matters a lot
in this process is trust, and this is why this listening and engagement is
very important. I think awareness also matters a lot.  We brought that up
earlier.  So awareness and actually having a stake, being able to formulate
a stake is important ncht and obviously for many stakeholders to organize
and voice their concerns is a very important issue here.  I don't have much
time, but I just want to mention a couple of, you know, I was asked to
share my personal experience as well.  And from the German perspective,
let's say, so I think multi-stakeholderism in our country in Germany does
not work well necessarily when it comes to cybersecurity. We just adopted a
new strategy which was not even discussed in Parliament, and that was, I
think we could have done a better job here or the Government could have
involved at least the Parliament to discuss the strategy and to get more
views into cybersecurity strategy that we just adopted.  An interesting
kind of process you might have heard about is the NSA committee and the
Parliament.  After this known revelation, we, the German Parliament started
annual an ininquire commission into the NSA scandal and how German
intelligence cooperations, German intelligence agencies cooperated with the
NSA. We found out a lot more about our own intelligence agencies than about
the NSA in this committee, but it did lead to a reform of our intelligence
progresses and it's -- processes and it's quite an interesting process
because there were open meetings convened every week for people to attend
and follow discussions on the NSA inquiry committee whereas, of course,
also some of the documents were held private. And I will just share some
other perspectives later because time is running out.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you, is bell, some great insights about Government
engagement as well, next we will move to Grace Githaiga of  KICTANet.

>> GRACE GITHAIGA:  I'm a late comer in this, but since I was also asked to
share my experiences in how we are working with it, I would like to first
point out that we have, we are constantly seeing an increase in
cybersecurity incidents, and especially through mobile transactions which
is something that practically a lot of people are utilizing that.  We also
are seeing that in bank systems and in Government systems, but above all,
online platforms being used for terrorism, and recruiting alsha bad,
recruiting young people to recruit the alShabob movement, what that means
is this is presenting challenges that not a lot of people are prepared for.
And so what we have seen is some knee jerk responses in the form of
legislation.  Legislation that is has just sprung without consultation with
relevant stakeholders, and, therefore, these also brings with it a
challenge of balancing between the legitimate need to have security and the
safe and secure online platforms and freedom of expression issues. So then,
and that also ha meant that anybody who thinks can do legislation is coming
up with one.  So we have multiple legislations that don't speak to each
other, that don't show how, you know, what's the nexus and how we are all
tied together and people are left to wondering which one are we going to
follow.  We have even seen bodies that have prosecutorial powers getting
into policy formulation and that is not in their mandate.  And this then
shows the complex face of what cybersecurity is all about. We have weak
structures, and like I said, lack of coordination on cybersecurity
frameworks, and in those who are supposed to handle cybersecurity concerns,
they are under resourced as well as really knowledge gap capacities because
how do they deal with this?  How does a country, say, of 40 million
experiencing cybersecurity concerns report to a team of eight people?
Eight people who are also trying to understand the sector, and still
informed by the traditional security mechanisms of how they should handle
security. And so the first response is I think, you know, shut down or, you
know, we just need to come up with very strict measures.  Our CERTs also
are not proxied.  So they wait until you report, and when you report,
sometimes it takes 21 days to get a response.  And the scenarios, you can
play the scenarios within 21 days what would happen, systems can collapse,
you know, further advanced attacks on systems would happen. Then in terms
of the whole investment on human resource, you know, you have very bright
young people handling the systems, but you also are not looking into how
you all, you know, incapacitate them so that they feel comfortable not to
get into fraud.  So, you know, you have trusted them with bank systems,
with security systems, but you are not looking into the salaries, not
looking into where they live so what happens?  They become creative and
they are actually participating in some of these crimes on cyber. So what
that means and what our experience has been, there is clearly a need for a
multistakeholder approach because everyone is affected in this.  It's not
just one arm that can regulate or come up with laws on how we operate on
the security.  And everyone who is affected then needs to give their view
so that we sort of try and build some form of consensus on how we approach
this and how we move forward, and I would like to say that as KICTANet we
are working with global partners to, you know, we have developed a
framework, a multistakeholder framework that we would want to start testing
when it comes, you know, even to cybersecurity issues and we will even be
sharing with, you know, like a few of African countries that have been
identified into this partnership. So thanks.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you very much, Grace, for sharing very, very concrete
issues you are seeing and some of the ways that you see forward to solve
them.  Next up is Belisaroy the Organization of American States for his
open statement.

>> Thank you very much, thank you very much for the invitation to the BPF.
This is my first time to be here.  First of all, we would like to point out
that, well, cybersecurity is now part or has been part of the agenda for a
couple of years of the IGF because it's totally regular vent for the
Internet, for the Internet Governance, Internet Governance infrastructure.
Cybersecurity threats, again, are toward Internet stability for democracies
and for rights.  Sometimes I'm not sure if people forget that and are just
getting into the technical aspects.  These threats are implemented by
criminal terrorist organisations or sometimes individuals. We need to be
aware that these organisations, they are organized and they are about
people, and -- they are bad people, and we represent the good people which
are the Governments, the private sector, the Civil Society, the technical
community.  Sometimes we forget that these organisations are acting in and
are organising in philosophies like much faster than us.  So we were
discussing in the session in day zero, it's very important to begin finding
common understandings, middle grounds in order to advance agenda, and in
order to actually be able to face those threats. It's important to
understand in order to organize ourselves and to move forward that
cybersecurity could mean different things in different regions.
Cybersecurity for someone could actually have great alliance with
cybercrime, with terrorists, with several things and not just regions, but
actually countries and between countries actually different actors.  That
common and simple understanding is fundamental in order to move forward in
a specific actions.  Put yourself in the other shoes, it's totally
difficult, but it's essential for any kind of negotiation and, again, in
order to find any kind of agreement. From our experience, I believe that
different actors at least in the region that we work much need to be done.
I agree with the comments that were provided by two Civil Society
organisations in the BPF, we found out in a report that we mentioned
yesterday that in the region there are, there is a lack for awareness
campaigns and digitalis, but that could be an initiative that could be
promoted by NGOs.  I see looking here at Michael Kaiser who works with CSA
has a close partnership with DHS and those are two organisations that would
be important to promote those kinds of partnerships in other countries. The
private sector, of course, to have more openness with Governments and with
the technical community.  You are the ones who may be have more updated and
latest information.  The Civil Society and the technical community maybe
have a little bit more of openness and actually try to focus on graded
cybersecurity things.  There are sometimes very specific focus that are
really relevant, really important like privacy, freedom of speech, but
there are actually other topics, critical infrastructure protection that
could be really relevant for our lives and could affect all of the
infrastructure and, of course, Governments. The Government represented
needs to be more open, needs to be more willing to cooperate with all
stakeholders.  Those are like the ones that have pre -- those are the
remarks I had prepared for this, but in summary there is much to be done
but we need to recognize that, we need to find agreements and move on
because criminals are already moving a step forward.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you very much, Belisario.

>> HIROSHI ESAKI:  Thank you for the invitation.  This is Hiroshi Esaki
from Japan.  I totally agree with all of the speakers discussion so I tried
to introduce our experience from Japan from the grassroots activity as well
as top down in conjunction with those two together.  A part of the project
we are working with Japanese high level as grass groups every single
industry working in the Internet.  So those so those are the identified
activity mentioned about ISOC so going to the Japanese way.  So this is the
thing we are sharing with the Japanese Government high level as well as
every single industry chai are going to the IoT society.  That is the view
we are sharing with every single business player.  When we think of IoT
they lack their own silo.  They lack closed/open source development.  So we
need interoperability for the future. Even though they now have beency
Lowed business model.  That's always the case.  They have money.  But in
the future, it's going to be connected.  So in order to making such a
situation, interoperability is a very important factor to do, we are
sharing with IAB and ITF.  The second thing is the silo, they are connected
to the Internet in the future.  So we need security by design principle for
the engineers who designed every single system, every single gigabit. That
is we sharing with everybody.  And this is yet another activity run by the
Internet Governance Conference Japan.  Ten basic ideas for security for the
Internet.  So our first point is thinking globally, and implementing local
measures.  Respecting practice and principle meaning we are running Cloud.
We hate just a salary, just the idea.  We really with respect to
implementation even for the security business, the second is the
implementation of restriction and security policy supporting the
improvement of the life of the human being for business.  And
overprotection from the security point of view is not a good idea. How we
make cybersecurity is the improvement or let's say they want to do about
security.  Security measures is investment for improvement and the future
investment to society.  That is the idea we want to share every single
player from the Government officers as far as the usual engineers or users,
sharing the operational knowledge, experiences is quite important.  That is
sharing idea.  You think the Internet itself or the system, partition for
the person experiencing the cybersecurity incident as the victim rather
than the bad guy.  That's always rear facing especially in private
companies so that's leading to transparency.  So in order to make it
transparency, we respect them. The last one is the first self-help next
mutual assistance, finding public assistance.  That's really the grassroots
way when every single person realizes that is an issue of you, then people
start to work.  Then the last, the last thing is by public involvement.  So
that is a basically we are sending to the Japanese Government, the
Japanese, every single person.  The last line I want to share with you is
every case, you know, how to make intention to invest on cybersecurity.
That is always people are thinking about.  It does not improve the business
profit or known benefit when there is no incident.  That's always you are
experiencing the voice and what we are hearing.  It is not productivity or
efficiency.  The people, the reason why people don't want to have a serious
security policy. Then tend to think about let's disconnect our system from
the Internet.  So how to solve this particular problem?  Find profit by
daily operation of big data functions, cybersecurity system in the gift.
Important to think of it as a gift.  So I have many experiences regarding
that.  So that is a pure business model people tend to give money into
cybersecurity.  And the last one I will share with you is the Japanese old
guy saying economy without more is crime, without cybersecurity it's bad,
it's almost crime now, right? Though a moral system without economics is
attack.  So that is, we are always thinking about that, not always say that
is must that that is leading to the future benefit, future profit, that is
the thing I try to share with everybody.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you very much, Hiroshi Esaki.  I think that was a
great setting the tone really of the gift that the Internet is that we are
all trying to protect.  So thank you for that contribution.  Now, to open
up the debate, I would actually like to start off with definition because
we talked about it a bit earlier.  We definitely talked about it very much
as part. Best practices Forum, and I'm going to put a contentious
potentially statement out there, and that's that we can either have very
solid definitions and have no real discussion and society stays a bit the
way it is, or we can be in a situation where the definitions are a little
bit vague, which is probably where we are today where discussion and
ongoing interaction and building of trust and relationships is a necessary
prerequisite to getting something done. So I'm kind of interested in what
the panelists and the other participants have as ideas with regards to what
is better.  Do we really need very solid definitions today?  Or were we
actually in a stage that gives us tremendous opportunity for learning?  Is
there anyone who would lick to provide initial thoughts on that?

>> AUDIENCE:  Thank you very much, I just want to say something in terms of
a position on the definition of cybersecurity, I think really have to be
careful in coming up with a particular definition on cybersecurity because
every country has a perception of what cybersecurity is all about.  And I
think what we might probably advise is that we should allow countries to
probably come up with their own definition of cybersecurity. Let me use
Nigeria as an example.  We have a vision and that vision is anchored on the
definition of cybersecurity.  And now I think what we can do is to provide
a framework of understanding so that we can have a kind of practices such
that at the international level we can have the cooperation on the standard
respect, local division of cybersecurity. What is cybersecurity to U.S. is
different than what is cybersecurity to Russia.  So I just want us to be
guided.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you very much, Oshigan and he is the Co-Chair of the
BPF this year and maybe if you want to mention your affiliation as well.

>> AUDIENCE:  Okay.  Thank you.  Segun Olugbile, I am a member of the
Nigerian cybersecurity crime Council.  I had privilege to BPF to be part of
the project that mentioned the national cybersecurity strategy.  One of the
experiences I would like to share has to do with the issues of building a
multistakeholder trust platform.  And for what we have done so far,
Nigerian situation is peculiar because we have a national security office
that is mandated by the law to drive cybersecurity in the country. You know
that anything that has to do with an office, they are extremely regimented
environment so they don't usually like to share information.  However, by
Providence when will I engage, the first team we communicate to the NSC, it
cannot be as usual.  This is not a document, a strategy you can probably
develop and you expect that it will follow. What we did was to have first
and foremost the interagency on understanding of cybersecurity.  We brought
all of the agents that are critical to the cybersecurity in the country
together.  We insured that they have an understanding and they had a
position on what's the cybersecurity is all about.  Then we took it from
there.  We actually visited the domain of the Paris sector.  I'm talking
about the main operator, and we have achieved understanding, we obtained a
commitment and their position on what they feel like seeing when it comes
to cybersecurity security policy.  Someone said earlier that the best way
to address the issue of trust is to put ourselves in the shoes of the
stakeholder. And what we have done essentially is we have also created a
kind of domain for Civil Society so that the group can come up with the
definition of cybersecurity.  At the end of the day, we harmonize all of
the divisions and we came up with a national vision or a position on
cybersecurity.  And the lesson learned is that we must open the door for
inclusive participation with our military, with our security, with our
Civil Society, there is something that we have in common.  We all want to
be secure, and we want, we all want to be protected.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you very much, and some interesting ideas there around
definition initially as well as in having countries also define what is
important to them, come up with their own definitions.  Isabel, I saw your
hand going up as well.  Did you have?

>> ISABEL SKIERKA:  So the first thing I would like to point out is even
for the term security, there are like millions of definitions that we could
probably come up with just, you know, as setting this in relation to other
definitional struggles, and so my proposition would be to whenever in the
document you can be precise with the term saying information security or IT
security, if you really mean, you know, only the IT security or the
security of IT systems and networks or information security obviously
having a more broad scope than IT security involving, you know,
organizational security as well. I think that is already a good step
forward and you wouldn't need to define cybersecurity as an all
encompassing term and maybe it makes sense not to necessarily define
cybersecurity in very rigid ways.  I agree with the other speaker, yes.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you, Matthew?

>> MATTHEW SHEARS:  Yes, thanks, Mathew Shears.  I will just say a couple
of things on the Freedom Online Coalition working group 1 work which is a
working group that was brought together under the Freedom Online Coalition
grouping of countries to look at cybersecurity and Human Rights and the
intersection between them.  This is important because as a part of that
work, we have drafted recommendations on how cybersecurity should be Human
Rights respecting by design which is quite a step forward when you think
about the space we are talking about in trying to bring Human Rights into
the cybersecurity space.  So I urge you to look at those. They have been
supported by the U.S. Government, the cab adian Government, Dutch
Government, Freedom Online Coalition, and you can access though at free and
secure.online.  We also went through in the working group the same process
of trying to understand what cybersecurity is, and I think at some point in
time somebody said, well, not only is there a huge range of definitions for
security, but for cybersecurity somebody said there was something like 400
different definitions. So what was interesting for us in our working group
was that it was very difficult to find any single reference to the
importance of Human Rights in a definition of cybersecurity.  So to add to
those 400 definitions, we drafted a definition of cybersecurity and Human
Rights which I urge you to look at, but I think it raises an interesting
point which is that at the end of the day, I don't think we necessarily
want to define it.  We want to define it, I agree with the way that Isabel
said, but I think we need to be careful about this because it's such air
fluid space. Technological advances are going to change the definition most
likely over the next ten years and I think we are going to see, we are
going to need that flexibility to be able to discuss all of the issues, and
even in this group when, I mean, it is important to define cybersecurity
but it shouldn't limit the work of the BPF.  Because the value of the BPF
that we have seen in the few submissions that we have so far and I'm hoping
there will be many more, we have seen a great diversity and in that
diversity there is great value.  Thanks.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you Matthew, bell list sario.

>> AUDIENCE:  I want to recall the principle that is self-determination
that is very important to taking into consideration.  Our experience when
we are developing, when we are working with countries on the development of
national policies or national strategies, they go through the same process
of Nigeria is they get into what is cybersecurity for them.  To give you a
very simple example on specific things, in terms of CERTs, which is a very
technical component of a server plan, there are countries in the Americas
where computer incident response team maybe at the national police or
federal police or at the presidency office or it could be at the
regulator's office, or it could be handled by the defense ministry and
actually we have the opportunity in organisations that the Member States
that have 14 countries brought to the organisation the issue of cyber
defense so I think it's very important to have very, very present that the
countries have the right to self-determination and each country can
determine, can say this is what cybersecurity means for us. And it's very
difficult to say this is cybersecurity for everyone because the realities
in Africa are not the same as in the Caribbean or Latin America or North
America.  So it's very important to understand cultural, economical, and
social aspects of our nations.  It's not just about technical issues, but
actually about all of these other realities.

>> MODERATOR:  That's on point.  Thank you.

>> HIROSHI ESAKI:  I agree with the discussion about having a common
language or a definition of the cybersecurity or whatever.  The reason why
we made a document I have shown was very core common difference in common
language.  The other industry could differ too.  So the document, we
contacted every single person differing to that document but making their
own recommendation, there own requirement or situation or direction, but
they can (Audio difficulty).  So I think the BPF should have those too in
order to make a detailed representation (Speaking off microphone).

>> MODERATOR:  So being from the connect tick cal community and Markus
mentioned earlier that I neglected to introduce myself.  Being from the
technical community, I neglected to introduce myself I'm with the Forum of
incidence response and security teams which is a group of security teams
from across various sectors.  One of the things that we as engineers tend
to like is some definition.  And it's challenging to merge, I think, the
point of view where you have very loose definitions across communities and
you have the ongoing discussion and debate to get to a point that better
clarifies actually the intent of cybersecurity as well, and then we have
communities where really if there isn't a clear definition and subsequent
roles and responsibilities that fit in with those definitions, it becomes
sometimes a little bit challenging to work together and to cooperate. Have
you seen issues before or have you seen concerns and how have you worked to
address those?  Any thoughts on that?  Yes, from the gentleman over there.
If you could introduce yourself.

>> AUDIENCE:  Duncan Hollis, I'm a professor of international law at Temple
University in Philadelphia.  I guess if you can agree on a definition
relatively quickly and simply, it's an excellent starting point.  I think
one of the things we have seen in cybersecurity particularly in the
interstate domain is an inability stone the Russians and the United States
to track 1.5 track 2 effort to try to do this for several years.  It then
begs the question of do you need the definition to move forward?  So I
guess the one contribution I would make is to suggest that there are
alternative ways to think about this problem, and the two other ways you
could categorize instead of a definition is what are the risks?  Can you
catalog the risks and then look for shared senses of risks? Do we agree on
certain risks that we want to all address in a global setting?  And then
also values.  What is it we want to do or have done?  And can you find some
alignment along those lines?  And there are alternative ways of breaking
open the conversation rather than continuing to kind of say my definition
is a better definition than your definition.

>> MODERATOR:  Excellent.  Thank you.  I would like to jump to Vout.

>> My name is wallet, I own my own constancy and as Brian said I have
within with the C CERT in groups in the past two years.  When we are
talking about the definitions we can get stuck in them, I think, and no
matter whether you are a state, a private certain, Civil Society or a
company, you are trying to protect something and it you take a helicopter
view of that everybody is abused by vulnerabilities that are in the systems
that you operate, and then you have a common denominator whether Russian,
Chinese or American or Dutch like I am, because I'm being attacked by
something that I can't control in most instances. So around the world, you
can see that there are several initiatives at the moment that try to take
on a specific angle of cybersecurity and whether that is the vulnerability
disclosure that ethical hackers try to bring forward to states and the
cybersecurity centers or companies, it is also initiative that's work on
bot net litigation that actually have excellent best practices for the rest
of the world.  So that could be invited in.  There are people working on,
say, for software that could be invited in to discuss how actually how are
you approaching it in your country.  So that could be an aim for next year
looking forward that you could bring in people actually to do something
from a national or regional or global that everybody could profit from
because you could implement best practices and then everybody is exactly at
the same level at some point in time, I think.  So that's my contribution.
Thank you.  I have got a neighbor.

>> AUDIENCE:  My name is Juan Gonzalez I'm with the United States
Department of Homeland Security, office of cybersecurity and communications
and I do second the other's opinions about restricting yourself to just one
cybersecurity definition because of the different contexts around the world
and at different Governments, and I think that the gentleman from Nigeria
and others provided some feedback related to let's look into best
practices, let's look into existing frameworks that we can draw from and
provide a more comprehensive multistakeholder capacity building around
cybersecurity that we can get better information.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  Excellent, thank you.

>> AUDIENCE:  This is a best practices Forum and you said something that is
totally right.  There is between engineers and technical communities
sometimes and sometimes policy or these kinds of issues.  This is a best
practices Forum and instead of looking for a definition, we are going to
get into UN, and all of these systems that a definition will take two or
three years and we do not get to a result, but what a Best Practice Forum
is recognize that there could be multiple definitions, but we need to
acknowledge that we need to work together whether or not cybersecurity
means for the community or not, and that would be one of the best outcomes
of these best practices, this BPF and see ways to improve the
collaboration.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you bell list sario.  We have a remote.

>> REMOTE MODERATOR:  Good morning, I have a question from MAPI, the cyber
police, and the question is pursuing law enforcement objectives violent
terrorism cybersecurity or is it another cybersecurity?  Can we separate
the two?

>> MODERATOR:  Let's hold on from that one just a second.  We will get a
comment from this one fist.  Who was the other person from the back that
had a contribution.

>> AUDIENCE:  I was going to follow up with what belisario said about
definitions and just like in the U.S., for example, in areas, specific
areas such as IoT, we are still trying to define that area and what
security means within an IoT environment, like healthcare maybe other areas
within the critical infrastructure sectors that we build with.  So I think
it's important that we look at best practices and especially in
environments like IoT that is so broad and we are still in the grass
around.

