You are connected to event: CFI-RPC4 12/6/16. Internet Governance Forum. Security, privacy, and the ethical dimensions of ICTs in 2030. >> Good morning, everybody, thank you so much for showing up bright and early at 9 a.m., this is a very unexpected surprise, given the what we have here today is we are going to discuss security, privacy, and ethical dimensions in ICTs in 2030. Today we have a group, quite a group of panels, a diverse group of panelists, so -- the important thing is, from our view, this is, this session is about participants. So we have no slides. Our speakers are only going to speak for about five minutes and then we will open it up for questions. This is your chance, I get to talk to them all the time, so I get to have these discussions, this is the chance for all of you to ask the questions you want to ask them. And believe me, you will really enjoy what they have to say. First I would like to introduce Meher here. >> Good morning, everybody. I just wanted to ask you to basically describe a little bit what you are doing in your work and also some of the challenges you faced and also some of the things that you find such as the education along with connecting people and how that plays into having more beneficial future for your country. >> All right. Thank you very much. I'm very honored to be among here today. I feel really privileged to have the opportunity to talk about the project we are currently doing. For those of you who don't know tune neesh sha, it's that little country on the top of north Africa, yes, you do know it. Good to know that. So, yeah, one thing you have to know about this country is that we don't really have lots of natural resources and since our independence, like 60 years ago, we focused on two main points: Education and health. And ever since our independence, that path kind of deviated a little bit. There became a gap between -- a digital gap between the city and the rural areas. So love people don't have the minimum knowledge about internet, internet connectivity, so, when we started about, our project, our main project, it's called -- in Arabic it means connectivity. So, what we are doing is, we are trying to not only pay attention to rural areas, we don't have access to internet, but also revolutionize education in this country. In this little five minutes, I'm going to try to walk you through how we envision our country in 2030, as far as ICTs is concerned. We are going to start as I said connecting schools in this country, especially in rural areas. We are going to set a deadline, connecting two schools for 2016 and then we are going to expand we are going to be connecting 24 cools, one school per state before the end of 2017. But the project doesn't stop there. We are going to expand and reach out to the whole community, and of course why do we start with education? As I said, education is one important pillar in this country and we have to focus on that. If you introduce something, if you introduce a revolutionary technology to children, through their enthusiasm, their passion, they are going to pass it on to their parents who are definitely like leaders, community leaders who are -- businessmen, so, internet connectivity will expand in different parts of the country in many fields. What we are going to be doing, we are going to provide a simple solution that consists of providing periodically, like updating content, like educational content, sharing it in schools, for -- and you focusing on stem education. We have been, we went to a school in a rural area in this country and we gave them like a little scratch workshop, programming, and there was this 14-year-old boy, he had no -- he didn't have a computer, but he talked to me about Python, C plus plus, and I'm a secondary engineering student, and I just learned these things. Imagine if these children have the right circumstances, have the right technologies and so on, to learn? Imagine what they could do. Then not to mention those who don't have p computers, in rural areas, imagine what great minds might be hiding over there. This is basically what we are doing. And as I said, the project doesn't stop there, we are going to also be doing innovation hubs, a place for children and everyone who have great ideas as far as ICTs are concerned, provide them with the right tools, everything that they need to start the projects and so on. This is an interactive workshop, so feel free to interrupt or ask questions at any time. >> We will get through the panelists first and then we will get to that point. One of the things you -- I know we had talked about is, not only are you connecting the schools, but the gender balance is very close to 50/50, sometimes even better than 50/50 in certain situations. Could you maybe talk a little bit about how you all are doing that? >> Absolutely. If -- jend esh equality is something obvious, women have the right to vote a very long time ago. Through our project, we are going to be trying to focus a lot on gender equality. And in fact, we are not really -- pushing this, we are not really pushing -- it's like we are -- people are -- children are pulling it. And especially girls. When we gave this workshop, girls and children, they don't really have a great idea about the internet and what -- the opportunities and the possibility that it offers, and she said, like, oh, we talked about, we talked to her about how she can create a website, and she said, okay, I can sell my homemade products on-line. She is already a social entrepreneur, and if the right skills, imagine the future she could have and the change she could make in her community. >> That's great. That definitely goes towards achieving the SDGs on gender equality and learning for girls and women. That's amazing. Next I would like to turn it over to Greg here. And Greg is a cyber securities expert. I don't know if that does it justice. In the context of cyber security and what it's going to look like in 2030, how do we weave in that fabric of trust where it will be beneficial and productive down the road and what do we need to do now? >> Thank you, Justin. I'm Greg Shannon, we are one of the chief scientists within the software institute and I have been the chair for cyber security expert. The fabric of trust is what people are discovering, they engage ICTs, it extends their boundaries and their a ability to engage. It's a much more nuance, complex challenge when we are dealing with things like denial of service attacks coming off of internet of things, worrying about fake news, worrying about, you know, does our system, can we trust our systems, can we trust the way the infrastructure is put together? There are four components that go into that. There's security, privacy, resilience accountability. And I think various cultures and societies are recognizing that accountability is one of the key things. From a technology point of view, which is the IEEE. What's the science and technology we can provide in this ethical challenge, in this policy area, it's about creating technologies that ensure that there's a accountability, you don't necessarily have to take someone's word that yes, I went down the checklist, it's baked into the technologies. So the notion that things are secure from the start privacy -- there are going to be things that we don't yet understand, but we need to be resilient to that and then the a little bit built, as society, as we have issues of right and wrong, we can go back to those who break that trust as they use the ICTs. We are seeing this evolution, we -- I expect it to continue over the next, over the coming decades. But it's really about us all being mindful of that and recognizing that we have to critically question, can I trust this, what does it take for me to trust this more? There have been some cases in Africa, in particular, in terms of delivering ICTs into the population, where properly engineered systems that take into account, say a security, and the notion of prepaid cards, and using proper encryption, proper protocols for ensuring that someone can't steal your prepaid card, or can't create fake prepaid cards, make and ecosystem based on ICTs that everyone can trust, whether it's the incumbent organizations, the government or the consumers. So really this interweaving of security, privacy, resilience accountability is really essential to having something that we all can trust going forward, especially as we bring on the next billion individuals and billion devices. >> Thanks, Greg. That's really interesting. And when you talk about accountability, I guess whroas responsibility is it to hold people accountable? >> I'm going to punt on that. I'm going to say the science technology is to help identify who should be accountable, kind of what part of the trust process is broke? That is up to society, different nations, different cultures, that's part of governance issue, how do you resolve that issue, but it's about, to be accountable. You have to be able to point at some entity, some rule that kind of failed in providing that trust. >> Thank you, Greg. I'm going to shift to Louise now. Yesterday we were having a good conversation, and you were discussing the different perspectives on this issue, and so I would just like to let you pick up that conversation that we were having. >> Great. Hello, to everyone. My name is Louise Marie Hurel. Center of technology and -- first of all, I would really like to thank the youth observe tore I that also gave me this opportunity to be here, it's a pleasure, thank you so much. Well, first of all, I would really like to talk a little bit about, some questions so that we can have a nice dialogue over here, I think that's the whole point of this session. So, well, talking about the relationship between privacy, ethics, and security and ICTs, is already challenging. The but thinking about the complex interaction between these issues, in 2030, is taking the debate to a whole new level. So, which brings me to the point that I want to make here, which is talking about perspective. And I think at least we can see 2030 within three different perspectives. And the first one that I would like to highlight is the temporal perspective and in this case, well, there's so many questions that arise when we think about it. How are technologies being built nowadays? Is it mostly to feed a supply and demand relationship? Is it to be competitive? Are we talking and taking the time to build -- taking into account privacy as an fundamental