>> MODERATOR:  Sounds good.  So the remote question was whether there is
any room for dealing with violent extremism on line as part of the bigger
cybersecurity issue?  And I like this question because we actually talked
about it in the local C CERT BPF it's tied into definition, it is very much
tied into the privacy versus security question, and (Indiscernible).

>> AUDIENCE:  Well, in Nigeria, we have, we have the issue of cybercrime
and cybersecurity that are in the same boat.  Now, we have the best
practice in cybersecurity and yet they are two issues.  They are the same
law.  Now, what are we suggest is that cybersecurity is much bigger
picture, and from what we are doing in Nigeria, we have classified five
areas in which we need to approach cybersecurity.  Legal is just one of
them.  We have engaging in issues (Audio technical difficulties). So I
think that is an intersection between terrorism and cybersecurity, and
there is no way you can -- that would bring me to issues the African Union
as the Convention on cybersecurity that we have a Convention on cybercrime
for the Council of Europe.  Now, we discovered that there has been effort
to galvanize the African country to sign onto the Council of Europe on
cybercrime, but what you look at the provisions of cybercrime, it is all
about (Indearnable) fine.  There is nothing wrong with that, but we
discovered that the level of support given to the Council of Europe is not
given to the cybersecurity which is now affected our ability.  So for me
there is a need to really a cooperation, a principle on cooperation and
understanding.  There is no way we can isolate it from one another.  We
need to work together.  Thank you.  (Segun Olugbile)

>> MODERATOR:  I think we have time for one more contribution on this
topic, Matthew.

>> MATTHEW SHEARS:  I think it's a fascinating question as well.  I am very
concerned, however, that when one can contend to look at these issues in
bigger and bigger umbrellas, and the problem is you may not be addressing
issues and I think that's where we have to be very careful about what kind
of issues we are putting on this kind of cybersecurity.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you.

>> AUDIENCE:  My name is NIC Shory, I work for the U.K. Government, first
of all, thank you very much to everyone today and also sort of throughout
this process.  There has been really excellent contributions.  And I have
got a couple of points, if I may.  First of all, on this definition, I'm
inclined to agree with sort of points that the professor over there made
and Matthew just now, I think it's good to sort of try and recognize what
we are talking about. And you may come up with a definition, but it will
probably end up at such a lie level that it doesn't mean anything and it
would be relevant today but not tomorrow.  So I think actually what might
be more beneficial is this idea of common values and risks.  And the
context of where they apply within each sort of element of the ecosystem.
I recall I went in a testing course once and thought I would learn these
Gucci techniques on how to hack computers the first thing I guy taught was
fiscal security.  For the U.K. Government we just published a national
cybersecurity strategy came out on the 1st of November, and it takes a
broad approach to first of all sort of specific security actions that we
have got to take at network level, but it's also looking at how we develop
an ecosystem within the U.K. that's going to foster the skills and the
innovation that's going to allow us to be a sort of prosperous digital
economy. So many challenges we found over the previous five years are sort
of things like sort of stimulating market adoption of security best
practice.  Generating that sort of trust and engagement between parties for
sort of information sharing, also sort of implementing standards.  I have
had the good fortune this year to do a lot of talking and meeting with
people. I remember, I recall one example I was talking to some people at a
meeting about DNS sec and I said what is the problem here.  They said the
problem is kind of first of all finance the upscaling we have got to do for
our work force, you know, that someone of the technical complexities of
implementing this, but then also there is the liability because, you know,
if we implement DNS at on a level but someone sort of messes it up at
there's, the whole -- theirs, the whole thing goes wrong but the end user
thinks that we are a problem.  So there are all of these things. I think it
would be a better, maybe a more fruitful approach to look at common values,
risks and then look at sort of the best practices and the specific actions
that we can take.  The previous Forums last year on countering spam and C
CERTs they produce really great high level principles and I think going
forward I would welcome the input of all of the people around the table and
others to look at then how we take those forward and how we implement those
in some of the work that's been going on at the IGF over the last couple of
years where they now have security as a fundamental principle in vertical
design and all of those sort of best practices we have wrapped up and take
this thing sort of a step forward under a sort of a risk common values
base.  (Speaking off microphone).

>> MODERATOR:  So a couple of topics that were raised during the working
group were that first of all there is room for security awareness as in
very initially this has -- so far this year we did not deal directly with
awareness principles outside of where they were beneficial.  User knowledge
gaps were called up as well as online safety, then second there was a
definite call for online cybersecurity frameworks mostly around regional
and global cybersecurity.  Civil Society and Government, how do those
communities help communities to work together better and transparency of
private sector cybersecurity.  Which in some cases -- there was room to
talk about best practices for arrangement of security services how do you
actually work in this area as an enterprise as an organisation as a
Government, and also to look into mechanisms through multistakeholder
cooperation in formulating and implementing national cybersecurity, and
then finally there was also a discussion around development, and this is
something that I have also seen come back in the last week here at IGF,
which was that there is definitely a bit of disconnect between
cybersecurity and Sustainable Development Goals and how can we connect
those goals together because clearly they are intrinsically connected and
there should be a next us.  And then finally the need for embedded
security.  There are also some suggestions today in a particular area, and
are there any other suggestions from the group on things that you would
like to see addressed?

>> AUDIENCE:  (I'm Malorie Nodal the association for progressive
communication and I'm also on the executive board of two private sector
initiatives, one is an ISP and one is (Indiscernible) I was looking forward
to reading the submissions that dealt with multi-stakeholderism within and
with the private sector (Speaking off microphone).  And I would like to
thank sok because without his contribution on the panel today it would not
have been on the agenda at all.  So I would like to offer an example, just
to get us started about a best practice within it, which is the, sort of
the way that the Internet is built for the last couple of decades and
that's to have free and open software and also ) indearnable)  protocols
and software.  So I would think looking at the way that encryption
protocols are created and adopted (Speaking off microphone).  And then, but
that again often happens within the technical communities, looking at how
that model, that existing model of free and open software and development
and protocols standard setting can include more people and more involvement
(Indiscernible) so I think this is sort of securing that considerations can
be an item under transparency of sector cybersecurity policies but also
private sector products, rules and software.

>> MICHAEL NELL:   MICHAEL NELSON:  I would urge you to go and try to
figure out (Indiscernible).  (Audio technical difficulties).  We have a lot
of people around the room that are part of Governments that could give
candid remarks on how to get organized.  The second thought is we tend to
focus on preventing attacks.  There will be successful attacks so a little
more focus on best practices for responding to attacks, particularly
attacks on databases would be helpful.  Again, I haven't seen a lot in that
area. The last point, the last blind spot that I have seen prin
indiscernible).  Mega message don't do what everybody else has already
done.

>> MODERATOR:  We have three more contributions and we are actually running
out of time.

>> AUDIENCE:  Mine is very short actually.  (Audio technical difficulties).

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you very much.

>> MATTHEW SHEARS:  I don't want us to get distracted by definition.
(Indiscernible).  Human Rights activists to engage in cybersecurity.  On
day zero somebody made a great suggestion that we needed to capture all of
these great (Indiscernible).  Get more of them, love the idea on working on
values and principles and frameworks but a lot of work has been done and we
need to be careful that we are not (Indiscernible) then the last point on
the list is really interesting.  One about cybersecurity and SDGs is a bit
of a stretch.  That's worthy of further consideration.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you Matthew.  Grace, I believe you also had.

>> GRACE GITHAIGA:  No.  I just realized I'm supposed to be speaking in
another session, but before I leave, before I leave, I just want to ask
would it be possible to consider recommending the need to adopt a
multistakeholder approach in actually coming with the cybersecurity
legislation because it's tended to be a security concern and yet even
(Indiscernible).

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you very much.  (Audio technical difficulties).

>> AUDIENCE:  Expertise for cybersecurity.  I really endorse the whole list
of considerations for 2017.  However, obviously given my research, I think
(Indiscernible).  Engaging top down and bottom up approach to smart city
implementation but from looking at Smart Cities from that point of view,
you are already providing a strong focus on Sustainable Development Goals.
I give you one example, Rotterdam, the City of  Rotterdam in the
Netherlands have already started to implement waste management systems as a
Smart city implementation, and although this is known as a top down
approach because it's mostly based on information applications and so on,
it is also looking at the bottom up approach, meaning cities and
engagement.  So they have consulted with cities in the City of  Rotterdam
to see which specific needs there are into the waste management system in
the City of  Rotterdam. So I would really put a strong focus on Smart
cities in order to focus on Sustainable Development Goals.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you.

>> I have been invited to plug my workshop session.  The title is let's
break down silos in cybersecurity and cybercrime.  What we are going to try
to do is something completely different than ever been done before at the
IGF.  We have a room full of experts who are expert and working together in
one configuration or another, and we are going to try to identify within
one half hour what are the prerequisites, the conditions to have a
successful cross boundary cooperation, and that is something we are going
to try to feedback into the results are going to feedback into this combap
so that could be something which could be used as best practices or
developed a little bit more because I don't have the idea that we are going
to do it in one half hour, but at least have a start.  I invite you to be
there and a lot of people in this room will be there to share their
expertise on this topic so thank you for that opportunity.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you.  I think the individual next to you also had.

>> My name is Florence I'm with youth IGF, as much as you are talking about
the policies and frameworks, I think one thing we should focus on is about
capacity building.  I'm from Kenya (Indiscernible) you can't have a set of
eight people trying to solve 4 million people as much as they might be
having the policies, but there is lack of capacity building, meaning
basically implementing them and putting them to ground is a challenge to
them.  Thank you.

>> AUDIENCE:  I forgot to mention, 4:30, room 3.  I'm sorry, the most
important part. (Audio technical difficulties).

>> AUDIENCE:  This is a comment and a question as to the last one.  It
says, hi, I'm Mapi a cyber policeman from the early 80s.  I have extensive
experience in cybersecurity and law enforcement.  I'm also -- firstly I
will dispute the reform made in German intelligence.  Germany used to be a
bassian in terms of setting up for Human Rights on line.  Now we have the
Government trying to block the federal court justice decisions to bring
Snowden to testify in Berlin. (Indiscernible) this is a step backward.
They under estimate cybersecurity and will break it for us all.  My
question with regard to see cybersecurity as a means of attaining other
types of security enforcing law enforcement objectives, countering violent
extremists and terrorists is really cybersecurity or just another type of
security?  Can we separate the two?  Should we focus so much on security by
means of cyber or are we losing focus on the individual (Indiscernible).

>> MODERATOR:  (Indiscernible).  Mailing list where everyone will
contribute.  (Audio technical difficulties).

>> Thank you for the privilege being given to me.  I just have one last
point to make.  I want to acknowledge you to please let us look into the
best practices in the regional stakeholder operations because we have
Africa Convention on the cybersecurity and the continent and region have
their own respective cybersecurity, so I just want to ask you let's look at
how we can look at best practice form rum that can enhance harmonization of
these ream nail policies.

>> Thank you, and follow up on that obviously going forward we have to find
the speat spot for the IGF and I think sustainability development in
cybersecurity sounds like that and as we said earlier the multi-stakeholder
is definitely a sweet spot for the IGF.  But this is not the end of the
discussion.  Tomorrow we will feed into a main session on all of the Best
Practice Forums and there will be space for further discussions.  We will
present, Martin will present essentially the work done so far and the
discussion today.  The document will be revised taking into account the
discussions at this Best Practice Forum and tomorrow's session, and then we
will continue the discussion and make proposals to the Multi-stakeholder
Advisory Group on what we should do next year.  So this is by no means can
be taken as a given.  There will be a decision by the MAG what will happen
next year, but our discussion will continue and please join us at
tomorrow's meeting where we discuss all intersessional activities in the
main session at 10:00 and with that I close the session and would like to
thank our moderator, Martin, and invite you to give him a bag hand an thank
you all for participating in this. (Applause). (Concluded at 1037).

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> ) yes, I can hear you). ) (... ...  I can hear you Brian!).  No, it
sounds good now, it sounds loud and clear now.

>> That sounds good.  Is sounds much better.).

>> Sounds good.

>> Yes, sounds good.

>> This sounds good also.

>>

>> That sounds good.

>> Sounds good. Sounds good.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> I'm at a different one, sounds good. Great!.

>>

>>

>>

>> Sounds good.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Sounds good as well. Yes, I can hear you. Sounds good.

>> Testing hand held mics,.  Yes, I request hear loud and clear.

>>

>> Sounds good. Thank you!

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> >>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Test test test test test test test test.

>> Good morning, everyone.  E limit gi from Guatemala I work in national
Secretariat in science and technology?

>> AUDIENCE:  Hello, everyone, Riccardo, professor of South America here
from Mexico.

>> AUDIENCE:  My name is fung from Chinese Academy of Sciences and also
from Chinese association for science and technology.

>> I am from the Government of Algeria.  I'm curious to come here to learn
how big data is being used or should be used to save the environment.
Thank you.

>> AUDIENCE:  Myna is Loren Perseuka I work for the organisation of
economic development aparis.

>>

>> MODERATOR:  We will have some short presentations then we will have
discussions.  I think the big data issue is a new issue, but everybody is
interested no matter you are Government officer, you are a reresearch
professor you are education in Universities or in private sectors, you need
data.  What kind of data, how to goat the data, how to use the data, and we
don't want to say more about the technical issue, but we want to say more
about the political issues, how to use them, how to get them how to prevent
this, so a series of issues an the more interesting is where is the data
and how might it contribute to the big data communities.  So I think it is
most interesting for us today.  He is professor in the law school and in
the university in the mainstream.

>> AUDIENCE:  So hello, everyone, again.  So I'm going to talk about the
regulation of intellectual property and big data according to Mexican law.
I know that in Mexico their relation of intellectual property and
environmental property, I'm sorry, law, there are a strong relationship
(Ricardo Israel Robles Pelayo) so I will explain a little bit in the
Mexican law in these matters.  So I am going to talk or explain the Mexican
regulations regarding the Internet, the database and the big data which is
the main topic. The most important laws that regulate Internet in Mexico
are the privacy law which relates to everything with private contracts held
to the Internet then we have the code of commerce that regulates everything
related to commercial contracts the Internet, the Internet at evidence in
commercial matters, the electronic signatures, et cetera.  Federal code of
civil procedure regulates the Internet issues as evidence in civil
procedural law.  Federal code of are related to payment of copyright and
electronic transfer taxes.  Federal criminal code which regulates
everything related to criminal law on the Internet, law of the industrial
property that regulates everything to commercial, industrial or
professional secrets. This law belonged to the intellectual property law.
The federal consumer protection law which regulates everything related to
misleading advertising.  Federal copyright law which regulates everything
related to copyright law and database. So as we saw in the previous slide,
the specific regulation is found in the federal Lou of copyright which also
-- law of criept when belongs to the intellectual property law as the law
of the industrial property.  In Article 107 it says that the database for
other material readable by machines or in another form that for reasons of
selection and disposition of its content constitutes intellectual creation
and will be protected as complications.  Such pro tegs would not extend to
the data and materials themselves. Regarding the regulation of big data
there is a federal law on protection of personal datena in possession of
individuals.  The law was enacted to protect personal data held by
individuals in private companies to insure every person's right to privacy
and to information of self determination.  This law applies to everyone
with exception of credit information companies and individuals who collect
and store information for personal or domestic use for non-commercial
purpose or without intent to disclose such information. So nevertheless
there is not protection of big data by any law of intellectual property in
Mexico since there is not a parameter to distinguish the intellectual
creation contained in big data.  In Mexico the environment and intellectual
property laws have important relationships, so that's why the regulation of
big data as a form of protection of intellectual property should be an
important issue in the agenda of the Mexican Parliament. So that's the
point, that's the question that we are concerned about the big data.  We
don't have enough law, we don't have enough regulation about that, so I
think it's a point of discussion on this.  Thank you very much.  Applause
applause.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you very much for this important start.  Everything
regarding big data, first thing we need to know.  So next speaker is Yang
Jiang.  He will give some information about the coding task rule in
Developing Countries.  Coding was established in 2002 so 14 years old now.
So this is a team in the world for focus on data in Developing Countries,
the only one team in the world last such a long time.

>> YANG JIANG:  (Speaking off microphone).  I think everybody already know
me, so I'm going to talk about (Xiang Zhou) code data task group access to
science and technology data for Developing Countries and especially the
practice of our task group in recent years.  So I will skip these pages
about the CODATA since I just present to you.  So CODATA group which was
approved by the CODATA General Assembly in 2002 in (Indiscernible) then
this have four objects.  The first one is to promote strategy, policy and
institution guidelines for implementation of open data in Developing
Countries, especially in law and middle -- low and middle income countries.
And also we provide interdisciplinary Forum for enhancing capacity building
and sharing practice also for Developing Countries and the amount of our
priority task is advanced data issues in Developing Countries and the last
one is data reuse and repositories in support of sustainable development.
That's the objective of our task group know, or task group has 27 member
from 14 countries.  I'm the Co-Chair of the task group. We have pros fesser
from Kenya and Dr. Tora Cohens from Brazil as the Co-Chair of this group.
So now we have groups which relate to our objective it's called strategy
and policy, capacity building and data publishing and sharing.  And we have
joined for the WDS.  Over the past decades the CODATA has group has focused
on promoting and enhancing the worldwide cooperation in ICTs and research
data in the developing open knowledge environments for interest national
science and sustainability in Developing Countries.  Of course, we have
many persons from these countries.  So this is activity in recent years.
In 2011 in Mongolia we have a workshop on open data knowledge environment.
In Colombia 2013, Kenya 2014 and Mexico last year we have workshop in
Mexico City on the data sharing principle requirements mentioned where
cooperation of  NGO.  We also have a training course in Ethiopia, Beijing
this year.  This is some cases of the training workshops we held in among
goal La, North Korea and other Developing Countries. This picture shows the
training course held in Nairobi Kenya in 2014.  We have more than 16
trainers from more than ten countries.  We also have some very good experts
which are dedicated to working in this work group.  She was awarded 2008
for her contribution to the scientific contribution and scientific data and
service.  So we also have Paul Uhlir, he is a legal expert from U.S. and we
have DAISY Selematsela.  The without come of the task force we have reached
Nairobi for limitation of open data in developing countries.  This is a
white paper. We will still focus on this issue, this open data in big data
world.  We also viewed online system for the geo museum which has two
hundred contributors from the world.  This is the online stamp related to
scientific technology.  It is opening ceremony of this geo museum.  It is
the President of XO and the former President of CODATA was there. Other
work is global Chair into research data publishing and reposition fore.
This is work to big data.  I think a person will introduce later.  Now in
2015 international call was released by the full international organisation
IP and ISKA which called open data, big data world.  That rose new issue on
the open access to big data.  The scientific process, and that and to be
sure that the country can -- data for sustainable development locally and
regionally. Our task have made Action Plan for coming years, except the
work introduced previously.  We also want to hold a workshop and training
course in India and Madagascar this year respectfully in March and May, and
we want to develop special issue which to the journal of data science that
will clue the best practice and showcase of implementing open data in
Developing Countries.  So that's what I would like to discuss with our
colleague here in this session later.  That's it.  Thank you very much.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Thank you.  That's very good.  Thank you for the
presentation and also your leadership in this task group.  So next speaker
is a professor Komaso from Russia.  So he is the deputy head of the school
of building informattics national research university high school of
economics.  And he will talk about open data in Russia, please.

>> Thank you help any name is Mikhail Camaro..  I would like to tell a few
words about big data and the environment actually and so what's going on in
Russia in this area.  First of all, I would like to say in regarding
regarding initiative supported by the Government open data initiative.  So
several years ago we hold special, we got actually special institution,
special centre responsible for the open data in Russia under their
analytical centre of Russian Government, and we have special open data
portal as a website where we got more than 11,000 data sets already
available including more than 400 data sets focused on ecology in Russia so
including different roots, pollution map, some statistics and information
about different types of animals and so on. The thing is that currently we
are promoting I think activities focused on implementation of those data
sets, open data data sets for business purposes.  So companies, you know,
using that data actually in their developing smoabl applications and so on.
Last year special organisation consisted of more than hundred experts are
responsible and actually advising Government on the development of Internet
in Russia. So within the Internet development institution, we got a special
group focused on big data implementation, big data development.  And so
several purposes actually and several main goals of that group on big data
are implementation of big data in businesses, of course, and actual
expending different business models based on data.  Second, introducing new
services based on big data with the support from the Government as well,
and third, collaboration with different stakeholders actually.  So because
citizens also stakeholders, right, Civil Society stakeholders in that
process because they are giving their data to the companies, to the
businesses and so scientists, academia are also stakeholders research the
data and recognizing in algorithm for data and analytics. I will be happy
to participate in further discussion.  Thank you very much.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you. (Applause).

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you very much for the information.  So next I will
share some information with you on data and the environment in Developing
Countries.  So we would like to have background.  So since the summit in
2003 and 2004, so we focused on the bridge the digital divide, but after
ten years in the geo, in the focus environment issue is 86% (LIU CHUANG)
come from OECD companies but for Developing Countries, more than 100
companies 14%.  So this is a very big chump.  Then we got since the seventh
IGF we called worldwide awareness of the issues on data in Developing
Countries and after that we have country series of workshops and we have
work in Kenya, and some other countries also we have this to have, join the
workshop in some special regions. So in Nairobi sharing principles in year
before last year, these organisations get together.  All of the data
sharing in Developing Countries is critical issue not only data resources
on political issue, human resources issue, financial support issue and so
on.  So and then last year I was invited by the President of United Nations
in the United Nations agriculture to continue to pay more attention about
the bridge the digital divide and pay more attention about the issues in
the Developing Countries.  So can go back to the presentation, please.
Okay.  Good.  So then we have this so we have to make the case study.  We
set up the infrastructure for global change with data publishing reporting
and sharing in the vehicle countries. So I believe that each of you have
the sheet.  You have this and if you have this one, please see the back,
this one, this is the website and then some introduction and a little bit
brief information about that, the website.  This is a data site for all
related local environmental change, not only climate change but also human
activities, population, glaciers, vegetation, all related. So most of this
is locally in the local and the regional and some in the global.  So how to
make the data available to be used?  We divide the data into three kinds,
one is Government data, second is research data, their one is the private
commercial data.  So we focus on the research data now. So there is a big
jump between the data user and the data holders.  So the data user, they
want to use, but very few people want to open the data.  They always want
to take it.  But this is the problem, how to get current people to
contribute their data and shareable.  So I call this one, there is like a
trade.  For some users on the ground and some laws and data on the ground.
How to do that between them and there is data publishing we call the free
trunk. So come back to my career.  I don't want to see myself.  And how to
publish, the data you have the original one, and then high quality.  I want
to come back.  So this is, there is a Chinese history about this picture.
This is a stamp, I collect stamps, but this stamp has a story.  This is pre
tenned to play U.  There is a king in China he preferred his money 300 play
together so there is one gentleman and he said I can play, but actually he
is not (YU) and the king said good, come on and he pay people more.  But
the king died and his son preferred they play one by one and this gentleman
came.  We checked the data, not a bunch of these sites give you a bunch of
data sites.  No one knows what quality it is, but we have checked each site
one by one make sure each data site high quality, useful. So we have the
data management policies.  We have series of policies of data submission
for publish and policy.  Review policy, data quality control policy, data
long-term preservation policy, data sharing positive, and 10% policy, and
this candidate from very beginning to the sharing, to the end so whole
management policy to do that. So there is some data sharing policy.  So we
definitely make sure the data is the full, open, free, easily access and
the interoperational data sharing oriented policy.  So this is a focus and
we have four points.  One is the full, open, free, easily accessible for
everyone.  So no more three clicks to gather data.  So this is very,
because too many information, people download the data, click, click, click
many times.  But the later, nothing.  So we don't want to do this.  So we
want to use nor more.  And then free to be used to the end user subject to
the citation and where you come to value-added service so use the data
services and welcome data integration data user subject to the 10% policy.
So this is data sharing policy if the user agreed to do that, whatever. And
then after the data published and the data ready, how to do this, we are
local people, how to make the local data benefit for all of the world?  So
there is a paper cite the as doing locally, thinking globally.  We are
working with Developing Countries people, they said I never go abroad.  I
don't know what the world is.  So I don't think how the world is, looks
like.  So I think that's good.  So I understand. So let's go this way.
Doing locally, networking globally and not thinking globally.  That's
networking globally.  So pick this example, how you make your data into
high quality review data and to be networking?  One, for example, this is a
data site about the boundary.  This is a boundary where the T bird is.  We
have the data centre.  Each data had D.  And then we name the data only the
ID, but we link the data paper, what the data is, not only the data
products, but you have the description of what the data is, how the data
developed, how the quality of the data.  We call this a data paper. Then
not only the data paper, but I have the paper, so from the author that
published a paper about the discovery, so how large this area is, and then
what each line goes and so on.  And not only that, we put all of this
general data and the general data into the Web of science.  This is another
company and they make a special platform and the whole researcher papers,
journals can be searchable in the Web.  We draw this and put this
information in the plan. Then not only this, this whole answer go to the
research ID system, so each author of the data site is a searchable in the
research ID.  And from here, and then you can -- poem use your data you can
search, can find who use my data.  And where, in which, in the project that
could use my data.  So you can find this information clear. And not only
there, we have the global observation system of databases.  We join this,
we contribute our data.

>> This system.  So you can search this system more than one hundred
countries and more than one hundred organisations join this system.  So you
can find our data can be used in this system.  So this is the system to how
to do locally networking globally.  And then we have a new journal to
publish usual of the, and we call this normal data trends discovery.  We
will be issued next month.  So this is an example, so we have another plan,
networking plan and the implementation.  We link to this system.  We have a
link.  In the next month we to South Africa to have United Nations and
first world data Forum.  So that is the statistics Bureau so how the data
linked to that.  And then we have a (Indiscernible) in Kenya. So we could
work together to discuss about the site issue.  So this is youth seminar
locally in the networking globally so share the data high quality, make
sure the data is original, to make the data is peer reviewed, high quality,
and accessible, and useful.  Thank you very much for my presentation.  So
then we will discuss, and this is a case.  This is one of the cases in
Mexico, in China in Russia.  So we, now we will go back, go back to all
things all of the world.  So you have discussions about the, because there
are more and more platform, data platform comes more and more data, data
forms come, platform comes so how it operated its platform together and the
link.  What the issues are is one thing.  Second the topic is how about in
the Developing Countries, want is the responsibility for the Developing
Countries for the international organisations, for the industry countries,
how we can work together south to south or north to south we can work
better.  And what could be an Action Plan in the long term view.  So this
is I think that maybe we can talk about that.  Okay.  So now we have
questions.  We discuss, free to discussion.  So if you have any questions,
if you have anything you want to present here, please come.  Questions?  Lf

>> AUDIENCE:  My name is Lori shulman, I have a question, I have watched
the slides and heard about the different initiatives and I certainly
appreciate the comments on the state of the law and big data in Mexico.  I
think that is important to particularly intellectual property property
owners that I represent and how we would fit into the big scheme.  But I
think I'm leaving a little unclear about using the big data and helping
environmental issues, are you talking about the environment of big data
generally?  I'm sorry for the lack of understanding of the subject matter,
but so you are talking about what we are doing globally in an environment
to create open and free data?  But I guess what I missed is the relation to
the SAD Strategic Development Goals.

>> AUDIENCE:  I don't understand very well the question for me, but you are
thinking about what the relation between each topic, so when I participate?
Hearing this session, I am a lawyer as a professional, so when we talk
about the big data in Mexico, there is not a connection between, you know,
the law in intellectual property and the big data.  So there is a big issue
to discuss because in certain points there is not relationship between
environment.  So to be honest, I really think that we are short in our law
to regulate all of these big data information. So when I came here, I
really expected to discuss what happened in other countries, what happened
around the world, how do you treat all of this kind of information
regulation in this matter.  So for me, it's a very interesting thing to
discuss with all of you persons in this session.

>> MODERATOR:  Because big data is not only is volume data, but also my
understanding is also so many people to be involved, not only volume, not
only as time series so many things, but also the people.  Many people to be
involved.  The people, most of the people involved with data is local
content.  Very few is global unless its big data, but very few, but most,
most of the users, contributors are local content.  But between this local
content and big data community, there is a breach, we need to bridge them.
What is the bridge?  That means how do you make local data beautiful, how
to networking to globally, and make network global data as big data.  And
the people, how to draw in global platform and make them with local ability
stronger and stronger. So this is the main topic today in this especially
in Developing Countries.  This is what we wanted to discuss this the.

>> AUDIENCE:  I work in Mexico City with a reference to spatial database,
but I don't know what does it mean to get out the data?  I mean, we are in
a close space, so the data is being published, but I don't see the point to
somebody from Ukraine or from Paris will use my data if it's only a special
reference from a specific place in Mexico City.  You know 1234 I mean I
don't see the relation of the point to disclose this data if it's for local
purpose.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  I respond to your situation.  Many people, millions of cases
like that.  It is service for the local because there is local service it
is for the local people, very useful.  So but local is useful to local not
only but it is part of the global.  So this is another challenge comes.
And another could be potential contributor to the global environment.  Go
ahead.

>> AUDIENCE:  I think for researchers, for example, it could be very
interested knowing how in different local places they do things and how
they manage to use the data and how they connect to the global data
environment.  That's what I think it's interesting, not because of the
places specific place, but of the methodology and the way they involve
people to participate in this kind of initiatives.

>> AUDIENCE:  I just wanted to add a few things.  First of all, I would
like you to pay attention to their recommendations with European Commission
put on their website about collaborative economy.  On second or 1st of June
this year.  I would say it's one of the first documents where definition of
different let's say actors are presented, like buyer, seller, and so on if
we are talking about business.  I would say it's first approach at least,
you know, to what I know.  Second, I wanted to say that if ear walking
about research activities as was already said, if we are talking about
global solutions for, you know, for global problems, so we should analyze
definitely global data.  So the problem there is who actually is going to
be responsible for connecting different data sets and who is going to own
the data or what about the regulations actually introduced to let's say to
data management in that case.  And third, I would like to say that I always
keep telling that now we have big service revolution I'm stalking about not
companies, Governments, other organisations using data of people, and the
question there is people from one point using services but from another
point using data which is used to arainfall that service, and we don't have
any regulations concerning that connection.  So we just take it, you know,
as a tease, right, that companies can do whatever they want with the data.
If they use it anonymously, right, and so on. And that's probably one of
the topics which should be also raised while we are talking about big data
and global let's say and global scale, and actually if we are talking about
some Sustainable Development Goals because, you know, these goals for one
point of view they are global, but from another point of you have they
consist of small data sets and regulations from different countries and
different regions.  That's what I wanted to add.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  So any other questions.  So my colleague from Ghana come
here.  Introduce yourself.

>> Hello.  My name is wisdom Donka from Ghana, and I'm the technical lead
person for the Ghana open data initiative project, and I also work with the
regulator of ICT in Ghana.  So I'm sorry for coming in late.  What I will
say is that in our part of the world, I'm talking in relation to Africa, we
have so many issues that open data for that matter, big data can help us
solve our problem, especially our environmental problems.  We have issues
with our environment that we can leverage on open data, big data to
actually solve some of our problems. What we have been able to do in Ghana
is through the Ghana open Ghana Open Data Initiative Project we actually
tried to open up Government and so that Government agencies will release
the data that they are holding.  We believe that the data the Government is
holding is for the citizens. It's not for any particular agency to hold the
data.  They have to release the data so that citizens can actually use this
data to critique whatever the Government is doing and also to inform policy
makers in their decision making and all of that.  What we have been, what
we have achieved so far is that we have a policy in place and the poll I of
setting up national infrastructure, so we have a national infrastructure in
place which is the national data centre and the data centre, what we have
done is we have been able to connect or we have been able to lay a fiber
cable throughout the who'll country, Ghana, connecting all Government
agencies onto their platform, connecting all of the public institutions,
public schools, institutions and all of that.  We have connected them onto
the data centre, and then the next phase is to we are providing the
eServices applications. And all of these applications are data that will
come into the data centre, and then this all relates to the big data we are
talking.  So we have been able to achieve this, but what we need now is to
empower the citizens through open data to create communities to identify
some, to identify areas that we think are of importance to Ghanaians.  The
example is in the health sector, the energy sector, and also the
educational sector.  We are also looking at industry where most of our
pollutions and all of that happen. So we are working on this projects to
see how we can use open data, big data to actually solve some of these
problems so that it will be to our benefit.  So that's what we are doing in
Ghana now.  It would interest me to say that Ghana will be hosting the
second African open data Conference in Acre, and we will be announcing it
at the OGP Conference in France.  And what we are trying to do is to
introduce Internet Governance into open data so that these two drivers can
actually drive towards the achievement of the SDGs.  So I look forward to
seeing some of you in that Conference in ac Kara.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you very much.

>> AUDIENCE:  I want to have some comments to the special issue just
introduced.  We are working on a special issue to the journal of data
science which will include the expertise and the data sharing work of
Developing Countries.  So I think if we talk about environment because it's
one of the crucial issues that is developing actually not in developing
country has to confront too.  So we focus the environmental problem,
monitoring of the environmental, and also research big data may act as the
two. So they have provided tons of information for different users, not
only academic community, but also some users from industry to promote the
analysis and improvement of environmental problem.  I mean, we do it
together.  So talking about the special issue we just want to ask why the
participation of our Developing Countries we may collect the best practice
and the good example of this kind of application used in big data on the
environmental problem and the way we can supply the best practice with the
support of Internet at only in the special issue of data science, journal
of data science as I mentioned.  I think we have a lot to do together from
the colleague from different communities.

>> MODERATOR:  Good.  Thank you.  Thank you.  So this is for a very
specific issue but we want to talk now more broad.

>> AUDIENCE:  In South Africa we still have challenge in terms of
infrastructure whereby we can create, we can create those mobile apps that
will assist us in accessing data.  I think infrastructure is still a
challenge.

>> MODERATOR:  So other comments or questions?  Go ahead.

>> AUDIENCE:  We also, I mean, we shouldn't also forget the fact that all
that we are doing should be geared towards creating employment for our
people and I believe open data is what can also do that.  We in Ghana have
realized that our students that are coming out from the universities, you
know, these are the students that will fit into the various industries and
most of them also lack that knowledge of what data and all of that.
Sometimes they don't know how to even use data to their advantage or to
their benefit. So what we try to do is (Wisdom) is actually create
communities around some of this data that we release let's say for health,
for instance.  We try to recreate communities and then we bring people
together through programs such as (Indiscernible) and that is where you
come in and you can get your (Indiscernible) so we bring the support
together, we bring media, journalists together and we give them a task for
them to interact with each other on how to use the data. So out of this,
the journalists can come out of this a good story.  The developers can also
become the story and start developing a very good applications for citizens
to actually interact with our Government.  There are a whole lot of things
that we can do with open data to actually solve our problems in achieving
the SDGs that we are oaking about and such as through open data and all of
that.  We also have to collaborate all of our Civil Society, Government,
technical communities, all of us have to come together and then see what we
can do to reach the SDGs.

>> MODERATOR:  Very good.  So I would just suggest you to contact with Jo
and then we maybe have a plan of action, another action and Zhou work
together based on the IGF and then maybe we have another joint action, have
training and also information you change.  Good.  So any other suggestions?
Okay.  So we had because of the time, we have very good, very big topic,
but very limited time, but we have good people here, so now I would like to
have conclusion.  The big data is a big issue.  And then environment is our
common, common string to work together.  So big data and the environment is
a good link.  And how to make this happen in the IGF framework and not
only, but I would like to work with all of you to keep the contact and keep
the long-term contribution. Because data is long term.  The only short term
it's not very good.  So we would like to have joint action for workshop or
focus on specific region, for example, Africa, Asia, Latin America, so we
have two things in the Latin America, in the Cuba and Colombia -- oh,
three, and Brazil also.  But maybe next time we also have in the other
country, in the Latin America, but in Africa we have South Africa twice and
also Kenya.  So maybe we have -- and then we plan to have medical da gas
car already -- Madagascar.  So maybe next we plan in Ghana.  So we work
together on that. And then we will have Asia, in the Asia and we already
have in China many Mongolia and Thailand.  So plan to have another one in
India and Sri Lanka after that.  So this is, we have this is a very local
activity and then we network to the global scale.  But the environment is
not only one issue for global warming or some specific issue disaster, but
a local issue also is very important.  For example, in Asia for air
pollution, for example, in China, we suffer air pollution, it's terrible,
but in India has the same thing, but in Developing Countries suffering
this?  So we need to work together to find some solution through the data
understanding that. So this is the regional, but also local, very local.
So locally we also learn to each other about the experience, local
experiences.  And not only the data, but the experiences.  Besides that, we
also need capacity building.  But in China and we work with several
organisations each year we have three workshop invite support of Developing
Countries to come to China and then we have a training workshop and discuss
the specific need for the countries. So all of this and I think that all of
this as opportunities for us to work on the big data and the environmental
issue.  And I believe right now it's the very beginning of the big data and
the environment especially for the big data issue, very, very beginning.
The later with the satellite, when the satellite comes and the more and the
more good the computer data mining comes, and I think more and more data
comes.  And the new technology will be created. So this is the new
challenge for us.  So I thank you very much for each of you to participate
in this workshop, and we keep in touch and we all on line and I recommend
you to mention to the website, you can find the new data site each week,
each week updated the data comes.  And all of the data comes from
Developing Countries and I think it's good.  So and we have also the
business card so we can to communicate to each other later.  So now, if you
have any questions?  No.  Okay.  So now I announce this session closed.
(Applause). And we get together to take a picture.  Okay?  Yes.  Good.)
concluded at 1203) >>

>>

>>

>>

>> Test test test test test test.

>>

>>

>>

>> 12/8/16. Asia-Pacific community Meet-Up.  (APrIGF Open Session)

>> MODERATOR:  We will get started any way actually because I wanted to
welcome everyone to this open meeting.  And I wanted to start with a round
of introductions around the room and I don't think we need -- we don't
really need the Web cast and so forth for that.  Oh, we are on.  Okay.  All
right.  Welcome, everyone, this you would have noticed is an open meeting
of the AP IGF, the Asia-Pacific IGF it's been held as an informal meeting
for a few years now and in some sense it's also considered as an open
meeting of the multistakeholder steering group of the Asia-Pacific regional
figure. IGF, but everyone is welcome and to that end I wanted to start with
a quick round of introductions around the room.  We can't take too long, so
please, it would be interesting for everyone here to know everyone's room
and where you are from.  Also can I ask have you been to an APrIGF on the
multistakeholder steering group, but just keep it short, please, so that we
can cover the room.  So there is a roving mic here.  Could we just start
with the first person you can give a mic to there.

>> Pencs from TS NIC.  So I have been to APrIGF once in Macao.  I am from
TTCOD.

>> AUDIENCE:  Case from academia and APrIGF twice, I suppose in Taiwan and
in Tokyo.

>> AUDIENCE:  Good morning, I'm Jeffrey reiento, Philippines, I joined,
this is my first time to join as an ICF recipient award.

>> AUDIENCE:  Mark, from Philippines,  I am newcomer here.

>> AUDIENCE:  Datish Japan.  I have been here several times.

>> AUDIENCE:  Hello, everyone, Hurang Hungary nice to be here.  I haven't
been to APrIGF but I will try to go next year.

>> AUDIENCE:  David from Asia organisation.  I have been to fourth time at
the APrIGF and have been organising for IGF.

>> AUDIENCE:  High, user from Jakarta chapter, I have not been to APrIGF.

>>

>> AUDIENCE:  My name is Cindy from Indonesia IGF, and this is my first
APrIGF gathering.  Looking forward to it.

>> AUDIENCE:  Chad Gizor from the mill peens I'm with MSG.

>> AUDIENCE:  Nisha from IGF and I went to APrIGF in Macao.  Thank you.

>> AUDIENCE:  Hello, Claudia from Mexico, and this is my first time in IGF.

>> AUDIENCE:  Hi, this is Mohed from India/UA.  I live in UA.  I come from
ISOC UA chapter and I have attended two APrIGF in Macao and Taipei.

>> AUDIENCE:  Center for communication Government in New Delhi.  I have
attended the last APrIGF in Taipei.

>> AUDIENCE:  Hello, alisa Sigetti Uruguay, first time here.

>> AUDIENCE:  Sienna perry from APNIC, this is my first IGF and I have not
been to an APrIGF yet.

>> Ping Wong from Singapore, I also attended the last APrIGF.

>> AUDIENCE:  Hi, Thai Thai from Myanmar.

>> AUDIENCE:  Hello, Emily lease Williams Australian Government, this is my
first IGF and I haven't been to an APrIGF either.

>> AUDIENCE:  Dang worthington, international federation of journalists the
Asia-Pacific office.  My first IGF.

>> AUDIENCE:  Raymond from Hong Kong, Ambassador from Hong Kong.

>> AUDIENCE:  It is our first time to join the IGF and we are zero and
APrIGF.  I'm Samuel.

>> AUDIENCE:  Hello, I'm Gian, MSG member and I attended two APrIGFs and
organized two Y IGFs.

>> Hello, hellly, representty from Hong Kong youth IGF and this is my first
time here.

>> AUDIENCE:  Hi, I'm Vanessa, first IGF.

>> AUDIENCE:  Hi, I'm Satish Babu Chair of ICANN at large, I'm part of the
APrIGF MSG and I'm from India.

>> AUDIENCE:  Good afternoon, this is (Indiscernible) Transparency
International Cambodia.  It is my first time in the IGF community.

>> AUDIENCE:  Hi, I'm mark Wallom, American Bar Association rule of law
initiative based in Manila Philippines we conduct a regional program on
Internet freedom in 6 as seen countries as well as Sri Lanka and regional
IGF in Taipei this year.

>> AUDIENCE:  I'm Maureen hill lard, Coke ca islands and I think this is my
fourth IGF, and I have been to as many, I think, Asia-Pacific regional IGFs
as well, and I'm on the MSG.

>> AUDIENCE:  Sophia Morales I'm from Mexico but I live in Singapore I'm
working at national University of Singapore and I'm a member of the chapter
in Singapore, the ISOC chappedder.

>> AUDIENCE:  Hi, sun Tuesin, I am from Bhutan, first IGF, thank you.

>> AUDIENCE:  Hello my name is (Indiscernible) and I'm here on behalf of
(Indiscernible).

>> AUDIENCE:  Hi, Lee owe mid and Moscow, Russia but I work in Asia-Pacific
as general manager of APLTID, four or five IGFs.

>> AUDIENCE:  I'm sum tan Nish from boo tan, I work in Civil Society in boo
tan and this is my first time for IGF.

>> AUDIENCE:  Hi, everyone, Jordan casher, Internet NSED, this is my fourth
IGF and I have been to one APrIGF in Singapore in 2011.

>> AUDIENCE:  Hi, my name is Andrew I'm from Google, I manage our trade and
economic affairs in Asia-Pacific, and I'm a first timer.

>> AUDIENCE:  Rajesh Taria, ISP association of India attended 5 to 6 IGF
and attended all APrIGF.