asset rather than purely economic. And the second perspective is this -- perspective. This perspective is translated as I see and this is a trend that I also would like to highlight over here, for example, through the internet of things, we don't see any more this difference, this base difference, like I'm going to talk to someone in another country, is it not more about shortening distances, we see ICTs is part of our lives, taking over our homes, our hospitals, it's taking every little aspect. Our lives. So it kind of shift into our perspective of seeing how the relationship between ICTs and this -- dimension. And the third one, the most complex of all, is the governance perspective which Greg was already talking about a little. It's undeniable these are multifaceted dimensions. Data bases, AI, rather than thinking of one solution for all of the privacy and security problems, we should think about how to promote dialogue and confidence between stakeholders, how to engage and include the different stakeholders. The same as as we are trying to make sense of technology, private companies are trying to make sense of how to promote technological innovation in most economic dynamics, so governance are on the other hand trying to make sense and juggling with the challenge of drafting normative frameworks, they are -- withstand the shift in technological changes. Well, both temporal and spatial perspectives are normally taken for granted, especially when we talk about internet expansion, globalization. When looking at these perspectives, we are seeing less temporal spatial reduction and more process of translation of the around -- into bits and pieces of computer managed information. And as individuals, we are more disdistant from what is actually being decided. Sometimes we are rendered to a system algorithms -- even as fragmented bodies of information or collections of what we are. In -- it seems as if we are, part of this big wave, this undeniable trend of an interconnected life in the making. I see it. The bottom line for me is that it isn't simply due to the fact that it is out there, that we should blindly accept it. Notwithstanding, it's a technical, devoid of social political and economic, and subjective interactions. But the question I would like to point out today and concluding also is, are we building sustainable standards and policies capable of upholding trust between individuals and ictsz, because 'what I see today is that the future, we are, where misconceptions regarding privacy and security, surveillance not only as a means to collect and store data, but as a process of consolidating what I believe is a trend for the next few years, and unfortunately it's kind of a pessimistic point of view, but a surveillance capitalism. With this in mind, I would like to conclude by saying I would finalize with this brief collection of ideas, because I think that's what it is for us to debate. Saying that perhaps there is no end to this in the making, because there is no absolute control of the multiple dynamics in these three perspectives and the many other perspectives that we can highlight. However, we can think critically and act to change paths through which we can navigate and consolidate collective understandingses of security and privacy multiple dimensionally. >> Thank you, that was excellent. And fair to say here optimistically pessimistic? >> I think so. I think in the end -- I -- your experience, I hear experience such as Meher's, this brings us hope, other perspective how to include privacy and security is bottom up rather than decisions that are taking for us and that we don't have any control of it, so in some kind of way, I'm in this gray zone of optimism and pessimism, so, yeah. >> I think a lot of people are. So, and we do have a remote panelist. Are we ready to -- is the audio working for them? >> Hi. >> Hi, John. So, I'm going to let you introduce yourself, but first I just wanted to set the stage here for you, and that is you do a lot of work in the ethics of artificial intelligence and ought ton mist machine systems, and I know you are doing extensive work right now , and my question to you is, pretty much, what do we need to do now, right now to ensure that the world in 2030 is product oftive and beneficial for all of humanity? >> First of all, let me know in you can't hear me or you can text me if there's any technical difficulties. >> Will do. >> And sebd of all, I'm honored, thank you so much for inviting me on to the panel. Thank you so much, and also, really, really appreciate the comments that the other panelists have given so far. So a lot of what you hear me answering to your question, Justin, is yes, and, to the great comments that have come before. I wanted to say although in terms of my background currently, I'm the executive director of a new program from I trip Lee, global initiative for ethical considerations and artificial expwrns and autonomous systems. I'm speaking for myself as John today, not formerly as representative of that company as it were. I think the thing about 2030, which is really critical to think about, there are a couple of paradigm level aspects of life today that we need to take into consideration with regards to how we want to move forward as a society. One is the idea of how we determine value in general. And I have been working a lot in the past few years in what's called the beyond GDP movement or gross domestic product movement, in the sense that GDP, while it's an excellent measure for financial aspects of what is value around the world, aspects of species or money, it was not built when it was first designed by Simon in the 30's, it was not designed to be a measure of holistic well-being. This is something he specifically said. He said don't let this become a measure of happiness or well-being, and it now is see deeply end trend smed in our mind set, I think around the world, that GDP is sometimes considered the be all, ends all of value. It's really important to remember, especially when issues of like autonomous systems or autonomy comes up, in general, and again, I'm not in any way trying to sound pejorative or negative, I'm trying to make a statement of fact. When there is any economy in whatever part of the world that is using GDP as a primary measure of value, a lot of the modern idea of GDP has to do with exponential growth. So by exponential growth, I'm not talking about year over year, normal growth, adding in cost of living. I'm talking about a sort of IPO quarterly shareholder profit mind set which is not wrong or evil, again, I'm not interested in using those terms. However, it is critical that as a society, we realize that if an organization, whether it be corporate, non-profit or any other, or even an individual, if their focus is primarily on exponential growth, they will likely choose say a measures of something that might have autonomy that could serve that growth fast err. In many examples, that may be great, that may be the right choice, meaning the ethical, moral, and economically sound choice. However, in my work and the work I'm doing for I trim Lee, that it should not be the de-factor choice. And by that, I mean now is the time for humans to determine what are the values and what are the measures and metrics of value that we want to incorporate into the machines and systems that we are building so that by 2030, we can look back and say great, we imbued the right values in these systems. And so for instance, I love what Greg said earlier about the accountability. A lot of times you hear talk about transparency with algorithms, which is important, but I would say accountability is even more important to echo what Greg said. Accountability like the idea chtd internet of things where there's technological interoperability, accountability especially like in the standards world, when you present a standard, you also could present a certification system around that standard. And what that simply means is, you are translating, as it were, how that standard is important to the users, but also providing a specific way for that standard again, as it were, to be interpreted. So when it's interpreted, the certification, not just have a checklist to say hey, I did these things I'm supposed to do, but the certification is designed to let you know, these are why I'm doing the things I'm supposed to do. Pt other quick thing, two other quick things I will mention: One thing is, you hear a lot of talk about algorithmic bias. As we move toward '2030, bias is not necessarily bad. We are all biased, because we are humans. And by that I mean, we all have our subjective truth. We come from different places. We are male, female, we are a certain age. Again, these are not, quote, bad or wrong things. But the transparency accountability systems and work in algorithms can mep you recognize we are biased based on the group that you are targeting or working with those had algorithms is negative. These are established pre, before you put the algorithm into place, that there may be racial aspects, meaning negative race ises or aspects to these. This may be in terms of, aspects of the algorithms that are targeting one specific wealthy part of a population or the world, that means the algorithm is not given will universal value. There's certainly a lot of issues with algorithms with male and female issues, meaning gender equality. We have to take the time beforehand to establish whether it's IRB's or other ways that we can determine and say these are the types of tools we would like to use to help the programmers and the engineers and the scientists creating these things. Last quick comment that I will make now, again, sort of mirror what Greg said, but this is the work that we are doing in the global initiative that I'm the executive director for, is to really help determine, I'm sorry, help provide a new way of innovation for how systems and technology are built. And in general, and I will close here, I have about another 60 seconds and then I will stop talking, but you got my on my soapbox, so thank you.Y again, in general, I'm not interg in any way, and I'm not trying to be per major tifer, but in general, hour a lot of technology is designed today, the de facto way it's designed, goes the idea for a new phone or a new widget comes from senior management, we want to have a new version of X phone. The design for that phone is sent to engineers or programmers or technologists to start building. Where there can be ethical difficulties, where a programmer or engineer is working on the phone discovers an aspects of how that product or service will be implemented with the end users of that system, but then they realize there's an ethical problem. We made this phone for moms and there are no privacy settings for moms. Now the engineering going back to management and says what about this issue for moms, now because of the paradigm of GDP, in general, there becomes a pressure to say, from the management, hey, listen, make the phone the way we designed it, we have to get our quarterly numbers in, the phone has to get made. And then what that happens, the engineer or programmer in general has a couple of choices. Build what they have been told to built or become a whistle blower, that system doesn't work for management, those individuals are pressured to get the job done but they may be risking a lot of aspects of how it gets done, it doesn't help the engineer, in the person in the middle, they feel threatened. It doesn't help the end user, the mom doesn't have the privacy she wants. The work that we are doing is about, there are no whole ways of methodologies for design in general, they are called things like value sensitive design or values based design, and they are really modeled after the privacy by design paradigm that you have talked about. And on top of, and I'm happy to talk more about this later, Justin, but on top of the privacy and security and identity issues for individuals being sorted out, the logic here is, empowering along with the existing codes of ethics, all of these organizations have used for years which can be most of the time very helpful, this new process of actually dining technology means that management along with marketers, programmers, whoever, before a product design is sent to programmers or engineers, use these new very rigorous ethical methodologies or applied ethical methodologies, like value sensitive design, et cetera, to really best understand the values of the end users using the technologies or products, that way you can build at the front end of the design that goes to the engineers, et cetera, is one that you have done your best to prove bli align will match the values of the end users. If that's the type thing that we can get going universally for anyone building these technologies today, that's our mission in the initiative and that way it takes pressure off of everyone in the ecosystem. By the way, the ends point, the shareholders where they are making money, whether there may not be -- that build trust, that do still make profit, and also this is a term I have been using to talk about sustainability is ethics is the new green in that sense. 10 years ago companies realized that their products, when they were making their products that were going to help the environment could be something that could be defining their brand, not by spin or bad PR, but by letting their customers and stakeholders, ends users, employees know that we care about the environment, we care about the planned. That became a huge part of defining their brand. Now that same message, instead of it being just about the planet, it's about people. We want to sustain the values and the trust of the people that we care most about. Anyway, I hope that helps. Thank you, I'm really honored to be here today. (Applause). >> Well, as you can hear, they enjoyed what you said. I did have in a sentence or two, a quick question. Is it fair to say that you think that corporations may want to incorporate a chief ethics officer as in their -- >> Yes, and thank you for saying one to two sentences, that was very smart of you. Yes, although I would probably say chief values officer, because sometimes I found in corporate circles, again, I totally understand this, I worked as an EVP at a top 10PR firm, the word ethics is associated with, only with things like compliance and risk. So when you say the word values, I think that's a more holistic, exciting way to then move that individual who would be the chief values officer to have the same level of importance to say the chief marketing officer which is where I think they definitively need to be for the organization. >> Thank you. I just want to ask the remote moderators, do we have any questions -- no? Okay. I know I said I was going to get to the questions by 9:30, I'm a little bit over that. So I would like to open up the floor for questions. I challenged you yesterday at the booth. So -- so, Julia, go ahead: Press the center one. >> It's not a question, but it's a food for thought for everybody. My name is Julia, I'm from the youth IGF program and I'm friends with Louise Marie. And one thing that got my attention is, these issues you present, education, ethics, security, and innovation -- technologist, this -- how innovation is driven and how we should be driven, like this is curious, because we usually, when we talk about technology, and specifically about -- technologists, we -- neutral institution and -- genius institution, not -- culturally, but in our speech as we do it, but actually, this is not true. We have innovation, not as an -- itself, but the -- as means where humans -- issues. And this is kind of ar drows, but at the same time this is not, we prefer not that in order to technology to work towards empowerment of the whole, and society, it should have the rsh represented and taking action over it, and not only a part of society, not on the part of the state, not only a part of the private sectors, and sometimes not even a part of specific society, so to be short, in order to -- public policies and responsibilities towards ethical issues of technologists, we should instead of -- this is a part of the stakeholders, and finally, I believe that -- >> Let's stop there. And,. >> Okay. Sorry. >> That's okay. I know you are very passionate, on could you turn your mic off? Thank you. Greg? >> So, I will pick up on the innovation angle that you mentioned, that, yes, it's not -- it's not its own end, it's towards a particular purpose. I think what is interesting about the ICTs, with trust, with the trust worthy environment, it can facilitate innovation, because really what is key there is diversity of thought. And as you are finding in TUNESIA, being able to give people from diverse backgrounds access to technologies, you come up with solution to problems that society has. I think that's what is exciting about ICTs, it provides a mechanism to get there. The diversity of thought is really the key to there. >> Anybody else want to comment or I will take another question from the floor? Okay. We have two. I saw your hand first. Please keep the questions brief and let's have it be a question for the panelists, thanks. >> In other fields like in law, there's standard rules about, you have got to see a professional and they will do some things for you and not others, they won't -- cook the books for you. What's the equivalent space of technologies for a technologist? >> I hope others have answers to this, but -- John might want to join: I will rephrase the question, what shouldn't the technologists do? I think the short answer that I found professional I will is not let the non-technologist be deluded about what they can and cannot do. I think it's kind of honesty about the technology, and I think this has important -- this plays out important ways. If you look at the position that Europe has on genetically modified crops, a lot of that what a fal out on honesty about matted cow disease, about other threats that were popular at the time and it caused society to say no, we don't want GMO's, elts where in the world there wasn't an issue. So -- what you know about technology, what its limits are, what its constraints are, not letting non-technologist be diluted is really an important role. >> That's really interesting. And I guess I kind of get -- it kind of gets to another point -- yeah. But -- >> Justin? >> I knew you were there, John. >> Well, I guess one thing, and this may not directly answer the question, so forgive me if it's a bit tangential. When you say art ficialg intelligence, when you get practitioners in the room, that could mean a world of different things, it could mean cognitive component piewting, deep learning, machine learning, we talking -- but as of today, when I say artificial intelligence, to me, it's a synonym like for the internet. When someone says there may be artificial intelligence or autonomous technology in X, in 2030, it will be hard to find things where they are not there, like maybe grass, but even grass, or trees will certainly have sensors in them. Anyway, all that to say one thing I think especially for this panel, to really contract thoroughly, especially for kind of average citizens and I'm from the states, so I will talk about the states, is when you hear the word privacy, in terms of personal data, it can turn people off, because they are tired of the conversation. Whereas with AI and autonomous technology, everything starts with the data. And what that means is that we have to get, in my opinion, we have to get out of the framework of thinking about the word privacy regarding personal data as being something that is only in one sense left up to an individual's preference. Because I can prefer to share my data with everybody, advertisers and whoever, a different person may think I don't want to share my data. That's great, again, it varies based on regions around the world and countries in a westerners in general tend to be a little bit more individually focused about their data, sometimes in the east, it's more community focused. Nonetheless, all that is a preface to say fundamentally today, there's a massive asymmetry in terms of how data is gathered by systems that track people versus how individuals, whether they prefer to be an individual, community, whatever, how individuals access that data, talk about their data, and provide conditions about how they would like that data shared. This conversation ausually gets a lot of emotion going, because specially people think you are anti-corporate if you want to control the data, that could not be farther from the truth. Individuals need to help corporations and organizations define what their data means as it is attached to their identity. Because in general, there's two ways to track, right? Or I should say right now today, we are tracked thousands of ways on-line, in the real world, CC TV cameras in the real world, on-line through chat box, algorithms, we are