>> Ismai from Tokyo my eleventh IGF and I went to most of the APrIGFs
except the last one in Taipei.

>> AUDIENCE:  Shall long Lee CE (Indiscernible) in the past years I only
missed two IGF meetings.  I'm an IGF MAG member, but I have never been to
APrIGF.  But there is a lot of people from my organisation that join the
IGF.  I hope next time.  Next time.  You give me an invitation.

>> AUDIENCE:  This is Zimik from Malaysia I join IGF as fellow.  I'm MSG.

>> AUDIENCE:  Member I'm doing AP6 colonial Internet Governance and I'm in
MSG.  Participated Taipei IGF and this is my first time in IGF.

>> AUDIENCE:  Hi, this is Heir.  I'm get going with an international
corporation under the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society Thailand.  We
work as Government agency EGDA.  Nice to meet you all.

>> AUDIENCE:  Hello, Charlotte Yimyung from Thailand association for the
blind invited by Edar.

>> AUDIENCE:  Gnat woods, Thailand as well, I have been invited as a
speaker here, invited by Thailand to speak about technology for the blind
that we developed in Thailand.

>> AUDIENCE:  Member hello I am checking the Web ex.  I will tell you.

>> AUDIENCE:  I am know el Asia-Pacific Bureau of the internet society.

>> AUDIENCE:  Nuwait, I'm -- 3 IGF, two APrIGF I'm also a MAG member.

>> AUDIENCE:  Edmund Chung, DotAsia based in Hong Kong have been
participating at IGF and APrIGF since the beginning in various capacities.

>> AUDIENCE:  Chung Jennifer Chung.

>> YANNIS LI:  Hi, this is Yannis Li from the Secretariat with DotAsia.
Happy to see you here.

>> AUDIENCE:  I am Paul, I have been to 10 IGFs so I have been to all of
the APrIGFs.

>> AUDIENCE:  Seita, Indonesia Internet Governance Forum.  My 5th IGF and
first time IGF in Taipei.

>> AUDIENCE:  Hi, Irene Porranto citizen lab effort of Toronto, MSG member.

>> AUDIENCE:  I'm Jenny, youth representative from the HKY IGF and this is
my first time here.

>> MODERATOR:  Is there anyone else who would like to say a word?  We will
have one or two remote participants, can they speak to us?.

>> Echan from Hong Kong university, first IGF and first APrIGF.

>> And drew from electronic frontiers Australia.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you, everyone,, welcome again, and welcome especially
to the newcomers.  It's fantastic to see so many people who have been to
none or just one or two IGFs already and APrIGFs and I hope he will fix
that soon with more IGFs that come in the future.  You may have for those
who came late, I asked those people in the audience who are members of the
MSG to identify themselves.  Now, the MSG is the multistakeholder steering
group.  It's an open and inclusive group that anyone is welcome to join,
though I also hope that we might have after this meeting a few more members
of the MSG who volunteer their time and support to the MSG.  And if so,
please speak to myself orian is.  Without further ado, we have reports from
Yannis and Jennifer from the Secretariat about latest updates from the
Secretariat.  Actually, let's have a look at the agenda first.  We have
spent a bit of time on introductions.  I think that is worthwhile. What we
do have a couple of reports about the past and coming APrIGFs and in
particular the outcome of the most recent IGF in Taipei.  Then we won't
have 40 minutes, but there is an opportunity for open discussion, and there
are some suggested topics there, and you could take a look and see if any
of those interest you to raise any questions or make any remarks and please
feel free to do so or for that matter don't limit yourself to this list
when the time comes. Let's hand over to Yannis Li now for the first report,
thank you.

>> YANNIS LI:  Hi, everyone.  So this is Yannis Li speaking for the record.
Just a very brief introductions of the Asia-Pacific IGF.  Basically we run
annually for three days, for about a four day Conference, so we gather all
of the multistakeholder around Asia-Pacific to come to discuss about the
issues that are more pertaining to our region and helping to drive some, to
drive some more advancement in our region, so as part of the Asia-Pacific
regional initiative one of the core elements we have annually is the youth
IGF Cambodia that we have run parallel where the APrIGF so we are trying to
engage local university students as well as the university students around
the region.  And then we also have the Asia-Pacific Internet internship
program which is a one-day initiative on the day zero of the event which is
aiming for the newcomers to for capacity building. And so we actually
initiate interest in intent to Hong Kong.  It has been running through
seventh year.  You can see we are rotating in different cities every year
from Hong Kong to Singapore, soakio, Seoul, Delhi, Taipei, and so each year
we actually have increased, from Hong Kong we have only two days event, so
along the years we became a bigger scale from two days to right now a four
day Conference and we also have formalized our organisations with the MSG,
the multistakeholder steering group that Paul just mentioned so its a very
open group that anyone interested to join the discussions and also to help
run these organisations can, are welcome to join us.  Right now Paul, Paul
Wilson is our Chair and we also have two choice Chairs which unfortunately
is not able to come here.  So they are casting from Hong Kong, Erin Sikuna
from India.  So we have a set of operating principles for this MSG.  And
they are basically with an emphasis on the openness, transparency and
multistakeholder cooperation. So we currently have about 85 members listed
on line and you can see the distributions of the gender and stakeholder
groups so under the MSG we form different committees like program
committee, fellowship committee every year to run the program and also we
have the drafting committee for the document.  So we will do monthly
teleconferences or biweekly conferences and also meet face to face like now
in IGF.  So the only meeting archives are open and on line so you can go to
APR draft Asia if you want to take a look and are interested.  How can you
engage in APrIGF, so we are going to open our workshop proposals, call for
proposal so you can organize the sessions at our events, of course, and
also organize any tutorials for the API piece on day zero, and then we also
have fellowships since 2015 the met call meeting so you can apply for that
to come in person and also contribute to the synthesis document drafting
process.  So the synthesis document is a new experiment that we started in
2015 hoping to engage more, a wider Asia-Pacific community to join us and
to tell us what is the issues that are concerned and Jennifer later on will
talk more about that one. And then, of course, there is an opportunity that
you can come join the MSG and help the decision making process and you can
also review all of the past activities on our main website that you can see
there.  And then, so coming up next year, so we have our Bangkok to host
the 2017 meeting so it is hosted by Hong Kong university and MPTC Thailand.
So the days are still to be confirmed but it will be likely late July so
stay tuned with us and try to apply a fellowship or submit workshop
proposals.  And also we are opening a call for local proposals for our 2018
meeting which is the deadline is on the 6th of February, 2017.  So please
do host of the APrIGFs in your city.  And also please stay in touch with
you if you want to receive any news or announcements you can subscribe to
announce at APrIGF DotAsia list where the stakeholders will share news and
updates and discuss issues together.  For any inquiries, of course, you can
contact the Secretariat with SEC@APrIGF DotAsia and we also want to
collaborate more with any local IGF initiatives so you already have one
running in your country, please do contact us and we can collaborate more.
And that's basically, and also I wanted to know that we are circulating the
name list, a paper that for people to fill out their contact so please do
feel that out so we can stay connected.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you Yannis Li.  That's fantastic.  Any questions about
that report?  Okay.  Next Jennifer will be talking about the outcome
document from the last APrIGF which was also presented during the NRI
session here yesterday.

>> JENNIFER CHUNG : Good afternoon, everyone.  Myna simple Jennifer Chung,
I'm part of the APrIGF Secretariat team and here I will give you a brief
update on the Taipei census document.  So Yannis Li gave you a brief
mention of the Taipei census document.  It is the second time we have had
this.  The first time we had it was in 2015 at the Macao meeting. It is a
synthesis of everything discussed at the Macao meeting and was used as the
Asia-Pacific regional input into the global IGF intersessional work which
is the policy options for Connecting the Next Billion. So this year at the
Taipei meeting, we had the same set of down hall sessions and also a lot of
editing going on with the same, with the thought that we would also
contribute from the Asia Pacific region the second phase of this policy
options for connecting and enabling the next billion phase 2. At the Taipei
meeting we held two town hall sessions and it was very active
participation.  In fact, at the meeting, we were also told by a lot of
participants that they wish there were more sessions they could engage in
and also contribute to the document.  So what we actually did for the
document this time, learning from the Macao, the year previous, we had a
pre meeting draft.  So it was draft zero chafes opened for public comment
on a platform that looks like this.  If anybody has gone to NETmundial or
is familiar with the word press type platform, the document itself is on
there and each Paragraph you are able to, you know, comment and suggest id
its, so we did that -- edits.  We did that for the pre meeting draft we had
it open for the entire meeting and we did receive a lot of comments, after
the Taipei meeting we also had a public comment session so people can
continue to give their ideas and recollect what was actually spoken to, or
spoken about or discussed at the Thai pa meeting.  We received 181 public
comments in total across all three drafts which is quite a high number. So
in the Taipei synthesis document, we did pull out six topics, so you can
see on the screen there, the first one is really the title of the
intersessional work at the global IGF, so it's continuing efforts to bring
the next billion online.  This is pertinent to the Asia-Pacific region
because a lot of the next billion coming on line will be coming from the
Asia-Pacific region.  The second topic we pulled out is security. That is
obviously a very big concern, and also the topic of a lot of the workshops
held at the Taipei meeting.  The third is Human Rights and the Internet.
That is always a very big topic, very hot topic, and fourth is
multistakeholder model.  Fifth is digital economy and trade, and the last
is future impacts. So what we are thinking about for the next year coming
in 2017 is how to improve the synthesis document so we can include even
more opportunities and even more ways for people not only participants in
the APrIGF meeting, but also in the Asia-Pacific, you know, Internet
community at large to contribute and put their voices in the concerns that
you feel are extremely important and key issues that you think we should be
thinking about in the Internet Governance space. So this is a very brief
update on the synthesis document.  If you are interested in joining the
drafting committee, which pretty much are a group of volunteers who come
and kind of synthesize all of the comments received at the Taipei meeting,
or I'm sorry, at the APrIGF meeting also from all of the online comments,
please feel free to contact Yannis Li or myself and we will be happy to add
you to the drafting committee list.  That's pretty much a volunteer list
and a lot of the hard work is done by this committee. Also a very brief
update, and on the NRI main session.  So if you were at the NRI main
session that was held yesterday afternoon, you would know that at the IGF
this year, the NRIs have received a lot more visibility and a lot more I
guess importance on the work that is done in the national and the regional
initiatives. We have had a large discussion on how we would want it to form
the main session at the IGF and we had more than 40 national and regional
IGFs sharing their discussions on a variety of topics, and it was for the
APrIGF we spoke on access and Connecting the Next Billion, and from the
other topics there was secure resilient and trusted Internet from the NRI
perspectives.  The third topic was reliable and sustainable funding sources
for the NRI events and the last topic that the NRI spoke on was challenges
in how to create more awareness about Internet Governance at the national
and regional levels and why stakeholders should be actively engaging.

>> So on these four topics over 40NRI speakers did speak on it and it was a
very fruitful session.

>> MODERATOR:  Thanks very much, Jennifer.  If anyone has got any comments,
questions, anything you would like to add, please feel free.  We will go
back to the proposed discussion agenda now.  We have got about a half hour.
This is a chance to talk about any aspects of the APrIGF that are of
interest and we thought in preparing for this meeting that there might be a
few interesting topics.  So they are as follows.  The first one is how to
encourage active participation on the MSG.  We have got, we have got quite
a number of active members out of 85, I think it was on the MSG, but it
could always be more and so ways to achieve that would be good to discuss.
The other thing is you may have noticed in the distribution of the
membership we have got mostly technical, mostly Civil Society and then
technical, not so many from the private sector in Government and I think we
would all like to see a bit of balance across the stakeholder groups.  The
next one is kind of pertinent to what we are seeing this week and I'm happy
to see the crowd in this audience because it shows me that Asia-Pacific
participation in the IGF is getting better, but how could we do more?  And
then how to strengthen the linkage and contribution between all of the
different IGF meetings.  So Jennifer has given us a good account of what
happened in the NRI session, but there is so much going on that it's kind
of a challenge to strengthen that linkage at least for us in our region,
the  synthesis document is being put together with a lot of work to
actually help to pass messages and information about what happens at the
APrIGF into others. So there is a few things that really I think we could
dwell on for a while and they may well be other topics.  What do we think?
Adam.member.

>> MODERATOR:  If no unputs their hand up after I have finished speaking, I
will have ask Adam to give the microphone to a person of his choice.

>> AUDIENCE:  I would like to jump to number two on the agenda and the
thought is about private sector is always extremely difficult, but I wonder
about the Governments in the region.  We have Vice Chair I think still of
the GAC, but can we use the ICANN GAC membership of the region and try to
encourage them on a regular basis to remind them that the process exists
and also the Secretariat for the GAC, the GAC is the ICANN Government
advisory committee and it's perhaps the Secretariat for the GAC is also
Australian based so we could encourage them to put out occasional pieces of
information and abuse that process a little bit, but it sort of might work.
That is, I think, all I can think of.  Thank you.  Who would like to speak
next?

>> AUDIENCE:  With reference to the Government, I think we also try to
encourage them but the agenda also include AP TRD that we found some
interception between the work that we need to do, so I think we have to
think what Government should be and as I already having a flow so I would
like to invite you to Thailand for the APrIGF it is host by somebody who
had money in their pocket.  We don't have money.  We need 20 do the work.
So you like me to address in that APrIGF, please send a message to me.  We
are the ones that really do the work together with national telecom
broadcast organisation.  So I like to see some of the sessions be proposed
at what are the issues we would like to address in the region.

>> AUDIENCE:  Maybe also in relation to number two since we will be in
Bangkok, I wonder if there is also a case to invite, to talk to
(Indiscernible) especially the ICT section that looks at all of these
issues.  I was there a week ago to do a gender training with the ICT
section and I think there could be some interest there.

>> AUDIENCE:  Thank you.  I think getting the private sector and the
Government to be involved in the APrIGF is important, but I also think
what's more important is to get the much more Civil Societies to get
involved in that because I come from Myanmar and I think it's the same from
many Southeast Asia countries that it's difficult for us to participate in
IGF.  That's why APrIGF and local IGFs are there.  And then on the other
hand, it's important not only to be, to the groups working on the issue to
attend but also we call them the main treatment Human Rights organisation
to be able to participate in these kinds of APrIGF.  So if there are any
initiatives and if there is a fellowship program that is allowing
participation, I think, you know, you should also consider other Human
Rights organisations, media organisations and that is not necessarily
working on this issue to be engaged and to explore on what's happening on
this Internet Governance process.

>> AUDIENCE:  I would like to go to number three and nob four, perhaps. ,
because at the international -- at the global IGF we had four national IGF,
the Bangladesh, Japan, Sri Lanka, Indonesia.  Indonesia has held three
national dialogue and one of the main issues that I feel a bit challenged,
this is in my personal point of view is the majority of the discussion
within the content.  One of the key initiatives that help us to understand
more on the content is that we are collaborating with the GIP hub to
discuss on the global train of the Internet Governance issues so I think
that's also, I think if you would like to create more conversation, better
conversation at the content level, we can also think about mainlily
conditions of the process working together with organisations like the IP
hub.

>> AUDIENCE:  I want to respond to number two.  I understand there is maybe
not enough in the APrIGF, but the APrIGF has reached out to some Government
officials because if you ask them, they will talk about can we do something
together that may be possible to enhance the reputation.

>> AUDIENCE:  You said what I wanted to say.  Yes, to follow on what Adam
said, especially with the Government, firstly is Indonesian Government is
seemingly getting much more active and I on behalf of them invite you to
come to the Open Forum tomorrow afternoon.  It will be fun.  And they have
been put in a booth and they have two ministries of people attending.  And
also give some sort of topic of our mutual interest within the, perhaps,
next meeting.  For example, zero-rating could be an interesting topic that
Government alone cannot solve, but it's a mutual problem, and give some
prominence as a speaker or that maybe is one way to put it.  The same may
go through for a private sector that they need rationale to bother to come.
So I don't have any on the table solution as to the topic, but it's a good
subject for the audience here and others.  When we were starting the APrIGF
we really did a lot of outreach to the Governments of China, Korea and
Japan and the ICANN GAC meetings, et cetera. So I think that also could be
continued, but as I mentioned, unless you have a real subject that they
really have to come and bother, they will not, they are busy, and it's
difficult for them to give their own rationale within their institutions.
That's my two cents.

>> AUDIENCE:  Sat ish for the record.  Two good points, one is about point
three.  I would like to bring your attention to ICANN's numbers which just
came out yesterday of the last meeting.  It is about 3100 plus, of which
70% list the region as Asia.  What it means for us is that there is a
readiness and people interested in Internet Governance in Asia.  I don't
know where the next IGF is going to be or when the next time it will come
to Asia.  That would be the a good time for us to leaf rule the interest
that exists in Asia-Pacific.  The second point quickly is something that is
not in this list, how does one encourage countries where there is no
national IGF, for instance, India, big country, a lot of interest, but no
IGF.  How does one increase that?  Thank you.

>> AUDIENCE:  KItani I want to touch on the point about having content
available for the national IGF.  In Japan we say we have to set similar
issue that we are able to cover the topics where we have the participants
from Japan are covering, so, for example, INS transition or certain areas
such as Net Neutrality, but then beyond that, it's like chicken and egg
problem where we don't have people, so we don't get updated on other
issues. So I think what we are trying to do is listen to dip dip plos,
webinars, prying to listen to discussions here or APrIGF, but then if there
are specific initiatives that you are actually doing to get more expansion
on the topics you are covering in the national IGF, you know, very
interested to hear what you are doing and share practices.

>> AUDIENCE:  When the whole world is looking towards Asia for the next
billion and especially when I'm talking about the next billion like andia
and China.  Point third they fear IGF can work as a bridge between the IGF
and countries who are not able to participate.  In regards to the end than
IGF, (Speaking off microphone).

>> AUDIENCE:  It's not a free discussion.  I think it's a very big
question.  So it's the same problem for so many Internet meetings from IGF
so how to encourage the Asia-Pacific participation is a problem.  If I
recall my memory, I remember that in 2004 when IGF meeting happened in
Korea.  After that so many people from Asia-Pacific, especially from China
attend meeting so after the ICANN meeting in 2013 Beijing, there is also
more participants from China.  So maybe just mention the next IGF meeting.
I don't know when we will be having in Asia-Pacific.  So if there is IGF
meeting in East Asia, so maybable there is more people will join the IGF
meeting from China, Japan, Korea.  And also for Asia, for APrIGF, I think
it depends on what kind of -- if I look at it myself, why I cannot join the
APrIGF because there are a lot of troubles. So APrIGF can do something
different with IGF, you know, in the past ten years there is a lot of talk
in IGF. So people want to do some kind of best practice or policy
recommendation or something else.  So if APrIGF can do something in a
different way as IGF and share some information or share some practice or
policy recommendations, it would be better.  So it would attract so many
people from Ghana to join. But for privacy sector, I think it is a little
bit difficult.  So I have some discussions ways that top leaders in the big
Internet company in China, he have no big interest for Internet Governance.
They have big interest for the business.  To we need more time.

>> AUDIENCE:  Gong PAE for AP SIG.  I'm also participating in KR IGF, and
we have the multistakeholder party will South Korea also.  Actually it was
already covered but I want to add something more about kind of a possible
session at the national IGFs and APrIGF.  So yesterday we have a session
and I believe we had about five national and regional IGFs from Asia.
There was also central Asian IGF 2 and we have south riaia, three lank ca,
Japan and Indonesian IGF as well as APrIGF..  I think regularly at APrIGF,
it's good to have the session on international IGFs, but even if you don't
have national IGF, we can still report the national initiatives, right,
multistakeholder activities. So it will be good.  And.  maybe we can share
the wider range of information too, the Internet related public process in
their governance.  It's going to be a little bit a burden, but if you can
accommodate, that would be really helpful.  And for the four agenda of the
discussion, I want to talk about the stats, statistics.  The public
statistics of the participants is, I believe, at APrIGF and the global IGF.
It's the same keep.  The breakdown of the gender and breakdown of the
stakeholder and the global figure, the breakdown of the region kind of the
continents but can we do more elaborating information, be more in public
like how many each stakeholder participants from each nation, then make us
to work on more, I mean, with the missing point. So it is possible, but
there is some concern on the public, the proper association of the
information but we can find a good scheme on that, so it's possible it will
be beneficial.

>> MODERATOR:  Has the cue run out.  Would anyone else -- Edmund.  I was
going to have to ask gong Pai to nominate someone.

>> AUDIENCE:  I wanted to respond to jung Pai comment, I guess first of
all, in terms of the statistics as you actually mentioned, we are very
cognizant of privacy on that as well.  We have been reminded a few times
when we think about it because when it becomes the number becomes one, then
we know who that is that came from which country and what.  So but that's a
good idea.  We will definitely take it back and try to figure out how best
to think this through.  Perhaps in subregions as well, but we will need to
take a look at the actual statistics and see how we can better report. The
topic on, that I think Saldung mentioned that's a good idea, but a couple
of things.  One, we are trying to innovate, and we are, we have the
synthesis document that is coming out as a pretty much an outcomes
document, and we are hoping this will encourage more participation, and I
think we don't want to congratulate ourselves yet, but it is working to a
certain agree, when we see the participation from Macao and growing in
Taipei and we hope that that will continue to grow in Bangkok. There are a
couple of other items that I think we can further innovate.  One of which
is as Sodung mentioned maybe some kind of best practice or good practice
because it's hard to say something is best practice in this area often, so
maybe that's a very good idea.  The other area that I think would be useful
perhaps in collaboration or in, you know, working with the many schools of
Internet Governance around the region that is being developed, and we also
have a what is called the APILP, the Internet leadership program that goes
along with the APrIGF.  That may be, perhaps, last year we talked a little
bit about it, but perhaps we need to put into practice allowing a stream of
tutorials or kind of a learning or peer learning, really, because I think
even though I have been participating from the beginning, there is a lot of
things I want to learn as well, and every time I go into sessions, I learn
something out of it. So that, you know, best practice or good practice
Forums or tutorials or those sessions is a very good idea.  So I think, I
hope the program committee this year could take that into account and
perhaps open a particular stream for those types of tutorials or good
practice Forums. So I think those ideas are good and we should take it
back.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you Edmund.  The cue seems to be over which is a good
thing because we do need to vacate here on 2:30 sharp.  Very quickly.
Thanks.

>> AUDIENCE:  It's a comment.  I believe within the last two weeks we lost
a good chance to participate with specifics because with the last election
and Pacific, we lost the Pacific and Thailand.  I am not against Thailand,
but we had a great chance to get participation in the Pacific Island if we
had the APrIGF there, whether this election system works with these Kinds
of things the number of participations and from the regions, subregions.

>> MODERATOR:  That's a very good point and that's another good reason to
be participating actively in the MSGs so you can have your inputs.  I am
fairly sure that we will have the proposal back for 2018.  So let's wish
them luck.  But it all comes through as you say.  Now, would do have to
vacate here by 2:30.  I thought I would wrap up.  I'll ask Yannis Li and
Jennifer if there is anything finally.  This is the biggest and most active
of these meetings that we have had, so all credit to you.  Thanks for
speaking up and not needing to be volunteered to speak because that was
great.  I want to take this opportunity now to also thank the APrIGF
Secretariat hosted by DOT.Asia and Yannis Li and general term transmission
are doing much more than their fir share of work for this DotAsia itself
hosts the Secretariat and contribute greatly so I do want to acknowledge
that because it's not just when the event is happening it's through the
year as well. (Applause). Now, Yannis Li also spoke before how you could
participate in the APrIGF and how you could support, and I really, I would
ask anyone here and everyone here to consider joining the steering group,
joining the fellowship committee which is a selection committee and a
steering committee for the fellowship program, and also the drafting
committee for the synthesis document and the fellowship committee as well
because all of those committees need people to do some work, not a lot of
work, but some work to get the best results. I wanted to mention one other
very important way that anyone here could possibly help and that is to find
sponsorship for the APrIGF.  One of the biggest sponsorship needs that we
have is for the foal leship.  So as we heard before, the APrIGF can't,
hasn't, for instance, been able to come to the Pacific, but through the
fellowship program, we have actually been able to support Pacific
participation, and the same goes for all of the region.  So, please, if
anyone has got the ear of good companies or organisations who would like to
sponsor, then please, that contribution would be really very important and
very appreciated as well. So Yannis Li, anything else?

>> YANNIS LI:  I wanted to ask if anyone knows where the circulation of the
paper is, the name list?  If you haven't filled that out, please do fill
that out and stay in contact with us.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  Any final remarks or announcements?

>> AUDIENCE:  IGF do you know where it's going to be. It's probably going
to be in Geneva, some say try to reserve the hotel earlier before it goes
up.  Some says let's see.  We don't know what it is going to be like, so be
careful.  That's what I was told.  Mod moted thanks very much.

>> AUDIENCE:  One last remark, I was told that the writing is a little bit
difficult to read, so if you don't mind please do leave your business card
at the corner of that table.  It would be very helpful.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you very much, everyone.  (Concluded at 2:26).

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Shade shade, shade, vag vag, vag, mage mage, mage, poid poid, poid,
they'll they'll, they'll, surge surge, surnlg, Mars Mars, mars,.

>> SAMOA:  , Sam, goal goal, goil, ran ran, rab,,

>> MAIK DEIVE NOGUEIRA RABELO:  , Maik Deive Nogueira Rabelo.

>> SAM PALTRIDGE:  , Sam Paltridge,.

Secretary-General,

>> MODERATOR:  Good afternoon.  Thanks for everyone to be here, we are
convening here to talk about IoT for sustainable growth please try to make
very beautiful faces because we got broadcast of this session, so we will
be on TV.  And I want you very happy and more than that very collaborative
and I hope your participation can be good and great because we need your
contributions. The idea of this workshop is to talk about the IoT for
sustainable growth not because we don't want to talk about any other
perspective, but if you had the opportunity to attend the three previous
sessions  session on IoT belisario those talks about infrastructure and --
infrastructure on IoT and optics on the interoperability has been already
taken on this previous session.. So our idea now is to talk about on the
business perspective but what would you like to see here today is how the
IoT can provide and generate wealthy for everyone so how can we deploy
Internet of Things, systems, devices or even websites and get some benefits
from that, but not giving back our back to the wealthy for everyone, not to
giving back for the rest of things like privacy and security and the other
things that I have mentioned before. We proposed as you may have seen in
the short lines of this workshop to make some questions or to get some
answers for some questions like how to move from concept to reality, how to
make this solution viablely, economically, how to bring sensitive things in
return to the citizen, and also we wanted to ask if the IoT improved in a
way that the private or the public sector can generate savings.  We wanted
to discuss about Internet of Things without giving back to the sustainable
millennium goals. We have six speakers confirmed.  Here we have five of
them and one is, will be with us in remote participation.  My task is not
to talk a lot, but giving to you all, especially for the invited speakers,
to give them contributions so I would like to start with a remote
contribution and for that I would invite Shad combivment OobazraaWC3
organisation and he is in Vienna Austria right now.  Shadik, can you hear
us.

>> AUDIENCE:  Hello, good evening from Vienna.  My apologies I don't have a
camera.  It's late in the evening.  Warm welcome and unfortunately I could
not be with you today.  It's an important topic, Internet of Things, and in
WTC, worldwide consortium, we are looking at what we call the Web of
things, which is the interface, the interoperability of those connected
devices and sensors and using the web platform as that mechanism to
actually have those systems, these oak could systems (Shadi Abou-Zahra) be
able to talk to each other, and my specific area in WTC is to work on
accessibility for people with disabilities. And in relevance of the
millennium goals and in insuring sustainability, we must make sure that the
Internet of Things provides the same access and value to people with
disabilities.  In fact the Internet of Things has potential to further
enhance accessibility to people with disabilities.  For example, consider
Smart homes.  For many years those have been specially built devices for
people with physical disabilities to be able to switch on light bulbs and
open doors and so on, and now go to any store and buy those things off the
shelf and plug it in and we are seeing more of that, things like self-
driving cars, what would be an opportunity for people with disabilities.
But only if these things are in fact accessible, if you cannot actually
identify as a blind person which one is your car that just drove up, then
you have trouble using this potential.  And so these are the things that we
want to look at or that we are looking at WTC.  One is having the Web as an
enabler for interoperability which I think is the number one or one of the
main issues in the Internet of Things, we have those different systems that
have trouble talking.  We are seeing already many sensors and many devices
that already speak HTTP and can convey data on the Web platform. And in the
context of that is how we would address all of the aspects of privacy and
security and accessibility, what we call horizontal activities at WTC and I
will stop there because I know we are short on time.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you very much Shadi.  And now I give the floor to
Thales Marcal from the Minister of Science and information and
communication technologies.

>> THALES MARCAL:  Innovation.  Hello, I'm sorry, I don't speak English
very good, so I made a speech and I read it for you.  Firstly, I would like
to thank the opportunity to rep the Ministry of Science, technology,
innovation and communication of Brazil at an event as import as the IGF in
Guadalajara?  2014 the ministry began the work in various Secretariaters of
the Brazilian IoT infrastructure.  To the develop and implementation of the
benefits generated by the IoT systems.  For this new sector group was given
the name of the chamber of IoT. The Brazilian chamber of IoT has
represented activities of other federal Government agencies. The
ministries, the regulatory agencies, the public companies.  Representatives
of the municipalities, the academy, universities and research rinse utes,
business associations, the hardware and software industry, and the support
organisations for development of Brazil.  In this direction, the ministry
team along with CGI Brazil and ECD proposed this to the desire to leverage
IoT for its implementation based on sustainability.  In our IoT readings,
we identify that persons with applications such as Smart home and wearables
should be in use as soon as consumers realize the cost benefit ratio is
favorable including in malt ors related to privacy and security of
information. However, applications are not only based in this cost benefit
ratio.  And, therefore, are more difficult to implement.  The decisions to
apply public measures (Indiscernible) should take into account the economy
generated by the investment of these public expenditures and the return of
the perception of improvement of social welfare by the population. The
measures are used to identify the perception of the decisions taken their
popularity and vier votes that will be given on them in the next election.
As for technologies, I believe that engineers are very well prepared to
implement the Internet of Things.  Technical issues will arise and some
there will be solutions to this case.  Therefore, I believe that the
implementations of the Internet of Things will depend on the development of
the good business plan. The plans should respond on the expectations of the
municipal decision makers, for example.  The decision makers for the
companies, and the population affected by the applications.  Finally, I
would like to inform you the MACIT is partnership with the national bank
for economic and social development, the BNDS from Brazil will as seen next
Monday, December 12, a technical cooperation for implementing the Internet
of Things in Brazil.  In addition a public consultation will be launched
that will assist in the Brazilian strategy for this sector. For this the
BNDS hired a consortium of consultants to personalize the Brazil case.
From the public consultations and the study of the Brazilian case, we hope
that many of the dots on the highlighted on the sustainable development
will be answered.  Sorry for the mispronunciation of some words.  Thank you
so much.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you, now, I give the floor to Maria.

>> MARCIA OGAWA MATSUBAYASHI:  My name is Marva Ogawa, I am the lead party
ner for telecommunications media and technology for Deloit prase Brazil.
Think you so much for inviting me for this honorable discussion, and lot me
give you a brief background.  For the last two or three years I have been
one of the enthusiasts of IoT in Brazil, and I was one of the leaders in
the globe in order to promote IoT and my mission is to help the Brazilian
Government, the Brazilian companies and the Brazilian society to embrace
this new economic paradigm.  I would say that is economic paradigm because
I strongly believe that IoT will change significantly, how the companies
are organized. And as Mr. Thales told that Brazil had just launched
national IoT plan, and I strongly believe that it will be a fundamental
initiative to guide our country to face the new economic cycle.  I'm sure
the next generations of Brazilians will be proud of the key and both
decisions taken today.  So the idea here is to explain how to, we can use
IoT to build a sustainable society.  Brazil has several challenges.  One
challenge is economic that we are facing a huge economic situation, and
secondly Brazil is a very diverse society. So we have a country like
different countries below, under the same ceiling.  And so it's very hard
to build a national IoT plan.  So my idea is that we needed to segment the
country first by regions and I would say not geographic regions, but a
combination, user combination of economic vocation, quality of labor force,
quality of telecommunication infrastructure, and attractiveness of
companies and especially external investments. And each region should drive
a business plan.  Also I have seen several attempts to segment the country
by industry verticals and I'm pretty sure that industry verticals will
change significantly due to the new digital society.  So linear supply
chains does not exist anymore.  Technologies and new customer behavior have
changed significantly how the companies are organized. So in our
experience, there are eight pillars to be developed, that need to be
considered for a good business plan for the country.  First, strategy and
vision.  The country or the renal on or the city.  Strategy and vision, we
need to have a clear vision of what we want to be achieved and a strategy
to realize this ambition.  And this strategy needs to address the three
pillars of sustainability, economic, social, and environmental. Secondly,
we need to take care of this attractiveness, and usually the Latin American
countries have been so closed, but we need to attract external investments.
We need to attract external collaboration.  Third, private and public
ecosystem.  Several persons ask me if it is more in public or more in the
private, but I would say in a combination of both.  The Government needs to
play a strong role in helping to find opportunities in the country and help
gather the parties or build the local ecosystems. Openness, communication
and technology.  I would say that broadband is a prerequisite and in Brazil
we have a national Brad band national plan which will be very important to
make all of this happen.  And sixth, data.  It's also important to have not
only the collections of silos of datas, but a combination of how we can use
and extract the different data from different projects.  And also seven, it
will be project and solutions.  I have seen so many initiatives that I
isolated, that does not communicate each other, and we do need to have
those projects and programs that need to end up in a big, in a big
opportunity that really create value to the region or to the city. And
eighth, there are skews in competences.  Everybody says that the IoT
requires new skews.  I definitely agree.  And lastly, I would like to touch
the impacts of technology and unemployment.  For sure, the application of
technology could provoke the decrease of jobs in specific areas, but in my
opinion we Latin Americans cannot fear of that impact.  We need to put our
efforts in building new society, requiring a label for us in creating new
types of jobs. We cannot delay input barriers in adopting new technologies.
These actions will deepen the abscess between countries and the developed
world.  The worst thing that could happen in our country is to demotivate
the talents and provoke a brain drain.  Let the talents in open younged
mind people absorb the new technologies.  They are the ones to build a more
inclusive and open society.  And here IoT plays an important role.  Thank
you so much. (Applause).

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you Marsia, and now I give the floor to Pedro Malo.

>> PEDRO MALO:  .  So good afternoon, I'm Pedro from Portugal, I'm a
professor at University of Lisbon and I'm also a researcher on IoT and I'm
also an entrepreneur in IoT, so I have a company that is developing IoT
technology.  So I bring about the views, the multiple views from academy,
from research, and also from business.  I have here a set of points that I
prepared.  I'm trying to go through them, and I think that for starters,
looking at IoT, I think IoT is a reality right now we are surrounded by
IoT.  I have actually an IoT on my wrist. It gives my heartbeat and it is
also an accelerometer, it has a gyroscope, it has data.  This data can be
communicated to the Web or to my Smart Phone which is the way that it
communicates, this is Apple Watch 1 so second already talks with rt
directly.  And all of your mobile phones actually are IoT devices.  They
have multiple sensors microphones, accelerometers, cameras and they
communicate to the Web.  So just to say that the IoT in this room is
already quite high and the more we evolve, the more IoT we will see in our
lines. And I think I have also an IoT, nice IoT system here because I'm
talking and that thing there is translating my speech directly to text.  I
am actually trying to chase that system to see if it manages to do what
it's supposed to do, but I don't know how it works, but I presume that
basically I speak here, it goes to the Web somewhere to a server around or
maybe on the Web, and it's getting the data.  And so it's also kind of an
IoT application right here. So we are surrounded by IoT in this room.
Talking about IoT and I think I will give you a view of Europe because I am
European and port too gees so bring about also the view of Europe, we have
starting this year a very ambitious plan on IoT.  We call it the thriving
IoT ecosystem built around three big pillars.  The first pillar is about
open platforms, open solutions.  It's one of the important things that we
push about in Europe is about open technologies. The second one is looking
at the priority markets where Europe is strong,  especially we are talking
about industry, also agriculture, autonomous cars so several of the
domains, the markets where we are strong, and so we are pushing also a lot
on that, and the third one, the third very important pillar is human
centred IoT.  So we are looking about an IoT that accounts for people that
doesn't create another digital divide, and that is, let's say, private,
secure and trusted, and trusted is the key word.  The trusted IoT is what
we are trying to build on. How are we doing about this?  So the commission
has funded, the European Commission has funded 100 million Euros in the
program for an IoT pilot, a set of IoT pilots which is one of the ways, one
of the solutions to solve the problem of going from concept to reality is
to prove technologies first to see if they work, to see what are the things
that it works better, what are the things that doesn't work so well, so we
are doing IoT pilots with substantial amount of money, Europeanwide on
domains such as smart agriculture and food security on autonomous cars on
aging well, on Smart cities and on wearables.  So we are doing five big
pilots, total budget on that is 100 million Euro for doing that. Another
thing that we are also doing and funding is experimental infrastructures.
So spaces, areas in cities, in buildings, in environments where we can
experiment with the technology first before going to the market.  So there
is quite a vast investment in these technologies and even we created a
smart city which is Santander.  So that's mother way to go to the market
and to experiment with people, real people leaving the lab before, of
course, going to the mass market. So experimental infrastructures.  So
trying now to talk a bit about the questions that have been posed basically
the first one is about the stakeholders and my problem with the
stakeholders is exactly who pays for the Internet of Things, and this is
the big issue.  The IoT, it depends on what IoT we are talking but if we
are talking about Smart cities they might be needing big infrastructure for
collecting data, for getting data somewhere, for them being able to reason
on the data, and who pays for this? So this is one of the big problems of
the IoT today is I think the business model is clear.  I think the value is
very clear.  The problem is is there the money to pay for it?  And it's not
so clear that the money is there.  Because what I see in the funding is
that most of the funding that is coming about, it needs to come from state,
and from people, from citizens, and citizens are a bit worried about paying
a new infrastructure that the value is not so clear for them. So this is
one of the big problems.  The other problem is how to monetize the IoT.  So
how can we get the money out of the Internet of Things and how do we make
sure that the taxes that this money will generate will stay in the
countries?  Because it will be very easy to move the Internet of Things
monetization to off shore or even for a low tax country and then we are
getting another level of a problem.  And these problems we need to address
in the, in this domain. But there are solutions, and so talking about
arrangements for stakeholders that can work.  For instance, I will give you
an example of what we are doing in Portugal, in armada which we are
creating a very Smart infrastructure for IoT data collection where we are
using the water towers.  We installed rooters on top of entowers and it
allows IoT communication for collecting data and because they are the most
the highest point in the city, it's very easy to install a few of them and
to cover, do a very big coverage in the city. So with a small smartness of
doing things, you can install nice infrastructure and expect things to
happen.  About employment.  Of course, that IoT will create every digital
revolution that has come about in the world as made problems in terms of
employment and that people have lost jobs because jobs disappeared, but new
jobs have appeared.  So I think the IoT will create new jobs, it will
create new economics, new business and I think that we should not at least
be so worried about that. We need to consider them.  We need to address
them, but I think we need to consider that as something that will happen as
any other digital revolution.  My view is talking about policy, I'm not a
politician, but I think that systems like flex security as you have seen it
in Denmark in the 90's worked very well because you can do both things.
You can have a very accelerated economic growth and technological base but
then you have a security system that is paid also by the employees in order
to anyone that loses a job can get back in the system in different ways and
can get training to get back in the system.  This is very important things
to do. But the way I see it, countries only change fundamental things when
they are in crisis like Portugal was in the last at least ten years time
and fundamental things only change in survival mode.  So I think it's very
difficult for things to change in the future in this respect.  In terms of
regulation, okay, regulation sometimes the best regulation is not to do
anything, is to stay put and let the market work and see what happens and
this is one of the ways to, forestates to operate.  But there are other
things that can do, for instance, talking about Brazil that we know so
well, there are problems with communications in Brazil and there is a lot
of cost in the communications in Brazil, and so there is something that
needs to be solved in the communication dwoa mains for IoT to develop.  In
the European Union there is roaming between states, between countries in
European Union and by July 2017 roaming will disappear.  So roaming is one
of the limitations that is also hampering IoT applications like any other
applications, Internet applications. So these things need to disappear,
these let's say things that are creating still frontiers in the system, and
maybe in that also things that can move on.  Privacy and security, just a
few words on that.  Of course, privacy and security is an issue.  All of
the others have talked about that at workshops.  Very clear it has happened
at the cyber attack on the 21st of October, 2016 was an attack of the IoT
on the Internet, and this is, it was really an attack of the IoT on the
Internet, so it means that for sure in the future we will see the IoT
disrupting and attacking the Internet much more because it's easier to
enter on IoT devices, the security measures are less developed and there
are many manufacturers doing stuff so it's much more difficult to have a
good security schemes on the IoT, and how do we go about that?  Well, in
Europe that is what we are trying to do with this IoT trusted label, which
is to create kind of a label where you put the mark then on your device and
you say my device it has passed a series of certifications, a series of
mechanisms, it has pass the even some tests that needs to be done, and,
okay, it's trusted, secure, and it works. And this is very similar like,
for instance, if you know Apple MFI, which is made for iPhone, imad or
whatever it is -- iPad, whatever it's called.  It is a program like that so
if you want to have a device to talk with the Apple devices ecosystem, you
need to pass to that certification scheme, and that certification steam
insures that security is addressed. And finally, just open data.  I'm a bit
skeptical about open data because at least it's me, public open data and
even more private open data because, okay, we can put the data out there,
but it's not so clear what people can do about it, and I think here we have
to do a bit of a leap of faith, and the idea would be let's put the data
out there.  Let's create the data.  Let's put it out there in the sense
that we need to do it even for transparency.  We need to do it even for
openness.  We need to do it anyway, and we should do it anyway and let's
see what people do with it. Every time we put something out there and do
something into the system, people marvel at us with nice things that we
didn't think at start, and I think sometimes you need to do these things.
You put things there and see what happens.  This is my points of
contribution. (Applause).

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you, Pedro.  Very good contribution.  And now I would
like to invite to speak Sam Paltridge from OECD.