tracked a thousand different ways. It does mean that others, other actors and organizations are in one sense literally defining our identity for us to people outside of who we interact with. And why that is so critical in the next five years, let alone by 2030, is when virtual reality and mixed reality becomes ewe big to us, you put lenses over your eyes or speakers over your ears, where you are literally putting that lens in front of everything you see. Where individuals have not defined their data, I'm John, I'm a male, I'm this religion, I'm that, and you attach it to identity, I live in the United States, et cetera, where I haven't done that with a proven identity source, whether it be a US passport or the UN, then it is not done. It's bind ri, it is A or B. Where we are going to have a really interesting and tough time is in five years, when a lot of people put on these lenses afternoon glasses and realize, wait a second, I'm not in control of my identity. This is not an issue, say, like a refugee, this is a data refugee. We will not have access over the data, this is important for us to manager, it's a paradigm shifter that I want to make sure we talk about. >> Thank you, John. I do want to kind of spin this question to the two of you over here: So we heard about the question was based on lawyers can do certain things and they can't do certain things likely on the stand and things like that. From your perspective of educating people on ICTs and when you were talking about governance and everything, how important do you think it is that the technologists explain the actual technology as best as they can so A, people feel comfortable using it, and B, policy makers have enough understanding of the technology to put forth proper regulations? >> Well, from my experience, we are working with education, educating children. So providing the technological means like the computers or whatever technological solution we are using is not enough. We have to educate the teachers who are going to be using it to teach the children. So you have to teach them very well how, what is this technology, how it works, because we are talking about something very delicate here. Educational content. So if you don't provide something very secure, something that you understand very well and you are aware of everything that might come up on it, so it's -- like educational content must -- there shouldn't be any interference, like the information, has to be very scriewr and controlled by the government and whoever is responsible for this. Yes, the technologist must explain everything regarding this technology, especially in this field because we are dealing with something very delicate which is, of course, education. >> So, that is a very challenging question. First of all, because, from personal experience, we had this meeting in the middle of the year, the youth -- IGF, and we got some students that were still at school, and we talked to them and we had this great discussions. And one of the first things before I answer the question is, I'm a quite skeptical of reinforcing technical and non-technical, I think it brings such a huge gap in terms of practical issues when we start talking about that. But on the other hand, in thinking about making comfortable for both sides, I don't know if I have an answer for that, I don't know if I have a solution for that. But I think it is part of a process of building trust between both because this dichotomy, this relationship that was built between non-technologists and technologists brings them so far away from each other. So when they sit dowfn at a table, sometimes they don't even know where to start. So I think one possible way is to promote simply dialogues and -- I know universities try to bring people that weren't actual work in this side of writing code and being part of this in the making of ICTs, and people who are actually, they don't know anything about ICTs, they don't know how -- it's a -- box for them, for many policy makers. I would say from personal experience, there are remote states in Brazil, it's difficult to get information there, not because we don't have internet or -- it's also because of that in some sense, but it is actually difficult to communicate sometimes with these policy makers. There's no funding for these ICT guys to go there or no funding for different initiatives to roll around the country and start promoting thee kind of dialogues. Before this question of promoting a comfortable space, I think we should think about practical measures on the ground to promote ways of getting them to the table and just talking. Because I think we are lacking so much on that. >> Okay. So, I know we -- Jim, we have a remote question, so, hold on one -- no? Okay. So I saw -- okay. Okay. I have four hands that I have seen so far. I have here, here, there, and here. So, we are going to go in that order. And then I will take -- I will look, depending on time for a new Q. You have the floor. >> Hello, it's Yolanda. I just have a question, it's very simple, really, what is privacy? Is there such a thing as privacy? The minute you have an e-mail, you say you accept the terms and conditions without even reading it. Is there such a thing, and what do we mean by privacy. The second question is, talking about personal data and all these things, but where is Google and FaceBook at the table? At the same time we need to talk to the people, the companies who are holding our data. So I think, is there anyone here that could probably share, it would be great, thank you. >> We are going to go to Louise and I know John just texted me, he wants to answer this, too. So, believe me, I'm not the -- I'm just texting with John over there. Go first, please. Please. >> Okay. So, the big question, what is privacy, I don't have an answer for that, definitely, I don't have an answer for what is privacy. But when you talk about terms of service and being more accountable, I think that is right on spot, on thability built and transparency, because we don't have any ideas, most of these -- they change whenever they like, so there's no accountability, we don't know actually what is happening, what are the practices behind those standards and regulations. I think it's part of a process of really trying to build trust. I don't know how to get them to the table, because there's so many problematic aspects in the middle, speashly, for example, in Brazil, with the what's app case, for example, it's difficult because it created a very huge gap between the policy makers and those law enforcement agencies, and the companies, the private companies, there's no dialogue. It's really difficult when you have these kind of situations. This is one point. And the other one, I don't know how many of you saw, but yesterday night, I think it was 11UTC, Google, FaceBook, and Twitter, and Microsoft, if I'm not mistaken, all the huge companies, they decided that they are going to start trying to take down content related to terrorists. So, but there's no transparency, what are the standards being implied, so it's kind of -- I was talking two days ago with people from the -- it's shadow regulations. So, there are so many opaque spaces, but just trying to add to the point. >> That's great. Thanks. And I'm going to go to John briefly and then Greg. >> Yeah, I think it's critical we stop using the word privacy. I'm not interested in defining privacy anymore. Here is why: 700 different definitions of privacy and they all may be valid based on the user. I'm not trying to be facetious, it's an important word. Frasm, in the United States a few yiers ago, Google, and I a lot of Google, I'm using G mail as I speak, well, not as I speak, but it's a great company, they have a wonderful program called street view that maps the planet. However, in the states, they struggled and I think still, struggling with a legal case where their cars, as they drove around could mine uneven criptd Wi-Fi data. Now a lot of people, least my friend in the states don't know what that sentence means. However, it may be a bad analogy. But I can decide to leave my house unlocked, anywhere in the world. In the United States, New Jersey, I can leave my home unlocked. That does not mean it's okay for someone to steal my things, those are binary decisions, legal. My house is unlocked, you may call me a foorl, you may say hey, maybe lock your door, but it is still illegal for someone to walk in and steal. Think I that's a metaphor, I may not encrypt my Wi-Fi, but that doesn't mean -- I need to be protected. The privacy, a lot of times, gets us back to preference. We need to move beyond preference, modern -- if there's a 50 page document that someone needs to read to get the new version of iTunes, that means it needs to be updated. We are talking about machines having human -- it is also time to update the nature of how people understand and connect to the companies they want to generally trust. Google, FaceBook, all of those folks can be the leaders in this area. And again, I do not mean to sound condemning street view, but it's a great example, to move behind the privacy debates, we protect rights first and the preferences come after. >> Thank you, John. Greg? And then -- >> So, I don't have a definition for privacy, although the one thing that I think is helpful to consider is, if you look back a thousand years ago, 10,000 years ago, and trying to understand what privacy means, it's a fairly modern concept. If you are living in a tribal community, everybody knows what you are doing, they know everything about you, and you are not going to escape that for better for worse. And I think it's not clear to me that the anonymity that people, also goes with privacy often is really, it's a modern experiment, this degree of anonymity. I think ultimately it will be a social contract, it's a set of norms that's going to evolve, and in 2030, it may be quite different than what we have, than what we think of today. >> Louise, I know you wanted a quick follow up. >> It's a really quick follow up from John. I would like to work with a metaphor that you were talking about, John. And while I think -- when we think about our lives and our homes, we are thinking about when we walk into our home, we are thinking we are in a safe space, a lot of locks and doors and we feel comfortable there because we are safe. But just adding to this metaphor, when we think of IOT, there's no in and out, there's no boundary. It exceeds the notion of a private space. So I think when we think about shifting ideas and notions of privacy, we should think also about how diluted it will become, it's not more of a spatial thing, it's much different. It's not home as a safe space, and if we don't try to tackle the question of trust, I think it is really critical. So I just wanted to point out this home as a safe space and as we continue on this trend and undeniable trend of hyper connectivity, I think we won't have these spaces, if we -- like, people that are being born now and they are living in this world, hyper connective world, if they are going to have the same view that we have today, it's going to be okay to them that we are just not having home as a safe space and everything is going to be connected and that we should just try to fragment this privacy as part of different gadgets and devices. So just food for thought. >> Okay. Meher and then -- >> A quick remark. >> Louise was talking about how everything is connect to the internet and everything is faded away because you decided to put your belongings into the internet. In 20, 30 years, we are going to be talking about nano IOT, that mean parts of your body will be connected to the internet. If you took that decision that you want certain parts of your body connected to the internet, so, I think there's no longer any privacy whatsoever. >> Okay. And then last, very, very, very briefly, John texted me. >> Smart to give me three veries. No. I get to choose what my identity goes, in the future, identity is what we should be thinking about versus privacy. To the last comment, I couldn't agree more, I may be sharing aspects of the neurons in my brain, sharing aspects of my identity, but privacy being dead or the home space, it's a great example, but the home space has nest, it has all the different connected device, the home space is not quote private. However when I put on virtual reality going -- a personal cloud, a personal management system, I am allowed to and I believe I have the right to create an algorithmic version of my identity where it's not necessarily that I own all the data, but I do have a voice, I have a subjective voice, I get to be a citizen of the quote world, capital W, in any environment for any time in the future where I said who I am. >> Okay. Thank you, and first off, that was a great question. And you, over here, you have got a tough follow up. And also I neglected to mention if you could state your name and affiliation before asking your question. Thanks. >> Hello, I'm Nicholas, Germany. Nowadays a lot of people provide personal information, this can be utilized in the sense that -- are not emotionally attached to their private data somehow. How do you think that we as designers of technologies -- can build the emotional tie between -- personal data. If there is a chance to -- such a thing. >> One approach is to give people examples. I think also it goes back to the sense of education. It's about educating, you know, students early about what the consequences are of that data, and to build stories around that connection, and to show how the mechanisms of the internet take your data and create a visceral, something that you viscerally may be concerned about, and it -- goes to John's comments about identity, about how sharing your data does define your identity. Whether or not you have control over that, that's another issue. But to help them understand, the choices they make will influence that, and how that actually carries out. >> Thank you. So, let's see, I have a cue here -- oh, wait. I was waiting for to you text me back. I know you wanted to touch on this briefly and then we will move to the next question. >> Yeah, I know I'm overly passionate and I get to be remote and be passionate, so thank you everybody. I think, when I talk to people about this, right now, today, I go on a plane in February to travel to London and I live in the states. I have a blue document that's called a passport. It doesn't ask me about preferences or whatever, but it does give me a tool that right now today is recognized around the world. Is it perfect? Stheas another discussion. Attaching aspects of my identity to that type of recognized document is what I'm saying we need to consider and implement for the future. Because, for instance, what can be tracked about me, a lot of times inaccurately through the states through third party data brokers are things like where I live, my gender, my race, this is -- why I bring this up, I work in the AI space, and erroneous data is one of the problems of creating did systems, where an individual can say hey, all these individual companies that want to build this great stuff for me if I can't access and be allowed to correct errors, you are going to be building off of erroneous date. The second one is, you may track everything I do, you still may not know unless you ask me for instance how I identify via my gender, am I male, female, do I Ida different way? You will not know my faith. You may track me going to church, but I may do that because I have a job there as a janitor. I don't actually believe in that orientation. These are things algorithmically. If we don't start asking people about the values, oriented questions, we build systems that are based on tracking from outside in and don't ask the inside out. >> Thanks, John. And to everybody here, I'm going to close the cue for now because we have a bunch right here. So but first, we do have a remote question, I believe. Okay. Great. >> So, it sayings recently in the Portuguese internet governance initiative was discussed that the argument that users must have full control over their own data implies along side a better premise of users and consumers to this process through proper skills and training. It is clear that a greater responsibility and accountability of actors who provide services and products over the internet is required. And the, by design and default should be a private sector priority which could reduce government are regulation. In the meanwhile, are we living as -- once said in a fear and convenience internet environment regarding to privacy and security. And he has got a question mark at the end of that, I guess he is asking for comment on that point of view. >> The negotiation of controlling your own data, I think this probably disagrees with John's view on this. One, we do not have the technology today to give the consumer that choice. It does not exist, unless you more or less create a very outdated, old and broken system, and I think most of us would not want to use it, it would be so constrained. The technology does exist. The second thing I think, it's a question about what does it mean to control data? If I have a camera here and I accidently take your picture, does that mean you control my picture? I don't think that socially we are going to kind of accept that, so I think there are some hard questions we have to ask when someone says I want to control my data. Well, do you really understand what that means? I don't think we do. That said, it's important we do have that conversation, but I think it's, you know, we can't assume the answers are easy or obvious. >> Just a quick follow up. I totally agree with your points, Greg raised. And another thing I would add, imagine if we had, and I'm not saying I'm not in favor of some control, it does have beneficial aspects, but just trying to challenge the, this question, if we had control of our data, total control of our data and we decided to use it for economic purposes, if we want to earn something, if we wanted to sell our data, if we had control and we wanted to just share our data and receive money as in return, so, I don't know if that's the way, I don't know if that would be beneficial, and I think that it's a very challenging question. But yes, I just wanted to add on that. >> John? >> First of all, something, again, I couldn't agree more, it's challenging. But it may be the nature of my work the past couple of years. I will have a phone call with someone who is, like, who will say is to me and they mean it, and they are the expert, within 20 years, this device will have human level -- that to me sounds like a challenge, that's a challenge. By the way, I'm not, again, trying to be facetious in any way. It is a challenge to make these updates to how we think about data. However, to one of the last points, instead of saying can I control my data, I think the more important question is, will I be allowed to inform my identity. And what that means is, I can right now, today, it's hard, and people won't necessarily listen to me, but I can, even at an algorithmic level, by the way -- has done a lot of wonderful work in this sways. I can set up terms and conditions about how I would like my data to be used and shared. I in the states can say here is how I want to share my data, I can attach it to my identity, it can be algorithmic so it lives in the cloud, when I go to another country, I can see what I want, it doesn't mean it will happen, but it's still there, out in the either, these are the terms and conditions about how I would like my dairt shared. Especially with commercial usage, just because laws right now in the states largely favor me not having access to my data and it was only two years ago that in the states I had access to my medical data. So let's also move the conversation beyond privacy and talk about life or death literally. Only two years ago did HIPAA say I could have access to my data where I wouldn't get it just beyond the facts or a written piece of documentation from my doctor. We have to, we must move beyond these ideas that just because these things are difficult, we shouldn't really deal with it now, which I'm not saying any of you are. Again, let's move the conversation from controlling data to teaching individuals the utter,ee sendal paradigm shift of understanding their data, it's a primary asset of their lives, we have to empower the corporations. It's a great way to say, if they are doing it, how can citizens be empowered with something similar? But again, the privacy conversation to me, it's something we need to evolve and help the citizens have these tools to identify themselves, they have some say over how other data is used, just like you were saying about accountability, my data is used here in a way Iy showed you I don't agree with. Then it accountsabilitiable, traceable and usable. >> Louise, a quick follow up on that one. >> I completely agree, that, not just because it's