>> SAM PALTRIDGE:  Thank you, Chair.  Well, I'm bringing up the preparation
which was loaded on the laptop.  My name is Sam Paltridge from the OECD.
So my presentation follows nicely from Pedro's is that the Internet is all
around us so I have a different way of showing that.  You can have fun on
this website if you like, you can see turtles being tracked, you can see
environmental monitoring devices.  I have just zoomed in there on
Guadalajara. This is kind of the public Internet of Things.  That's why
it's accessible, and that's why you can see that it is indeed all around
us.  Now, Internet of Things as Pedro said is an enormous number of devices
being connected to the Internet.  I like to track this by looking at those
that use IP addresses.  Of course, there are different definitions of the
Internet of Things and I'm always amazed when I see IP addresses on
devices. The thing about the Internet of Things though is that we still
don't know what the demand of the different aspects of Internet of Things
will be.  Do you need your washing machine connected to the Internet of
Things?  I'm not sure I do, but it's certainly possible.  So about five
years ago, we played a game at the OECD where we sat around and thought in
five years' time how many devices would be connected to the Internet, and
it's easy to start to run up very large numbers. We just looked at a family
of four and what, you know, back then we thought people might be connecting
to the Internet.  Today there is obviously a lot more devices that can be
connected.  I'm going to concentrate on one aspect today which is transport
because I want to look at sustainability.  The transport that's all lrn us
is connected to the Internet in ways that you probably realize if you hire
a bike in Paris, if you catch a bus in London, you will see the bus stop is
connected to the Internet.  Again, you are seeing IP addresses there that's
booting up or a tram in The Hague, you can see the IP address at the top
there. Actually there is a number of IP addresses along the side of the
tram you might be able to see in yellow color.  I'm collecting them.  I do
ask permission.  I have put a list of items there, Pedro has discussed some
of them.  I haven't got time in the seven minutes I have to go through some
of these so I will just pick on traffic. Now, those of you that have been
coming to this event for a while or have a longer history with the Internet
will always have heard about data tsunamis, how something new is going to
happen that was going to overwhelm the Internet, and quite frankly I have
been very skeptical about that because the technology is basically evolved
and in many ways run ahead of the demand. Today with transport, I'm not
quite so sure about that and I want to talk about it for the few minutes I
have and perhaps stimulate some questions from you.  Think about Internet
traffic if you look at a lot of the debates, the popsy, the regulatory --
policy, regulatory debates they are around services that generate a lot of
traffic.  Just, for example, I have used sand vine's traffic there, they
monitor a group of individuals see what their traffic is.  You can see many
familiar names there in North America, the downloads traffic sites like
Netflix. You can also see uploads there, and you can see what people are
sending.  It may surprise some people to know you are actually sending a
lot of traffic when you download Netflix because they are monitoring the
system.  But downloads overwhelmingly dominates traffic and most people
think about downloads because you are perhaps in a home that sand vine is
supplied to you might download seven or eight times more traffic than you
send.  So I want you to keep that in mind. We are connecting more things
all of the time to the Internet, and one of the things is through machine
to machine.  So a car will have two sink cards one for telemetry, one for
entertainment and we are tracking this so we collect the number of SIM
cards.  It's steadily increasing but companies like AT&T today sell more
SIM cards for cars than they do for people. If you look at the traffic of
connected cars, it's actually not that much today.  So the average
connected car sends about well, a quarter what you use just having a Smart
Phone.  So that kind of traffic is very manageable.  And I have put the
example there of Chevy.  Then I break it down, but you can do your
estimates, just go by the number of cars that are connecting and the amount
of traffic each month.  It's very manageable. It's nothing that can't be
handled by today's technology, but if you have seen some of the recent
presentations by Intel, Intel CEO is basically saying that a driverless car
will be generating the same amount of traffic as about 3,000 Smart phone
users. Now, today's technology is a long way off being able to handle
something like that.  So remember that I said about downloading more data
an you are sending -- than you are sending.  We don't know about driverless
cars.  We don't know the demands they will place on network.  We don't know
what that will mean for infrastructure.  But clearly, they are going to
generate a lot of data. And so that leads to just some questions that I'm
going to put up there as I finish.  How much of that needs to be in real
time?  We don't really know that.  We think that some of it will be
downloaded when the car is in the garage.  But if you are talking about a
lot of the applications that people have for the driverless cars, obviously
a lot of it might be car to car of a short range and so forth.  But other
data will be useful to people that are further down the highway to tell
them that there is ice on the road, that there has been an accident,
whatever information that driverless cars need to function in an efficient
way, we really don't know what that's going to do in terms of generating
traffic and how much that needs to be transmitted in real time.  That's a
real question that I think is out there, and for sustainability, which is
why I chose this subject, I think that's an open question. Clearly in the
next few years we are going to have 5G.  We haven't got a standard yet, but
we are going in that direction.  That's going to be able to handle a lot
more data.  It's going to have all sorts of implications with smaller cells
and so forth.  There is going to be enormous challenges, even what people
are talking about with 5G couldn't handle the amounts of traffic people are
talking about with driverless cars, but how are we going to back haul that
traffic? We are going to need Internet exchange points.  What is going to
happen with peering and transit.  It's going to be an enormous amount of
data exchanged between different players and then, of course, we can end
with questions about Net Neutrality and traffic prioritization.  Pedro
mentioned who is going to pay for this.  So the pricing is going to be very
interesting.  Is it going to be sponsored?  You know, when you buy your
car, are you going to buy the access with that?  Is it going to be some
other model?  Are people going to introduce congestion pricing in the same
way we have congestion pricing for cars?  Who knows? This is just an
enormous amount of questions that are out there in terms of the
sustainability, but I just raise them as questions. (Applause).

>> MODERATOR:  Thank very much, Sam, for your contribution and the last
speaker I invite Serge Mvongo

>> SERGE MVONGO:  Sorry again for being late.  I under estimated the
traffic in Guadalajara.  That's a good seg segue, I represent Qualcomm.
Qualcomm is a tech company, we he is enshallly, if you own a Smart Phone
today, we are in there somehow, we are either providing compute or doing
connectivity.  So we are very much at the forefront of looking at the IoT
and how we bring technology and some of the changes we are thinking in
terms of 5G or be able to today if you have a cellular device, data
services technology to be able to do that a little bitter. Qualcomm a few
year back started looking at the space and we understand that IoT is not
only things.  It's who uses it, who benefits from it.  And if you think
about it a little bit in those senses, you will understand that there are
probably about three categories.  There is IoT for the consumer, so Alexa,
Siri, your washing machine.  There is IoT for enterprise, so if you are a
water meter or an electric company or a large facility, what kinds of
technologies you want to bring out there. And then the last pegs really,
and it's a big piece affects a lot of people are cities and Government.  So
how does a city go about things?  So one thing we then determine is we had
to look at first the economics from a, an economic standpoint, what role
does the private sector have to play?  And how do we define the sales cycle
in IoT?  So if I'm selling to an end consumer obviously I'm going to have
some problems with end distributors, but if you are putting a solution for
cities and Government, it ha to really be a common approach with city
folks, regulators, and also some of the providers. So we actually broke
down the company that way and we are looking at IoT and making sure that we
are looking at that as such.  I'll say that from a positioning standpoint,
what we looked at it, we start, but one thing that is common, you will need
connectivity, but what kind of connectivity depends on the use case.  So in
a sense if I'm connecting a car it's not the same as being in a factory
automation building. So whatever solution is provided has to really meet
the use case being resolved.  So I can't just say it's all cellular.  I
have to say city Government facilities decision maker, please ask your
vendor is this the best technical solution for my problem is really the
first case.  And then the second piece in cities and sustainability, it's
really probability and standards.  If you think about your traditional
city, you have different departments, water, electric, transport. If by the
end you have done implementing your solution, those separate units do not
talk to each other.  You have a fantastic transport system but your water
and electric system may be bringing down the system.  So the city doesn't
really have the economic benefits of all of that integration.  So and I
think I won't say open data.  There is a lot about it, but it's good to
have the data available such that maybe for a city, citizens that are
fixing the problem can develop applications on top that the city can use in
the long term, and at that point it's just a matter of how do we put that
together. A good example we have today in this kind of world where you have
Government, city, private sector is in New York City where, you know, the
city was really feeling the pain of their pay phones.  In New York you pay
25 cronets, you make a coal call and citizens started complaining it's ugly
and nobody uses it so the city felt like there was a benefit there, and one
thing they did, they had an RFP that said, hey, we would like the private
sector and folks to propose a solution to us, such that first of all the
key benefit would be that we would like to provide Internet access for
every single citizen in New York by this time free of charge. There is a
charge to the city.  There is no tax raised.  So at that point it becomes a
challenge to folks that are trying to apply to figure out how am I going to
make money?  How is the city going to be ail to make money?  And then the
next step is do you have the right partners?  If I want to have this
economics in New York or in Guadalajara, am I working with somebody who
understands the people in Guadalajara?  In terms of selling content.  So we
set up a consortium.  We took a couple of local advertising firms and
content firms in New York, and I will transit into employment. This was
also an example for employment generation within the city because the city
mandated that any new manufacturing be done within the City of New York.
So they can only hire there and they can only hire (Indiscernible).  And
also, this is public, it's out there, the city will get revenue out of this
over the next 10, 12 years so they are getting revenue because the revenue
model is obvious in advertisement.  New York you can do that, you can sell
ads, but maybe in other places in the world you can do other things.  I am
from Cameroon, there is a phone there, I'm sure there are people that like
to make phone calls and those kinds of things so it's a local problem for
cities.

>> Now, enterprises are looking at it more in efficiency.  Let's suppose
you manage ten buildings and you can find a way to use IoT to increase
productivity of your employees.  You cannot foresee no ROI out of that.
And we did a good commercial example in San Diego, we went to our own
facilities team where they know that the largest bill was electricity.  So
they had to figure out a way to reduce that.  We used some sensors plugged
into their network and they were able to show some returns right now. So
the point I'm trying to make is that it's not about just a single use case.
It's really, you have to break it down to the different use cases.  And I
have touched on security and privacy.  A lot of times when we talk about
security, we think about the Internet piece, but what we really after
talking to different vendors, we want to make sure that vendors understand
that before the data reaches your data centre or the Internet, it goes to
the sensors, so it's important for them to ask what kind of security
policies are on the edge, and I did global type standards or are they
private network?  Because if it's private network, typically it's not as
robust as standards that 20, 40 countries have agreed to. So that's one
piece.  Privacy in the country is about what is your regulation and what
your people can accept in New York it was very clear that they told us,
hey, no cameras.  New Yorkers don't want cameras.  So you are going to have
to respect that.  If not, you are going to get backlash from the people you
are trying to serve.  So it's really about trying to find out with
regulation, with global understanding, but a local presence on how you
actually deal with privacy. And I think the last one has to do with network
and that kind of stuff.  We think that, you know, 2020 you are going to
think about not sending all of the data over the big barriers.  There will
be potentially private networks where I have my private telecommunication
network where it doesn't go over, you know, bell south or AT&T or whatever.
And that may make sense for a security company because they want to have
that type of thing.  So it's a matter of what the use case is.  I will stop
there and maybe take some questions.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you for your contribution, so of course there are
enormous questions to be responded to what it's going to be.  It's not
going to be easy.  Just wrapping up what we heard and call my attention is
that everybody or almost everybody spoke about the human beings to be the
centre of the IoT using different words, they said multistakeholder
ecosystem, the human centred IoT, who is going to be the interface with
human beings in IoT? So everybody is concerned about the presence of human
beings as a real actor in IoT ecosystem.  The other thing that caught my
attention was about some of you talking about the data, and how important
is data for the Internet of Things as a value, as important content for the
Internet of Things work out. So it also says the importance of open data
and also the open platform.  And the other thing, the last one that caught
my attention is that at least two or three in this panel mentioned the
importance of pilot projects or some projects that can show how IoT can
benefit people.  And Se rge mentioned we have to focus on IoT or consumer,
IoT enterprise, O St. for city and Government and maybe different groups
have different approach and the IoT has not to be the same for everyone. So
now, I open the floor for everyone, and I would like to hear from you, your
questions, your comments about the main topic, please.  Feel free, if you
can raise your hand.

>> Edmund Chung.com which DOT.Asia.  I find out three speakers conserving
on a few things as you have summarized in terms of open data, tsunami of
data and different cases where data converges and I wanted to respond to
the last comment.  Actually that's very interesting for me is that while we
think that all of this data is going to create a lot of traffic, but if we
look back at how videos, for example, on the Internet eventually worked out
we had content delivery networks that kind of pushes the traffic back to
the edge, and I think what was mentioned about how private networks or the
networks not necessarily depending on the, I guess the GSM network, that's
going to happen especially for, probably for the consumer and for the
enterprise as well. And that, and that relates a lot to what we mean by
open data.  I think, you know, open data really is much more towards the
IoT for city where the transparency is important, where, you know, the
interpretation of that data, I guess, the reason for the transparency is
the interpretation of the data could be checked by multiple parties not
just by whoever has the exclusive access to that data and that's probably
important. So whether the traffic stays on net or I guess quasi off net
what we are calling off net might be private networks or something like the
content delivery networks that stays more in the local area than fully
global because ultimately data doesn't have, not all of the data needs to
pass through the global network all of the time, and that is the, I think
we are moving into that type of -- we at least we should be moving into
that area, that direction, and, well, actually ourselves, we are
experimenting with some pilot about how that data can be kept back in Hong
Kong and also at our organisation we are doing pilots about how that data
can be kept within local area networks or private networks and then shared
selectively to the open network and how that model can be. So I think
that's -- I like the idea that was presented at the last point, and I think
that really needs to be a direction that we explore further.

>> MODERATOR:  Okay.

>> Hlenai learn Asia a think tamping working in Southeast Asia.  So along
the things like quality and capacity of networks, another problem is
capacity of human beings.  So somebody was talking about open data and it
seems Government centric the approach and the speakers.  Many my part of
the world the indicate data for the IoT are the mobile phones as one of the
people said and we work with call detail records and VLRs in the future it
to not do telecom stuff but to identify, answer questions related to SDGs,
involve yerty mapping, where do poor people life, how much do they earn,
transport planning, where do they come from, and where do go to work?  How
is the nature of the city from commercial to residential and back to
commercial.  All of these things are answerable primarily through private
sector data that lies with the telecom operators which is difficult to
access even for our Governments but that has to be combined with Government
data from the national census offices.  These are completely divergent
entities and we are a completely third party outside the not for profit
sector who happened to have the capacity to do this kind of analysis. All
of these three things need to come together, the assumption that our
Government certainly in my part of the world will have the finances
wherewithal of the capacity to set up central initiatives of the type you
were talking about I think it not realistic so we need to talk about how
different sectors come together and use this data.

>> AUDIENCE:  I'm INA Annette from Portugal.  I would like to raise a basic
question.  I don't want to talk about the business model because there are
several business models like, that but I think you understood that I wanted
to ask something very basic.  It's not about the business model, but about
the possibility to have Internet everywhere anytime.  I mean, Internet of
Things, it has a potential, it's enormous potential of leapfrogs any time,
but I think that you have a limitation because you don't have Internet
everywhere. And the point that we have the sensors, we have the collection
of data, we have data to be processed later on I think it limits poo of
Internet of Things.  I would like to know from panelists about this because
I think there is something missing here is Internet everywhere any time.
Thank you.

>> AUDIENCE:  That's a very good question.  That's a question that comes up
quite a bit.  Unfortunately the reality is that it's not free.  So the
Internet doesn't have (Indiscernible) so there has to be somebody that gets
the infrastructure in whether it's a Google sending their stuff, their
satellites up, but the end result is if I give you free Internet, are you
willing for me to look at, I get the data that I get from it. So those kind
of privacy discussions where I can use the data.  You have Internet for
free, but I use data to potentially sell businesses, so it's a good
question but we have to keep that in mind, and second of all from a
Government standpoint, you can think about cities doing a few different
things, New York did it for them because the economics work.  It will be
free by 2020, you go in there and you log in, but somebody had to pay for
it, and there has to be economicked behind it that's just reality.  (Serge
Mvongo)

>> AUDIENCE:  I think first his questions in terms of the edge computing,
so I think it's very important to design the perfect architecture because
what you mentioned is that more and more computation could be in an
Internet of Things world.  So it's heavily dependent on the way you design
this architecture and definitely we do not need anymore to upload
everything on the net.  Because you can solve several, you can put smart
analytics in the edge.  So robotics in the edge.  Those are the things that
will come up very soon. So concerning to the Internet of everywhere, I
think we need to build the connections where it makes sense.  As he said,
it costs, somebody has to pay.  So that's the reason that we need to come
up from the business model and really identify what makes sense to be
connected.

>> AUDIENCE:  I agree, I didn't mention that because I didn't want to waste
a lot of time, but the approach of edge computing and full computing it's
one of the ways to solve the data tsunami, and we are already experimenting
with that.  In Europe we have a lot of trials doing edge computing even in
production environments and manufacturing to know not only to do the, let's
say the data stay in the edge of the application domain, but also to do
local analytics and to learn locally and even to synchronize edge, several
edges to have, let's say, local view between some domains and you are able
to reason with partial information.  Of course, this will happen, I think I
just, it's, this is very clear.  We from an engineering point of view, we
will solve the problem.  I think it will be difficult because we don't know
how much data is coming about with the cars, but at the end, we will solve
the problem. We have solved the problem every time.  So even if we develop
new ways of doing it, if we put edge computing, I don't really see that the
problem is technical.  We always solve the problem technically.  We always,
always, always solve the problem because we are smart people, right, we
solve problems.  Right.  Globally we are smart people, we solve engineering
problems. The other is more difficult, political problems and other
problems are more difficult to solve because we are not so able to do that.
About the question of -- actually I don't think we do, because I think
Internet we will have Internet everywhere, and the more we go, the more
Internet we will have every time everywhere every place.  And if we see in
Europe maybe in other places not so clear, but in Europe, every place that
we go, we have Internet. Some places we don't have Internet, but, okay.
It's few places.  I think the tendency will be to have Internet all over
the place, mobile Internet all of the time.  And this, we have to think
about this if it's a problem or not.  But even in places where we don't
have Internet, it's no problem because we can have data being generated and
I go there with the data mule that passes with the data stuff and brings
the data back to let's say the Internet or even I think that when you are
talking about Internet of Things at least my perspective, the data and the
things doesn't need to be connected to the Internet.  It needs to use
Internet technology. So if you have a domain using Internet technologies
but it is not connected to the Internet, for me it's Internet of Things.
So it means that I don't need to have Internet access even to have an
Internet of Things.  So at the end, I think this will happen every place,
everywhere respectively if we have Internet or not, but we will have
Internet everywhere.  Everywhere we will have Internet.  I don't know if
you agree with me but the tendency will be to have Internet.  I see the
future in 50 years time in the future where we pay for a infrastructure
which is a worldwide infrastructure.  We pay a little bit and I have access
everywhere. We already are starting to have that in Europe.  In July 2017
all of Europe will have Internet.  We go everywhere and we pay a bit for
our part.  I pay in Portugal, but I have access in all of Europe, and I
think that when we go to the U.S., and we go to Brazil or to the South
America or Mexico and at the end we will pay a bit for a global
infrastructure that will connect everywhere where we are.  At least that's
my vision of the future.

>> AUDIENCE:  And when you mention everywhere, you mention, I thought you
were mentioning Internet in every onto where you are talking about
everywhere in places.  Okay.

>> AUDIENCE:  For me it's not good enough to have the collection of data,
and then waiting for --

>> AUDIENCE:  In this case I agree with you, I thought that your question
was everywhere in terms of every object.

>> MODERATOR:  We still have some comments, remote comments, please, Shadi,
can you hear us?

>> SHADI ABOU-ZAHRA:  Yes, I was very encouraged by the previous speaker,
the optimism.  And I did want to touch upon the aspect of people and I
think we have talked about that before and there were questions on that.
So we do have the digital divide and this is a problem that we have not yet
solved and unfortunately, and that's a real challenge in many ways in terms
of affordability, but also in terms of skills, and in terms of
accessibility for people with disabilities, and in going forward, I think
this is going to be yet another, I mean, already now on the quote, unquote,
traditional Internet, we have people who are being left behind. I think
that's one of the main reasons for the IGF in the first place, and, you
know, why we are sitting around the room trying to decide the issues and as
technology moves forward there is huge potential to solve many problems but
also great challenges and I think we need to put this really in the focus
with all of the data and all of the technologies that we have been talking
about right now.  One of the questions is do people have the skills?  Will
they be able to turn on their light bulbs?  Will they be able to, you know,
use all of the technologies in the first place or how will this, how will
we reap the benefits so that we can realize and not only the business
benefit, but the social contract that we as a community have?

>> MODERATOR:  Before moving, again, I have to read a contribution, a
remote contribution from AmosVutsa.  He was supposed to be also a speaker
here, remote speaker, but he had a technical problem so he sent us his
contribution.  So here it is.  Thank you for inviting me to take part of
this workshop and share in the African perspective.  My name is Amos Vutsa
from farmer line limited in Ghana and we are into solutions that bridge the
communication gap and data collection mostly from the rural communities. As
IoT is new, it is even a challenge for Africa than an innovation.  This is
because almost 60% to 70% of people live in the rural sections with low
connectivity.  It is, therefore, more difficult to implement IoT solutions
and make it more sustainable.  That is IoT projects in Africa just like
(Indiscernible) is focused on low cost and low energy conception and long
range communication device.  It's very important because for the rural
farmer to be able to benefit and pay for such device goes beyond just the
data collection, but the predictive and information delivery in the most
simplest form. The value of IoT to dedicate is very clear, but for Africa
where most of the people live on a very low income, it's important to
consider how to move from funded projects and research and make IoT
solutions ready for market products.  IoT for agriculture in Africa is
considering how to make the over 75% small holder farmers benefit from
their less than two acre farms.  It's also important to consider data
security and privacy even though most of the African countries have no open
regulations to protect their citizens. And it is the reason why the
Internet is mostly housed by the few that have access and don't understand
the implications of sharing every data.  It also makes it difficult to
convince the rural farmer what IoT is and how they will benefit.  As the
world tries to connect everything to the Internet, it's important to
(Indiscernible) rural communities who mostly make up the majority and
almost 75% of world food. It's, therefore, important to consider the low
energy and the longer rainfall communication device so as to reduce the
cost of implementing IoT solutions and build sustainable business models
around them.  Thank you, and I would like to end here.  Thank you Amos for
your contribution.  Now, Sam.