difficult we should give up on that, I think it's important to keep on thinking about the challenges and opportunities that come with these debates. And just trying to bring another perspective on the subject of controlling data and after making a quick comment to what John said, first of all, I think one thing that we should probably think about is data portability. If we perhaps in thinking of controlling data. Having some kind of control over our own data, we could, like, think of ways of -- using this app or this platform, but really I want to go to the other platform, this other service. So I just want to have the terms of service that allows me to get this data, and just shift ift to another platform. I think this would bring a lot of the economic competition. On the other hand, I think it's a nice idea to have control over your data. But on the other hand adding toward what John said, and really quickly, the idea of having terms of service, individual terms of service, I think it's interesting, but on the other hand, I think about education, about people who don't have the slightest idea of what terms of service is, and who don't have any kind of digitalled indication. I think this is another challenge that comes with connecting the next billion. so, yeah, it's just difficult. >> You know, and this is what I find interesting, I keep hearing in this conversation, we have had a couple questions on people's data and privacy and everything, what about children? And the fact that guardians and parents are posting data, and perhaps some of them really, truly have really no idea what's done with the data. They just sign up for FaceBook because it's fun, and they are posting a lot of information about children from the time they are basically born. And so I don't want to steal from the audience questions, but I would like to throw that out for a brief answer on that, if you have any thoughts. >> I think it depends on the level of awareness. For example, in my country, most people are not, like, they are not technological savvies, they don't know much about the internet. As you said, when they joined FaceBook or anything, they just post it -- they just join it for fun, like, I don't know, for e-mail account or something, they just do it for the service. But they don't really know what's going on down there, behind the scenes. But recently there has been lots of, like since the revolution in this the revolution of 2012, there has been, well, lots of problems because, lots of websites were closed and the famous 404 not found, and people started knowing what is going on behind the scenes, and they began to come in more careful while posting stuff and so on: I think it all depends on the level of awareness that people have, like, for our case, I think it's awr responsibility, the, when we brought this project, so we have to make sure that people understand, as we said earlier, that they understand all the terms and they understand that we are going to be providing them with -- content that is controlled and not something just random. >> Okay, John. Moderators hate me, they say things like be brief. There is sml call the COPPA act, kids under 13, very specific ways they are supposed to be addressed. That's law. >> We all know that under 13, they get around that one because of the laws, so, loose, let's say, right? >> Exactly. Exactly. I think one thing to think about with the term children, and another reason why I think adults, so critical to inform them about issues about data, especially parents, is by the time you put on a pair of virtual reality goggles, they can say I'm 30 and they are 13. This, again, is why, for me, and I'm not in any way using this term lightly, when we put on these goggles, and we look at -- because literally, if I'm John, I would put on mixed reality, not -- mixed really goggles where I can see the real world with digital data -- I could potentially see other John's as I walk around. I could say I'm the real John, and in I don't have a formal way through a government or different agencies that I can points to, yeah, look, here is my passport and driver's license, and I can say I'm the real John, then we won't have that. And it's the same for children. And again, I don't use this term lightly, but I quite literally think that's the same a human trafficking, the data version of human trafficking is when our identity -- right now we think of identity thefting people using our credit cards. It's going to be much more severe in five to ten years in the nations or places where people have these advanced mixed reality type tools. It's going to be pervasive that people will start to say that isn't my identity, it's been hacked -- the entity is not the real me. That is why we need to do these things I'm talking about with not controlling your data per se, but people think that means intellectual property, crofl control the ownership, but one should be able to say, this is my identity, I get to control or at least inform how that's reatd to the world. >> And I know in the cue, I had a question right down here: You raised your hand a long time ago. >> I still remember the question. I'm from the protection authority, and we are very much connected with the data protection authorities around the world, about 50 of us, even more. We have a network of regulators. I was very interested to hear the panelists views about what's the most crucial, urgent, effective thing that we regulators can do in order to prepare for this facing future that you have described here brilliantly and movingly, and I would really like you to pick one, and perhaps legislate, enforce the sanction, raise awareness winner the public, help the industry towards incorporating technological standards that have a privacy protections in them or anything else that you can think of, but taking into account, we have limited resources always, what's your number one most important thing that we should be doing right now? >> Okay. And I would say as we answer this question, so we -- that was a very good question. Your answer and a sentence or two and then we will move on. >> I'm writing this down, actually. >> Since you are thinking about a real answer, I will give you a meta answer. What's rt criteria of a good policy of a good regulation? I think that's one of the things I see as a challenge, what's the objective of the policy and how do you know when it's successful, what's the evidence in terms of pilot, experiments, research, science, it says this policy is likely to be successful to achieve the objectives stated. Many policies are stated with the objectives implicit, so it's difficult to assess whether or not, before it's implemented, whether or not it's going to be effective. It's kind of a meta issue from my point of view. >> Okay. I have a question right to my left here. >> So, my name is Marcia Hancock, I met with the -- my role in this is to look at children and the implication of the connections. And I just loved hearing John, repeat over and over, people will make choices about our child because of what data has been collected about them and for them. People make choices about us. So, about our opportunities. And I think one of the first places, a follow up question to your, where could we start, the one place that we could, the Venn diagram in our cultures is that we care about our system. People are choosing commercial vendors to help teach their children how to use the data. If we can agree on creating some transparency and accounts built on children, students, data, we can start there. Because we don't have to boil the ocean, we can take a small piece. Unlike adults -- >> I'm going to ask you to come to a question -- >> The question is, what would it take in your location to be able to begin with transparency accountability with the data used in schools? >> A teacher picks, some random teacher will just pick something. >> So can you rephrase the question, please? >> So, another way to say that is how are you, in TUNESIA, selecting process that uses data of your students in a way that you understand? We know when they go on a field trip, but do you know where the data goes? People make choices. >> Well, I think the very simple way to do that is to work with the government, because everyone, like everything that is official has to be in relation with the government. So we can use, like, data centers or something that they provide. We are not going to be improvising, or have, like the student's information, we are not going to be treating this information, like we do the initiative and we expect and push the government to help give us that kind of support, because even parents don't really trust that -- like one time we did training in a school, and the teachers were really kind of concerned, like they didn't know what their children were studying and even if we had like summer camps, they don't really trust so easily. They have to go out there and see what's going on. So I think the easiest way is to do it with the government. If your child is heading for a field trip or something with the school, then that's okay, that's not really a problem. And what we have, what we envision, what we plan on, like the information that we plan on gathering, how do you say it, like the school, the children's results, like the advancement, their marks, so it's not really that kind of delicate information. So it's like -- it's a way for a parent to see how their children are advancing, their marks, their absences, stuff like that. >> I really like the way you scoped the question in terms of the schools. I think, I kind of agree with you in terms of government, though I think in the US, the notion of school boards and local governance creates a real opportunity that the school itself could be the repository of the data and be the one that is, that dispurses the data and that gives parents access and control and gives the local administration -- it's not necessarily at a national level, it could be at a local level. That's a really interesting way to really -- (inaudible). >> Yes. Yes. >> So the school could become the agent. Yes. >> And can I just adhere as a resource, at least notice states, there's a company called personal, PERSONAL.com. They actually have a program for students and educators where they teach kids about how to create what is essentially a personal data cloud for themselves and that way the kids, in conjunction with the kids and parent, can release the data in ways that everyone feels