>> SAM PALTRIDGE:  Just to respond to a couple of the points made, first, I
think you are absolutely right, and the Internet has been remarkable in
both keeping traffic local, developing more local solutions and that's
certainly wise to do that.  Traffic he really wants to stay local, and part
of the solution to some of the challenges I was mentioning before certainly
is keeping that traffic local. You also made the point about private
networks and I think you are absolutely right there.  Hospitals or
factories will generate lots of data, but that doesn't need to be
transmitted over the Internet.  Why I highlighted driverless cars was to go
to Elana's point about the exchange of information, to go to the
environment that people are talking about, a lot of this data does have to
be transmitted, and it has to go between different networks, different
providers, different manufacturers, and that's part of the challenge here.
And if you think about that in terms of the telecom infrastructure, you
have to start to think about the back hole, and, yes, you may have lots of
fiber in the cities, but there is lots of highways where there may be fiber
but there won't be offramps and those sorts of challenges, it's going to be
necessary to think about that is to how you deal with that traffic. And
finally on tsunamis, most of the Internet of Things doesn't generate a lot
of traffic.  It's, you know, environmental sensors and things like that
that do not generate a lot of traffic, and, again, a lot of traffic doesn't
need to go on the Internet, but if we are going to have some things where
that needs to be transmitted then there may be challenges, and Pedro says
that the technology will run ahead.  It always has.  I think it's an open
question this time for driverless cars, and I think it's something we can
talk about over the coming years.  We don't have many years to talk about
it because they are coming very quickly.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you.  So we have to move to the end so I would invite
the panelists who want to speak some final words, perhaps say how the
business point of view would answer or respond for the questions raised in
this panel.  So who wants to talk?  To feel free to give the final words.
So perhaps two, three, or all of us if you want to say something.

>> SERGE MVONGO:  Just quickly, I think for the technology is there and I
think we are moving towards it.  5G, IoT, lasting spectrum, it will make
differences in the cost of the implementing the solutions so you could
potentially set up a smaller, cheaper network in a remote place in Africa
that does not need all the bells and whistles.  And that's happening in the
2018-2019 time frame, but really it's important that we think about it in
terms of open and interoperability so if west end Europe develops a
standard or something that works, that could be transmitted to Eastern
Europe or if you are moving to Hong Kong or Indonesia.  That's
standardization of solution is very important. And I think the last area is
processing on the edge, I think you touched on it and making sure that we
only offload data that needs to go off the Internet and you can have
actionable information there.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you.

>> In terms of business point of view, I think the technology is already
available, and there are relevant business cases even in countries in Latin
America (Marcia Ogawa Matsubayashi) and if we not do this, others will do
it on our behalf.

>> MODERATOR:  Okay.  Very last comment.

>> I think it's great to be part of this Internet of Things world.  It's a
new world.  We live today Internet.  It's in one lifetime we will leave the
Internet of Things, Internet of what we can live on.  It's fast-growing
thing, and I think there is a lot of potential for this Internet of Things
and a lot of money that can be generated and I expect also not only money,
but maybe a new societal model, maybe a new way of involving people in the
society, in the politics because we are so satisfied from politics and
strange things happen like in the U.S., hike in France, like in Austria,
right, things are starting to be strange. So we need to bring people back
again to the stand and involve, and I think the Internet of Things can also
do this, new accountability, new openness, new transparency, everything of
these things I think it's important, and the Internet of Things can make it
happen.

>> MODERATOR:  Okay.  It's time to finish.  You may realize that we don't
talk a lot about privacy and security, trust, interoperability because all
of this talk have been already taken in the previous sessions, and so our
focus was the Internet of Things in the business point of view, and I hope
that you will enjoy to be with us.  Thank you very much for you all, and
especially I want to thank the invited speakers and including those who are
remotely participating.  Thank you very much for all. (Applause).
(Concluded at 0423).

test test test test test test test test test test test.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  You deserve it.  Okay.  Anyway, let's start the
discussion let's start and let the recording come in whenever it's ready.
Okay.  Okay.  We are ready, let's get started.  Feedback, please.  Yes.

>> Personally I think we made a lot of progress compared to how we did last
year, I really enjoyed it and I think it was the right format and the
moderation was well done and I want to thank you and congratulate you.  I
think it was as you said done in a very gracious way.  Thank you.  And yes,
I share the impression that we could have used another half hour maybe and
that's it.

>> AUDIENCE:  I just want to build on that.  I actually think we could have
done another whole hour and a half given the content of your research
papers, given the questions that you put out two, three questions plus the
survey questions, I think we could have easily done another round or if
slightly shorter, another two rounds of questions, especially as the sort
of, where things were combined and sort of building on each other just sort
of started at the end of that first round, so (Avri Doria)

>> AUDIENCE:  I tend to agree with Avri.  Would you like to comment,
Tatiana?

>> Tatiana:  Yes, absolutely there were some good questions of yours or
some points in your papers which could have fit very well into the
questions from the floor, and it would have been nice to have another half
hour.  And to jump between remote participants, me, remote participants and
me, but I understand the time constraints but if you can split it into two
or maybe do it longer next time it might work well and from me thank you
very much for your papers and for your questions.  They really helped a
lot.  Like after I read everything, after I saw your questions, I
understood the focus, I understood so clear what you care about, how I can
approach this.  So it's a joint effort.  Thank you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you, Martin asked for the floor.

>> Martin Valent:  The moderation made it an interesting whole for some of
us there may not have said everything we want to say, but that's a good
thing because an hour norm would no have been enough.  So appreciation for
that.  The other thing I appreciated was hearing things from the other
Dynamic Coalition about very good practice things.  I loved the fact that a
group of students were involved.  I loved the fact that there were ways to
communicate with Government in another, which brings me to the suggestion
that we share what we deem to be our own best successes in running the DC,
the best elements of that, and share best practice in that way.  I'm very
willing to write an email in what I think we do well, and I'm looking
forward to read those from you on what you think you do well.  And one of
the things that came out for me and I bring it back to my Dynamic Coalition
for sure is I'm going to offer our good practice paper to universities
like, hey, do you want to discuss this with your students and love to have
the feedback.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you.  Other comments?  Yes, please.

>> AUDIENCE:  Yes, I would also like to sort of plus one and endorse all of
the comments about it being a really good session and definitely
significant progress from last time, fantastic moderation.  Thank you.  I
have to say I'm in the short and sweet camp, which means that even though
there were questions remaining, et cetera, I thought the session worked
really well at 90 minutes, and I think it will be easier to attract more
people if we keep it at 90 minutes rather than three hours because the
dynamic or two hours because the Dynamic Coalitions are not the only spaces
where these issues are being discussed. It's one of the spaces within the
IGF.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you.  Well, as I said earlier, I think it's better
if you are still left on your appetite.  I mean, nothing worse than if you
sort of run out of steam, but we left in a way on a high.  There was still
a lot to be discussed and I'm sure discussions will go on so I think that's
a good thing as it is.  Yes.  Mary Ann.

>> Yes, plus one for me, I was in the audience so I was getting a sense of
how it came across.  Very, very flooj, provingal and I think, again, an
hour and a half is enough.  What we were missing, perhaps, on the program
was some sort of title.  DC main sessions is kind of obscure.  And I think
that's really important because then we can spread the word more.  I'm
obviously Tatiana, fantastic, and that you studied all of the papers.
That's best practice in itself. And what was the other thing I noticed?
Yes, about students.  We found the IRP coalition they have been
extraordinary energizer and if it weren't for them they provided us with
new material, and they are just totally becoming engaged to IGF and are
thrilled to be able to be there live, which is a real, a real plus for the
remote participation if it's rebuilt over the year so in that sense it was
good.  I felt it needed a little bit higher profile and a snappy title but
I wouldn't want to stretch is out longer for the reason that you said
Markus, but well done, everyone.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  And finding a snappy title may not be that easy as we
are covering a broad area, but I agree DC main session is not very sexy.

>> AUDIENCE:  This year might have been the first year there was a
newcomers track too.  I think we should encourage a tie between the
newcomers track and the DC main session because some of the points that
Tatiana made about isn't this the same as that and haven't you been very
different were helpful to newcomers to the IGF so to the extent that the
session could be advertised through the newcomers track or some other
thing, I think that could be helpful.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Luca,.

>> AUDIENCE:  I liked the format and I think it was much more dynamic than
last year, so very good moderation.  I just wanted to point that there is
also Dynamic Coalition for youngsters or youth Dynamic Coalition so we
should involve them in the session.  I know that for students for
youngsters maybe to prepare an outcome document is not the he'diest thing
but we maybe could try to provide them our outcome and having their
feedback, and I know last year, I had the chance of having two interns that
were in the youth at IGF group, so they brought a lot of youngs, but this
year unfortunately I didn't have the chance but we have to try to involve
these youth programs to try to have them and to give feedback to us to do a
better job and better outcomes.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you good suggestion.  Indeed they did not provide
a paper that's why they were not part of the exercise.  Yes, Eleanor.

>> AUDIENCE:  Sorry.  I just wanted to say that they were a little bit
disorganized and they sort of came in to the main session planning process
too late to be participants in the main session, but once they sort of
realized what was going on, they came together very quickly and they have
sort of been rebooting their activities now.  They did produce a report,
and they, and they have been meeting and talking much more regularly.  So I
think, you know, from now on, we will see them being more active.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you and I think Luca's idea was to involve them in
the process, maybe not necessarily produce a paper if they don't have one,
but Christopher, yes.

>> AUDIENCE:  Two comments and a question.  One is I believe in short and
sweet.  And we do have all separate main sessions, so there is ample
opportunity to discuss it at length.  This is more lightning presentations.
Second, I agree with Luca, I think there is not just Dynamic Coalition, but
I would like to take a suggestion just to throw it out there, can we create
an event where we meet them early in the week like maybe day zero in an
informal mix and match session? Because one of the things we did in our
booth we put up a sign that yesterday youth welcome here.  They are
wandering around lost.  They don't have a home, and the more we orient them
early and get them in conversations with some of the more active
organisations here, I think that would be helpful.  The question is are we
just talking about the session we just ended or are we talking about the
Dynamic Coalitions generally here, because I have a comment about how
feedback I received from my main session.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Well, my -- I thought we are still fresh our memories,
let's just have a fresh reactions to our main session and I think it is all
very helpful and I see that quite a few, Olivier was first.

>> Olivier:  Two things, the fact that our moderator walked behind us
freaked me out.  No, but more importantly, the concern I had was there
appears to be a sort of disconnect between the ideas, rating sheets and the
session itself.  I know that it was mentioned in the beginning, but then
afterward I'm not quite sure we got, we made full use of that, and I wonder
whether if we had more time and I'm not saying whether we should have more
time or whether this was enough time.  If we did have more time we could
actually submit some of the questions from the ideas rating sheet to the
audience and with either a show after hands or a show of green or red card.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you for that.  Jeremy my was not able to join us
as he had another commitment.  I'm losing track of the cue, I think you
were next and then  Mary Ann.

>> AUDIENCE:  This is Nicolas.  I was thinking of the title you mentioned
and if we had a more interesting title and maybe this session were
scheduled earlier in the program, it would also, I think, get more people
involved in the Dynamic Coalition's actives because I think this actually
would have worked very well as a presentation of the Dynamic Coalitions so
during the rest of the IGF people know more about what we are about.  So
that's my proposal.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you.  That's a valid point about the scheduling.
I can't remember, maybe the idea was let's have the Dynamic Coalition meet
first and then feed into the main session but do it the other way around,
have the main sessions as appetizer feed into the Dynamic Coalition might
indeed make more sense.  Mary Ann and then Luke ca.

>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN::   Before I forget, Twitter hashtags, it wasn't clear
where the hash was.  I couldn't find it. I was using hashtag IGF 2016.  And
also I just had a question, is it IGF policy that Twitter -- oh, that
Twitter wars, I think they are great to have, I think they line things up
but is there a policy to moderate them?  Why do they need to moderate at
all?

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  There is the question there may be taboo issues that are
not allowed to be mentioned in a UN context.  We are not talking about just
a gate keeper to see what's coming up or not, but that was in a sense, it's
a little bit of a can of worms.  We asked more than once for a Twitter war,
but Avri, maybe you want to comment, you are the most active on that and I
think also the most frustrated person by that.

>> AVRI DORIA:  Part of the reason for moderated is since anything can come
from anybody on Twitter, you want to avoid the UN wants to avoid certain,
certainly profanity or pictures or anything that occurs out a Government,
et cetera.  So they have always required a mechanism with some sort of
delay or some sort of moderation.  And those tools are available.  We just
weren't able, the human rights group got something going, and if we had
known what they got going, we could have used what they had, but I only
found out about it when I was sitting in their session earlier in the day.
So that's the reason why we have to do that at least a delay where someone
has time to stop the expletitives, stop the dirt because you can send
anything in Twitter.

>> AUDIENCE:  Just in terms of general education about this event, Twitter
wars come and I think they are great, okay, point taken.  And then some
basic guidelines are included so that people understand why it would be
moderated because it's counter intuitive to how Twitter works and that's
also educational.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Should I put it that way there are other sensitives
apart from profanity, there are political sensitivity.  Who was next now?
I'm sorry.  Tatiana.

>> TATIANA::   Well, first point about Twitter war, from my experience with
moderation, it reproduces itself, when those who are Tweeting can see the
Twitter war, when it's projected somewhere, other wise it will be mostly
silent, especially if the session is not super controversial.  This is the
first point.  I would like to excuse, I would like to say sorry for walking
behind you.  It's a big stage, and I decided to do this to maintain the
substance and keep you awake, but honestly, the reason behind this is I
don't stay, I don't like standing moderators, because it's a kind of --
there should be some movement on stage, I believe.  Moderator is not just a
tape recorder, it is someone who at least provides connection between the
floor and the stage, and the set is so terrible when you see that, you
know, you are like above the audience.  So I decided to move here and there
because if I move in front of you, there is an opportunity for me to turn
with my back to you and this is a killer for the session, so I'm sorry for
this but next time I'm going to do it again.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  You may have freaked out Olivier but I think you did it
well and you moved very elegantly, you were floating across the stage.
Luca.

>> Luca:  I think there is also a lot of room for improvement in the survey
to have more feedback, because if we want the IGF participants to provide
us feedback, they have to understand, they have to know that the survey
exists and if we go on the IGF website, we have to go on IGF community
intersessional work then the Dynamic Coalition, and then Dynamic Coalition
you find them and I think a link directly from the home page could be
feasible and much easier to have feedback.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Of course, Avri.

>> AVRI DORIA::   I think I agree on the page, but there may be other ways
to make sure that people can get to the link, because the page is
constantly turning so I think it's good to get it on the front page,
probably good to get it on the schedules, good to get it on signs around
the place.  So I try to push it as much as possible in various meetings,
you know, whether there were ways to post it so that people could just get
it.  I think you are right about keeping it on the page and I will work on
that for next time, but I don't even think that that necessarily will be
enough to get, to get enough people to read the papers.  I think the other
part was, is some of the people obviously won't have read the papers until
maybe today it will be enough for them to be interested enough to go back,
so that's part of the, us advertising them in the meeting and such.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  We did have some out on the DC booth, but according to
Jeremy my there was very little feedback although we had it bright from the
beginning.

>> AUDIENCE:  I want to share our experience of the idea rating survey last
year when we did it for the first time.  We actually put it out, remember
the deadlines with extended by a month, and we put it out on social media.
We put it out on a number of gender lists -- general lists, et cetera, but
honestly people have been resistant to filling out the survey.  I don't
know if that's because of the platform itself, the user interface, or what
the issue is. So I would like us to also keep the possibility open of
testing it this year, and then deciding what we want to do next year.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Yes, please.

>> AUDIENCE:  Did anybody go to an Internet Society session where they
asked you to contribute to their survey and they gave you a card that told
you where to go.  Could we do something like that for the surveys just so
that people can take it away with them and they will know where to go
because I still have mine and I got this the first day.

>> AUDIENCE:  Have you gone to the survey?

>>

>> AUDIENCE:  I have, but I thought it was such a great idea that I'm
taking it as evidence.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Yes, and please, I can't remember all of the names so
please state your name.

>> Aye Uta this Carol.  Founding member of the Dynamic Coalition on child
online safety.  And going back to that year I believe it was the second IGF
that it was founded.  I found the idea of Dynamic Coalition very thrilling
and I think we might consider when we talk about the title of the session,
DC main session, not everybody knows the acronym, and it could be much more
dynamic, and when I went back to tell my stuff at the organisation, we are
now part of a dune Dynamic Coalition, everybody was asking what is that?
What does it mean, and I think we can stress that a little bend aexplore it
a little bit, what does it mean Dynamic Coalition?  What could we do?  It's
a good name and good format, but it needs also to be explained to all of
the other IGF participants.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  In a way you are already touching on what was part of
Eleanorras agenda for the session but it's fine, we are having the
discussion, our memory is still fresh, we had a good session, we all are
fairly pleased with how it went and all of the work that people did too.
So it's great to have this brain storming immediate Luca.

>> LUCA:  one point on the survey, the survey, it has been useful to put
the option of having, identifying the stakeholder group and I think also
the regional that has been put but I think the fact of asking people to put
their name, that is something that will dissuade people to take the survey.
And it's a basic principle for democracy, I mean you vote, you give your
name but you don't say that you have voted for something else, so I would
suggest not to ask people's name if we ant to have feedback. Nernlg comment
I had about the name Dynamic Coalition.  I like the name Dynamic Coalition,
but maybe it would be more understandable for people if we called them IGF
coalitions earn Dynamic Coalition.  Because Dynamic Coalition for us it's
immediate to understand what it is, but for someone never in contact with
the IGF process, if you say IGF coalition it's much more understandable
than Dynamic Coalition.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Well, (Indiscernible) doesn't agree and I was going to
say there may be some resistance against naming them Dynamic Coalitions.
Andrea you don't agree,.

>> ANDREA SACHS:  When you change a name you have a brand.  The best way to
go forward is to take the brand and make it more accessible and more
visible.  If you change brands, and, you know, somebody is going to mix up
this, that and the other, so I would be against that, and also you are
perfectly right, there is a pro problem with labeling it IGF.  So also we
weren't even recognized in the beginning.  We were considered upstarts, and
horrible little creatures that can't influence the IGF.  So rather than
push the boat out, what you want is, as I say, you said it, it isn't very
sexy, just DC. We could have put Dynamic Coalitions, and we could have put
a caveat, which is on a kind of, you click on it and it drops down and you
can see the names of the Dynamic Coalitions aand what they are.  So that if
there is, if you put that and you have access to the Web, you can look at
what's there.  So rather than try and become fashionable, catchy, sexy, or
whatever, let's be more explainitive and more accessible so if there is a
dropdown box, people will see that.  That would be my suggestion.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you.  Christopher and then Mary Ann.

>> CHRISTOPHER:  I agree with the idea of rating sheets or whenever we are
calling them now.  To me the spirit of the IGF is bringing together
multistakeholder groups and it's not, you get consensus in more than one
and different views on the other.  It's important that we capture in those
the breadth of it because the whole point is to engage the whole community
because unless it has that consensus, it's not going to succeed.  What was
striking to me, the one comment I got in my only main session, and this is
an interesting blind spot, it struck me from the other ones I met. I had
three of the different stakeholder groups there.  I had no Government on
the stage.  And I know I have attended sessions sometimes we do, sometimes
we don't.  And I just, I thought they were right.  And it's one of these
things on a commitment level, if we are going to get the output, and so I
have done a lot of the diversity work of different cines and you start with
the people who are having the commitments, but we do understand we started
inviting people outside that group because ultimately people we need to
engage in the work and unless we get their attendance, we can't get their
buy in.  So one of the challenges in terms of, I think this is once caused
a best practices discussion, as Dynamic Coalitions, we need to, I think
every convener has to take responsibility for active outreach to make sure
that the participation is representative so the full range of voices is
there. It can be quite frustrating it.  It can be heart to get parts of the
stakeholder groups to participate, but I think if this type of organisation
is going to have the kind of impact that we hope, it's going to require us
as Dynamic Coalitions to commit to that because otherwise we will talk
amongst ourselves, which, has it's own rewards in its own way but will not
lead to the kind of outcomes we are committed to trying to -- the kind of
dialogue and interaction and consensus building we are trying to promote.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Mary an.

>> MARY FRANKLIN:  DC main stition sub title presenting new work or new
work proposals, even that provides a lead into why someone might want to
come to the main session.  About the survey, I -- I'm sorry, I'm
sisterrably fore.  I didn't realize.  My apologies.  My mom tells me this
all of the time.  I'm sorry.  About the survey, yes, I made an intervention
last year and I will follow up anonymity is absolutely vital for a survey
to work.  It's pointless to have a survey and ask people, you can ask
people to volunteer their name but it's pointless and it's a shame because
a lot of work is being put into that, and we were developing it quite well
this year by being asked to have these propositions.  That was a good
disciplining and focusing exercise we got a lot from the IRP coalition but
to not anonize it is inappropriate on not just Democratic grounds it's
inappropriate on research grounds and it actually unfortunately invalidates
the tool as a research approach.  Before we get into the discussion of
whether we want to rate like we are rating, I just need to under score that
point.  It's a shame really, but let's see how they go this month.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Did you have remote comments?  Yes, please.

>> REMOTE AUDIENCE:  I think that there is one people on line, but I don't
know why it is not to begin to speaking.  I don't know.  It's okay.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you.    Olivier.

>> Just a quick suggestion, I was a bit disappointed with the interaction
with the audience.  Yes, we had questions at the end, but I was still under
the impression that a lot of them were checking emails and this sort of
stuff Luca and I were counting.  We got different numbers. We have to
explore ways to engage the audience more and to get more immediate feedback
from them, and I just wonder, and this is just something I'm throwing out
there, I remember, I can't remember if it was the first or the second
Russian IGF they had these boxes that everyone had with A, B, C, D.  People
while discussions were going on could press buttons and if they strongly
agreed they would press A and you had a screen behind the speaker, not in
front of the speaker, behind the speaker that would show how people were
agreeing or disagreeing with what was being said.  It was quite amusing and
it get people quite interested with the sessions because they felt they
were really getting on well. And the moderator could see what is going on
and he would say it looks like people are not agreeing with you.  It can be
done with apps these days.  You get a simple app on the phone and everybody
is connected.  The people are doing their emails, they could actually go
and interactively agree, disagree and this sort of stuff.  Just a thought.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Good suggestion.  Tatiana.

>> AT TIANA:  I agree with Olivier about dissen gaugement of the audience.
There were several factors, first of all, the stage itself, it is the
positioning of the room and the Chairs.  I just, from my moderation
experience, I just know that these rooms with a stage are always less
inclusive.  Whatever happens, you can try to run around with small devices,
whatever, the only way to actually engage is when moderator comes down from
the stage, runs around the audience, and the session starts with open floor
for questions. That's the only way to engage these big audiences.  All
other format, I mean, of course, using the tools, I agree, might be super
helpful, yes, when you have enough participants in the audience.  When we
decide to count there was like ten people or something. So I believe that
for the future, you might, you might explore this format.  Collect the
questions from the audience during the Dynamic Coalitions but I don't know
how it will fit well with the presentation, because I don't think that all
of the people are able to read 12 papers, and it just doesn't make sense to
start without presentation because it's not an open mic session. So there
is a tension between these two.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Good comment.  The room definitely is not ideal.  This
kind of, it reminds me of the very first IGF.  The audience was work we
don't have audience, we have participants, but this root creates an
audience.  It makes it very passive.

>> I felt this wall, and I have huge moderation experience and my most
miserable experience is always connected with these big rooms with stage
and audience.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Yes, please.

>> Olivier:  I wasn't saying that the audience wasn't listening at all.  I
found that at the beginning they were listening less than at the end which
is a good point.  There was an increase in involvement from the audience,
but I really want more audience feet back.  I want the audience to talk, to
do things and, of course, if we have to first present our work, it would be
really great to have interactive feedback that comes to us at a faster rate
than having to work wait for one hour before we start getting questions and
feedback.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you.  Well, we knew the challenge when we started,
and we actually managed quite well by reducing the individual time to what
we did.  It was a challenge, but would you like to comment, Andrena.

>> ANDREA SACHS:  I'm thinking back to your comment whether you or Malcolm
started captioning first, and --

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  The ITU copied the IGF.

>> ANDREA SACHS:  which they couldn't have, they had me and I was there
before the IGF.  But any way, we will argue this later, but this is not the
point.  When I was talking, I was going to say something about the room
configurationment we were on a stable, and what didn't used to happen is
that we didn't have the screens in front, so the speakers could see them.
And that was what I was going to say, if you get into a smaller room or a
different kind of room, you might not have that facility because not only
could we see the speaker speaking, we could see the captioning and it was
at either end.  We didn't have that before unless we fought like mad for
it.  I think we did have it in Istanbul because I screamed and I got the
boys to do it for me.  I get the boys to do everything for me.  I am the
grandma. The thing is that you have to think about what the features are
that you have that make it accessible before you start changing the room.
I think the room was too big because we had too many spaces, but maybe we
should look at filling the room rather than, and also it isn't accessible
with those stairs, but the thing is you are tied to the venue.  So when we
choose a venue, maybe we have to look at the main session rooms, because
the ones in, what was it the tropical place we went to.  Not that one, the
one before.  Bali. That was a good main session room.  That was terrific.
That was all I wanted to say.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  One more comment and can we then conclude.  Yes.

>> NICOLAS:  Two things, one, maybe if we want to be more inviting our
title would be something more like meet the Dynamic Coalition in the IGF.
So we are using IGF without making it a trademarks for us, and one other
thing, and that would go well with moving it earlier in the schedule.  Meet
the Dynamic Coalitions, then we start working.  And another thing from our
experience, it might be interesting to start the session with one general
question and invite just two or three people from the audience, like just
asking what is your idea of what Dynamic Coalitions are, for example, and
just invite two or three people to engage and define what's the idea
because maybe there is a lot of people there that actually don't have a
clue of what it is, and they are going to just to find out. And starting
with a question is always good to get the people engaged from the
beginning.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you.  Well, I don't think we need to carry on the
discussion for much more.  I mean, I think we all agree that the title
wasn't the best possible title.  So next year, we have to think of
somethingless.   something else, whether or not we get a main session that
will be up to Avri to fight for.  But let's have this kind of meeting in
any case, if not the main session, then let's have it a workshop or a super
Dynamic Coalition session. But I think it was a very good exchange, and in
whatever form we should have that also next year.  And improve on what we
had this year.  Clearly we need another title, and we need to try and make
a better engagement with the other participants and whether that will be to
continuation of the, what was it called, the idea survey I think this year,
not writings.  Rating sheets, but I would have one concrete question now.
I think what do we do to rescue the surveys from this year?  And I take it
we should anone opize it and maybe extend the deadline and try to push it
out through respective networks among your participants to get feedback.
Would that be a fair summary of what I heard, Martin?  Martin VALENT:
thank you.  I like questionnaires surveys and such.  I do research as well
and it helps if you can get people to answer.  The think the second year in
a row, we show that we can't get people to answer, so in that way it's not
useful.  I don't think on the last day or the fourth last day of the IGF
you are going to be ail to do anything to save that, and in that way
despite liking the theoretical value, for me the practical value is such
that I don't intend to invest a lot of time in that.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you.  It was what I heard that you did that last
year, could you explain again.

>> what we did last year we found before the IGF we got very few responses
and I think Jeremy did a little summary during the session and we did a
campaign to basically get responses but let me tell you the positives and
negatives.  We basically said, look, at least we should get X number of
responses.  So we reached out to our networks, but the thing is that also
means that we don't necessarily have the full diversity that we need. So
it's possible to game the survey in a sense because you can, yes.  And the
other thing that I wanted to say is that I think I share Martin's feedback
that theoretically I like the idea of a survey, but practically I'm not
sure that it dies in that much to our work and perhaps one of the reasons
is like, for example, I'm just going to use the example of Net Neutrality.
I think Net Neutrality lends itself to a survey because I think people
really have strong opinions, et cetera, et cetera.  It's a very hot topic.
Honestly, gender and Internet Governance to a point lends itself to a
survey, but maybe if we could at least next year or at some point make it
easier, is it possible to change the, like you know, we all do surveys on
line.  Is it not possible to use an easier interface Marcus.  I don't know
how this works.  Can't we make it like other surveys on line?

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  I have no answer to that one, and I would have to look
to maybe Avri or Jeremy who is not here, but I see Luca was going to speak
and then Martin again.

>> LUC:  I think in replace to comment we have room to save the survey and
to anone mise it and to leave it open until the end of December or the
beginning of January so I think we need to do this and we have the
possibility to have concrete results.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Mary Ann and Christopher.

>> MARY ANNE FRANK LYNN:  Yes, I think there is nothing, all surveys need
time to build up steam so I'm happy that we have another morning.  I'm
happy to here that's anone mised, then a lot of us, at least I can speak
for myself and some of us in the Coalition would feel a lot happier about
pushing it.  We can get what we can from this particular round of survey.
It is different, it is better, it's better constructed.  But back to
Bishaka's point what is is the tool for?  It needs to have a reason an
objective that makes sense.  So we could continue with the survey next year
and we need to decide what we want to get out of it.  But the very valuable
input we got from that interactive platform last year where all of the
documents were open for online comment, and it was online comment.  I find
that extraordinarily valuable so one can have a range of feedback
mechanisms, quantitative one is like a survey, simple polls and qualitative
ones.  Both together are very powerful.  If they are designed and it is
clear what purpose they are serving and perhaps tailored for each
coalition's needs so that there is a feedback mechanism built into this
process.  We understand this, but one side does not always fit all.

>>

>> AUDIENCE:  I like the idea about data.  My whole project is about data.
I just popped on the surveys and looked.  None of them achieved double
digits as of today, and I don't know.  It's tough.  And by definition, we
are not, what our ability to reach the community is largely determined by
our Dynamic Coalitions already, the people are in.  The attempt is to
survey the broader IGF community, I find it's going to be very hard.  And
so my gut tells me that if that's the feedback we are looking for, we may
not get it.  The online documents I think are very, it's a grit idea and I
have seen that.  One of the things I have experienced is if we do that I
think there is a need to be transparent. There are times that I have given
input into documents and it's not actually, it gets projected, you know.
No explanation, no even acknowledgment that there were suggestions, and if
we are going to use that as a mechanism, there should be, there should be a
way of creating dialogue because we are not really voting organisations.
It's more consensus building and getting conversations going moreso than
trying to get, you know, it's the process of the feedback that's really
valuable and surfacing that and going into the actual outcome document.

>> AUDIENCE:  May I respond.  Last year the tool we had was very good, and
it was transparent in this case it wasn't anone mised which I think in this
sense was right.  I thought it was a powerful tool we have under estimated
and I would like to see it back on line again whatever tool we used.  I'm
not sure what the brand was.

>> MODERATOR:  Martin has been waiting patiently.

>> MARTIN VALENT:  First, I don't think it's the quality of the survey
that's the problem.  I'm happy to keep it open until the end of the month
or to the end of the January, and if we manage to reach the double digits
the first digit may still be a one.  So that will not impress me,
particularly because it's quantitative which doesn't make really sense.  I
do appreciate the use of the documents that we had last year.  It led to
some input from corners I hadn't known and for that it's important, you
know how to use it also as a moderator.  I agree that you reply on the
comments rather than just change it without saying something.  Thanks to
Avri, I learned how to be better in that, because I wasn't used to it
either.  I can imagine that many of us are not used to it.  So the
documents a plus, yes, for me if you want to do the survey again next year,
or again deliver a couple of questions, happy to do that effort.  but let's
see how much better we did in terms of responses than last year. I don't
think it's much better, and where do we put our efforts and our money?
Maybe there is better ways like the qualitative feedback on documents
itself.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you.  Jerry asked for the floor.

>> AUDIENCE:  My first obvious question is will the survey be accessible to
the likes of myself, for instance, registering for IGF, there was a
(Indiscernible) so I couldn't register myself.  And the second question I
think is it has been interest Tim mated what is the purpose of the survey
in if there was a dynamic co-aaligs on Irish people and it got bad marks,
are we going to throw the Coalition out?  What is the purpose of it?  And
do the results go back to the Coalitions?  Can people who have voted see
the results or is it just within IGF?  I don't know the purpose of it. So I
think some clarity there, and also another thought that flashed into my
head a few moments ago when we were talking about the name of the session.
Interactive dynamic evaluation of activity session or ideas.  Just a
thought.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you.

>> ANDREA SACHS:  Your Cap -- Capch which is the robot discerning little
things that what you said it didn't get through and you couldn't use it.
My name is spells Saks thank you very much, and the thing is that there is
a way of doing that and Gonila has information on that so maybe you could
ask gone illa because I think everybody needs to read the Dynamic Coalition
guidelines please.  I bet nobody in the room has read them.  You have.  You
get a prize.  You would read them because I would kill you if you didn't
read them. So but I don't think anybody else has, and I think it's
important.  And that's an interesting test because how effective are we and
accessibility is always like, oh, yes, right, she is going around
preaching, but the thing is are we successful within our own group?  So are
we surveying ourselves for what purpose?

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  The point was it should provide feedback to the Dynamic
Coalition.

>> ANDREA:  We already know that nobody is reading our --

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Now you are being cynical, but Gonela had an
explanation.

>> Just quickly about Capcha.  I understand why it's there because it means
that robots scant get onto the site, and but there are ways around it.  And
it's not providing an audio version of Capcha because that is not workable
either.  But there is -- it's an easy way to do it is just to have a
question, one plus one equals what?  And if a person puts 2, it's fine.
That's all that's necessary.  So there is clear, you can say you can have
some other text questions that everyone knows the answer to like what is
the color of the sky.  Presumably it's usually blue, I mean?  Some places
like Ireland it's usually gray, but that's what I mean anyway.  So there is
a very easy work around to make Capcha accessible.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Avri wanted to come in,.

>> AVRI DORIA:  I wanted to answer the question of what was the original
purpose.  I think they were originally suggested when all of the Dynamic
Coalitions were sort of unknown.  And so we did the papers with the
editing, and then we had the suggestion of doing the surveys.  I think we
have tried the surveys two times.  We have done the paper editing at least
once.  And that's, it was just methods to get more feedback, and to see
which ones work and which ones don't.  And I think one of the comments made
about some tools being more appropriate for one Dynamic Coalition than
another may be actually a clue that we don't necessarily need one tool that
everybody is undergoing.  We have got two tools now.  We have tested them.
We kind of know how they work.  Maybe we will come up with another tool to
experiment with next year to see if we can start building a tool kit of
things to get Dynamic Coalition as and every kind of Dynamic Coalition will
probably have a different mechanism that helps get wider feedback.  So I
just wanted to try and answer the question.

>>

>> AUDIENCE:  I just wanted to underline the transparency that you have
mentioned.  I have done some research in participation online and off line,
and the question is that people need to understand what they are, why they
are asked to fill in that questionnaire or the survey or the writing
sheets, and if it's necessary that we need to explain in this room what was
the purpose of the writing sheets, then we have done something wrong.  It
needs to be obvious why we do that, and it needs to be obvious to all of
the people that should fill in that writing sheet.  So the transparency to
my opinion is key to get more than, more than to get answers from people
attendtion the IGF and beyond.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Right, yes, please.

>> NICOLAS:  : Regarding the online document commenting system, I think in
our case, we were working with the declaration, it felt like a downgrade
from what we were doing, which we were actually elaborating that document
already.  And I think maybe an interesting platform would be to adopt
Wikipedia's media Wiki platform which many people are already used to which
has a discussion section which is very useful as was commented here, and
maybe, and that's already there to adopt, so just a suggestion.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you.  Well, it's quarter to 6:00 and I think we
have to stop at 6:00 so I think we need to come to some closure of some
sort, and I take it there seems to be little appetite for squeezing much
out of the survey, but at the same time some people may wish to continue,
so why don't we leave it open to each.  One comment made, I think, struck a
cord with me, you said if you push it within your network, then you maybe
get the biased result, you don't get the broader feedback that you are
actually looking for.  And also the comment that if you have to explain it
among this group, then it's more difficult to explain to people who are not
part of this discussion. But so I saw a few hands.

>> OLIVIER::   How was the survey publicized because if we publicized it in
our main session today, I don't think we will get that many more answers.
Was there any Twitter storm?  Was there any, and if it was on Twitter, why
didn't each one of us reTweet the Tweet?

>> AVRI DORIA:  it's been being broadcast for a while.  It has been
Tweeted.  It was when I gave the talk for setting the scene.  The whole
time I was talking the URL was on the board behind me.  I Tweeted it during
the session.  I Tweeted it a couple of hours before the session.  But
nobody repeats my Tweets.  So that's why there wasn't a Twitter storm, but
certainly there was a bunch of Tweeting of it.  It has been put out at
various times.  It was included in most of the announcements about the
session.  So we got to find a better way, but it wasn't just sat on.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  And we also have the booth and we said let's make use of
that.  We didn't have that last year, but there was very little interest,
very little appetite.

>> AUDIENCE:  Just following up on the Twitter comment actually I think one
of the factors that I think it makes it reTweet extensively and I would
like to interest use Smita who is my colleague and who has attended a
number of the DC calls.  We shared the load.  So one of the things that we
found is that because when you Tweet it, you don't go directly to that
specific survey.  You go to the page, and then you have to tell people like
please find the DC-GIG survey.  That's another barrier to like you know
normally when you give a link, you go directly to that.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Yes.

>> AUDIENCE:  You mentioned a booth.  I was going to ask, what happened,
was it a success?  Was it worth doing it?  It's the first year we are
having a DC booth so can we have like a --

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Mary Ann.

>> Mary ANNE FRANK LYNN:  I think it was great.  We need coffee and
business Qatars and cookies.  I thought the book was a great idea, please,
let's have it again.

>> AVRI DORIA:  And we need coffee or chocolates or something.  We can't
steal coffee but maybe we can do chocolates.

>> AUDIENCE:  Also from how Christopher book worked they didn't only have
coffee.  They have special people who really went out and socialized with
us, like certificately, they were all over the place -- certificately,
seriously they were all over the place.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Well, they have the special group there, young people.
So, you know, okay.  Let's think about what we can do better.  As I said,
Eleanorra had distributed and it's post the on the website kind of agenda
for this session, organizational best practices, co-facilitators and
Secretariat role coordination moving forward and all of the questions but
obviously we will not have time to go into that. My main thing was now what
do we do with the survey and that a fair summary to say, okay, let it sleep
and let it, let's see what comes out of it, but I think the general feeling
is if you are in a single digits then it's really not worth pushing it too
much. But Luca doesn't agree.

>> LUCA:  I'm not sure that was the general feeling.  I think the generally
feeling was to keep it open until the end of December and anone mise it but
maybe I'm misinterpreting the general feeling.  Maybe we can raise hands.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  That was my first reading of the discussion, okay, let's
anone mise it and leave it open, but then I felt there was quite a lot of
push back on the value of the survey.  But we can do that.  We can do that.
We can anone mise it and leave it open and see what comes out of it.  Okay.

>> OLIVIER:  I have retreated Avri's Tweets which were not retreated so now
you have one retreat.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Christopher.

>> If we are going to change the instrument, we should dump the prior data
because by having the requirement that you put a name on it, you have
introduced bias into your data you would have to segment them into
different, it's just textbook, I mean.  If you are going to do that -- you
are not losing very much, but it's a question of then we will get the
feedback which is responding to prompts through certain means, but if you,
because there is such an effect on asking you to, there is a known skt by
asking you to put it you are going to create a sample bias between the two
populations which you shouldn't combine the statistics.  It's just textbook
survey design.  We are not losing very much.

>>

>> AUDIENCE:  My question is do we know if all of the feedback that has
been expressed so far was by people that were -- because we had two
versions.  We have already changed it, right, we had the first version that
was, we could not say anything in what stakeholder group we belonged to or
where are we from or who we are and then the second version where we had
the possibility to leave feedback, and say who we are and something like
that, and then how we are going to change it again.  Right?  (Nicholas)

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Have you followed it that closely?  I have not.  But I
mean the point is valid.  If you want to have a feedback we cannot change
course.  What I heard was we would like to anone mised survey otherwise
it's not much value, but then if we do that, then we should discard all we
have received so far, and then you put off the people who went to the
trouble of filling in the form.

>> Luca:  Why don't we have two results and combine them or we have two
results saying those are the people that have done it.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  We have survey A and survey B, it's comparing Apples and
Pears.

>> Luca:  The first is people willing to say who they are and the second is
for everyone.

>> I don't know why we can't put not obligatory, somebody could put it down
and they don't have to because lots of times you fill out forms and they
will say not required (Andrea).  Luke ca, we agree on something.

>> MARY ANNE FRANK LYNN:  that would work without us getting too convoluted
and the second technical point 101 is single digits, double digits,ing in
under a 100 does not warrant percentage rating for future rating.

>> AUDIENCE:  This is a class, you need benchmarks so you need aggregate
statistics because they tend to be four plus.  That's just the nature.  The
scale is, the statement, do you agree, one, degree, five degree.  And you
can't actually take three as the median because three is never the median.
The standard way you look at this if there is a bias you tend to be around
4 and if the graduation is between there so you have baseline either, so
you if you do student satisfaction number, you compare it to the universe
of all answers to that question across everyone or you look historically to
the same questions done before, because I looked at mine. They are all like
5s and maybe a couple of 4s across the board.  I looked at all of the
others they are all basically 5s and 4s across the board and that's the
nature of the survey instrument we have chosen.  To make sense of what that
means, you actually have to understand what the baseline expectation of a
response to a neutral question is because it's not going to be dead on 3.
That's the nature of the measurements.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Avri just checked the survey.

>> AVRI DORIA:  I gave one of you all fives and sent it in without signing
a name and it went through just fine.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  So the anone mising is not really an issue.

>> So we have to change the instrument.  If I got to that and saw the
request, I wouldn't submit.  That's the request is the ask, even though
they can do it, if you don't make a clear ask, it's going to change the
response characteristics of the people you are polling.

>> AUDIENCE:  Why don't we just add after the name case not mandatory.

>> AUDIENCE:  If you want to keep it open, you would say it's optional and
make that clear on there.  Segregate the data so you don't do it and then
keep it open.  You could try to do that.  You still have to figure out what
the baselines are going to be to make sense the data, but this is textbook
survey.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Let's talk to Jeremy and see how we can best make use of
that and let's keep it open until the end of December.  And let's take
stock after that.  Having said that, I think that brings us on the Agenda
Item the way forward and my suggestion will be then that we follow our
regular pattern and schedule a call in early January next year and then we
have also more feedback from the survey and see whether it was worthwhile
or not. And I don't think we have much time to do much more today.  I think
it was a good, an animated discussion with our memories still being fresh
of what I consider a good session, and with that, I would like to thank you
Saul for your active participation., for your excellent presentations and
for your discipline for sticking to and not exceeding the limited time slot
allocated to you.  Thank you, and I wish you an excellent rest of this
meeting and have an excellent evening.  Thank you.  Bye-bye (Concluded at
0556) Copyright © 2016 Show/Hide Header