comfortable. >> Thank you. Okay. Well, I thought we were going to have to wrap up, but I think we can take one more quick question. No, we have -- I had the cue going, unfortunately, I'm so sorry. I saw you earlier. >> Thank you very much. I'm really glad to be here. I tried to be very brief. It's a very interesting discussion. I have been following, I would like to join our -- colleagues, as from the data protection, authorities point of view, it's really important to give us some feedback, how -- because we could serve you and we could serve other users as -- who have -- data protection, which is an international -- which is open, and we are, we have now aa rising number of states joining. It's getting to be international. So, some weeks -- issue recommendation on big data, it will answer, at least try to answer all your questions, what is privacy, what is personal data, and -- environment. So on, and so forth but what we are really looking is dialogue with your community. Two fold, my intervention was two fold. I wanted to thank you for this interesting panel. I would really recommend you to use -- as recommendation of international organization. It can be very useful for you, and to enhance dialogue between the communities. Thank you. >> Actually, because it's about time to wrap up. I'm going to -- moderator pre-prerogative. That was on one of my list of wrap ups, cooperation amongst all the stakeholders in a meaningful way to come to these conclusions, and have these -- make these decisions. And in schools, how the data is used. That's one of the reasons why things like this is vital. The key is to keep the conversation going. The topics that I saw, that really need to be discussed and further in depth, a quite a bit a depth, account it, transparency, educating them on the aspects of technology so they can understand it better, educate the policy makers so they could make better decisions, and that we really need to consider what is the definition of privacy moving forward considering the IT aspect at the nano -- and so these are the things that we have to do. And this conversation must continue afterwards. I encourage everybody here to take what you learned here, I hope you learned something and I hope that you got something out of this, take this back home and take it -- and use this, and build on this, and -- because we need to have a solid 2030. We don't want to have the world be a mess. And now is the time to act to do that. And so I would like to really thank the panelists here, Greg, Louise, Meher, and John, and I would also like to thank -- oh, the remoderaters and all the staff here, and I would like to thank everyone here. your questions were phenomenal and your answers were phenomenal and I a truly appreciate it. Thank you. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12/6/16. Is a siewk I sta fan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Katherine Ma co-toe yolk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12/6/16. Internet Governance Forum. Outcome. G7 Ise-Shima summit and ministerial meetings. 12/6/16. Internet Governance Forum. >> Before we start, how many of you have heard about TISA? This workshop is about TISA, we have a very impressive line up of speakers, so, before we start, I just want to give you a really brief overview about TISA, what is TISA, it's a meg -- being negotiated by 28 parties, counting p US, who call them self, as the -- friends of services. So, we are going to talk, why they call them self as the really good friends of services, and why it's relevant here and why are we having a session here, on services? So, we will try to figure out, and, but TISA is a very important -- it became very important after the -- it hasn't an -- yet, but it might survive the Trump administration, we will see, we will discuss this as well. But TISA is a very interesting -- it's not -- it's negotiations are taking place in the -- but it's not they attempt to update, extend the scope and the roots. General -- on trade and services, which was like -- 1995, which was a pre-internet. So, to say -- gold star -- for services, and it can -- the countries negotiating -- they can bring it back to the WTO members. We have a very interesting panel and this will be a very interesting discussion. I want to start with a little bit of a history of TISA and what is TISA, and how the country is this really good -- of services, starting to negotiate TISA, why they wanted to do, they want a new -- in services. So we have -- James from, Debra James joining us from Washington, D.C., remotely. So, she will be the first speaker, because -- has been covering the WTO for such a long time and she has been -- as a standard of care, r r stakeholder since the very beginning, when none of us now about it. She will tell us a little bit of the history of TISA and then we will continue and focus on the issues, like especially the substance of TISA, because we know that this -- is negotiated behind closed doors and we just had a session before this one and we discussed the trade agreement. So, now we are going to talk about the substance and what is in TISA. Before that, I will give the word to Debra and she can tell us a little bit about the history of TISA, Deborah, it's your turn. >> Can you hear us? I think she is muted. >> Hi, everyone. Can you hear me? Hi, everyone, can you hear me? >> Yes, we can hear you. >> Okay. So, I thought I would say hi first, but I think we will just go straight as to the PowerPoint. Thank you for having me and thank you to -- and to Maryant for organizing this. So, as -- has already said, this agreement came out of the general agreement on trade and services that's in the WTO, and that agreement, the corporations, the services corporations that had the idea of developing that agreement have not been satisfied with the level of liberalization within the services of WTO. So with the attempt to expand it through -- kind of stalled a number of years ago, they came up with the idea of having a separate agreement in services in order to achieve the liberalization that they have been working for, for a long time. I'm going to go through what their ambitions are and quickly share with you a little bit of the structure. When we talk about services, historically, countries had both public and private provision of services. We actually generally have public provision of services when the private sector fails. So in areas like healthcare and education where if you just had a market based economy, we would not have the optimum outcomes including things like water distribution and sewage treatment, that's where we have the public sector to deal with the private failures. And to move toward an international set of finding rules that discipline and limit the way that governments can regulate both public and private services, and how to radical deregulation and move more services from the public into the private sector, but really to clamp down on the ways that governments can regulate the operation of corporations in those sectors. So then that would be moving from the concept of citizens having rights to access public services and citizens having public oversight over both public and private services, to corporations having rights to profit in the services sector and we know that this exists already, a little bit, with the gaps, the general agreement on trade and services, but this would be a fundamental reorganization of the rules that govern this area. These are some of the members, these are the financial, technological and logistical corporations in the US that have come up with many of the documents upon which TISA is being negotiated. There are 50 different countries, so all the developed countries and a number of developing countries, that includes Columbia, Chile, Mexico, Panama, PA riew, Turkey, Pakistan, so you can see there is a concentration in the financial and logistical firm. This is from the Wal-Mart testimony, this is why we talk about it as trying to create a new, a charter of lights for corporations. Because for example, what Wal-Mart is looking for is to November no merchandise restrictions so, and to have no limits on size geographic location on where they put their shops, this is one of many examples we could give. Soup irrelevant quickly, the TISA structure, we don't have time to go over all of them but some of the basic rules, and countries develop a schedule of commitments which is where they actually list which services sectors they will agree to, adhere to the above rules from the cortex and for certain rules, you actually have all services included except for the ones that you want to have a reservation at. And then there are and nexts n and nexts, and they cover more extreme rules either on functions of government or on the systemic services that they use in trade. So the TISA covers all measures, which means not just legislative laws, but also regulations, rules, procedures, decisions, administrative actions, so any activity that a government qo understand take, it also applies to measures that affect trade and service even if it's not actually, you know, supplying the service itself but a measure that fight affect the trade and service. It also covers all measures of government so it's not just national governments that would be subject to the TISA results, but also the central, regional and local governments and will the non-governmental bodies and what this would be, would be something like a medical body that is required to set the certification standards to be certified as a Doctor, for example, that is a delegated authority. So, actually trading the service, when a consumer moves to consumer service abroad, when a company comes into your country and start operating a service in a second country and then also when the worker moves. So that is the four modes of services. GATS was focused on three, and this, the newer version, if the TISA ever comes to existence, it has -- mode one, across border supply. The market access tech, this is one of the core rules I was mentioning, it actually says, it doesn't just offer corporations the right to operate in a market like that would just be opening a sector to liberalization. The core -- actually sets six different ways that the government is not allowed to regulate in that sector. The number of service supplier, the transactions that would mean that they could not say that banks are not too big to fail. These are six specific ways that governments are -- from regulating in the sectors. There's also a fundamental aspect of TISA copied from the WTO, it's called national treatment. Most people understand this to mean you have to treat foreign companies the same as domestic companies, but it goes beyond that, it means that you have to create conditions of competition for the foreign companies that are at least as good as the domestic ones. You could always discriminate in favor of the foreign ones, but you can't allow conditions of competition, even if you are applying the same exact word for word rules to the domestic and international, you have to make sure that the foreign companies have at least as good conditions for competition. Also two new innovations that go far beyond the gap, one of them as standstill. This means that countries cannot pass regulations and remember, measures, it's anything that affects the supply and service that negatively affect the conditions of competition for foreign companies. Beyond what they have at this moment. So, from now on, from when the TISA comes into existence, countries cannot pass regulations that negatively affect the conditions of competition for the foreign companies unless they have already had -- and the -- once a sector has been open up to foreign competition, it can't be closed. We know there are a lot of examples where countries have opened up sectors to private competition, like in water provision or healthcare or suddenly they realize it's been a disaster, the prices go up, the service goes down and suddenly they want to -- they would never be allowed to do that. Quickly going through, I'm not going to have time to list all of the sectors, there's 160 plus different sectors. So keep in mind this is part of what is happening with the TISA, everything is now being considered to be a service. So we might before, for example, have thought of a company opening up a manufacturing plant as manufacturing, and it's not anymore, because you have real estate services and construction services and architecture services and engineering services and payroll contracting services, maintenance services, you would also have payroll services, you have banking services, you would have accounting services, you would then have shipping services, logistic services, transport, you would have your data services, you would have distribution services, you see how the entire chain, including actually the manufacturing services, could be, you take what used to be manufacturing and you can come up with 160 different services practically that would be affect by that, and these would all be scheduled in the TISA. The last part of the TISA is the and nexts, these are in addition to schedule the commitments and submit them to the rules that I already mentioned, the national treatment, the -- and the market access rules, countries would also have to -- their services to specific and exes an and next on domestic regulation, there is one on transparency that requires countries to publish proposed measures in advance to give foreign corporations rights to have input into those proposed regulations. There's one on government procurement which would open up services procurement of -- this would force companies, or states, at the state level, this one is only at the national level, to operate state owned Enterprises, like if you have a public utility, like telephone, to operate -- sort of take out all the reasons why it would be beneficial to have it as a public service and that would lead to further privatization. A movement on -- that we already talked about. There is a separate one on professional services and localization. And then another one is systemic or enabling -- these are the most strategy that would enable cross border trade. If you think about the economy, traditionally, you have your capital, that's the bubble at the top, you have your labor and -- you have inputs -- >> Take a small break here, because we talk about the -- next, so I want to fows on the E-Commerce. Can I put you on hold for a second, and I give the word to David because he is sitting next to me and I know that he is also involved in this negotiations, and for his coalition, E-Commerce of TISA is very important, I want to give the word to David so he can briefly summarize why this is important, why they are practically interested in trade and services so that we can get his perspective and then we can go from there. David? >> Sure. So, first of all, that was a really great explains of TISA, about half my, 3/4 of my notes. I don't need anymore. Another point of clarification, I'm not negotiating TISA, I'm not a negotiator. So, look, why is TISA important to internet infrastructure companies? Why is it important to internet companies in particular? For the simple reason that almost all trade now has some impact on services. And it involves the processing of data, so that can be from the processing of an order to confirmation of delivery. So it's important that trade get -- or that services get addressed somewhere. I agree with kind of the laundry list of things that are being included in TISA. I mean, it is just a bee he mouth -- why is TISA important to the group that I represent, rt infrastructure -- three reasons: First it allows data to move across borders. It's very important to internet infrastructure companies. Second, it is designed to prohibit to a large extent, not to an extreme extent, requiring that data be stored in a particular location, so that's data localization. Data lowlization -- in some cases, it does permit data localization. And it ensures that the agreement apply to all services, including new services, not just services that are -- that are currently existing. For our organization, it's important to clarify, we really appreciate and understanding and take into account the views of -- and civil society, and we want to ensure that TISA and the, what's finally negotiated in TISA, meets already agreed upon international standards that relate to issues like privacy and other non-trade issues that have already been discussed. Those are the reasons that we are interested in it. >> Okay. Thank you very much, David. So as I mentioned, the -- we don't know what would be the future of TISA, but for now, the negotiations are not going anywhere. And one of the off standing issues in the negotiations is the cross border, the -- data loss. It's a priority, it's very, very important for the businesses. But I want to take the perspective of the other side, the consumers and the users. I'm going to give the word to -- Maryant, and -- is unable to come up with a position on the issue because of the rural on the cross border transfers and the exceptional language which has been proposed by the US and is not satisfactory enough or, your opinion? >> Thank you very much, I work for European -- and so we represent 31 organizations in brews else, in Europe. now when I speak, I want you to imagine that there are 30 other people in the room saying the same thing. Wit comes to TISA, we have been involved in the discussions from the European perspective, of course. Because we have seen that certain -- have potential to actually undermined -- and this clues rights like freedom of expression, the right to privacy, the right to personal data and so on. There are many issues I can discuss, and if you go to -- you will find an analogies of all of the issues that we have supported. But then today, I want to focus on three. The first one is net neutrality, the second one I will talk about has been the key topic here, data department of privacy in data transfers, and the third one -- liability and freedom rf expression. So, when it comes to net neutrality, I guess you all know that this principle allows for internet traffic to be slowing down or certain data, and it prevents from dividing the internet into fast and slow lanes. And -- is crucial for innovation, competition, and freedom of expressions, the freedom to receive and -- and for -- as well. Our position is that this issue should not be part of trade discussions, however there are proposals that include net neutrality. However, it's not the principle I described, it's a half cooked version of net neutrality. The European in this case -- improve the proposals on the table, mainly including non-discriminate tri access, the United States -- Columbia has a -- it's quite striking, as you all know, US has net neutrality rules as well as the -- you wonder why, on the one hand, we say that we don't want net neutrality to be discussed in trade discussions because it's not a trade issue, and at the same time, if the negotiator and the parties want to include net neutrality, we want to make sure that this principle is respected and not a half cooked verks of net neutrality. And when the wording -- it's not going to be part of the final text. The second concern regards to data flows and data protection and privacy. As you know, data protection is fundamental rights and privacy as well, even more privacy is -- right,ee qiex occasion of human rights and the ICCPR. As you know -- is part of the international human rights framework that the right to privacy should be preserved and defended and owl all restrictions -- what happens in TISA, there are several principles proposals on the table. There are some that are encouraging to promote and the so-called principle of free flow data, which, as I tell you -- IT da is part of TISA, it's free and -- data, otherwise we wouldn't oppose it, right? So today I really want to discuss on what is being proposed. So, there's some pressure being put by certain business organizations and also US -- but also supported by many other countries of, that are part of TISA and that's to include provisions on data transfers and then privacy and data -- and members to the TISA actually are, allows to -- measures to protect privacy and data protection but in TISA there are a lot of conditions -- for example, these, not be -- the measures -- must not be inscifnt with the TISA agreement, then they cannot be -- non-discriminate tore I basis, and principles, that sounds lovely, however, the devil is in the details, of course, we see that the problem is if you bring data transfers into the discussion as we discuss here, you bring data protection of privacy on to the table. When it comes to the European position, they have been very vocal saying that they are human fundamental rights and they should not be discussed in trade agreements. But if you want to include data transfers, there are certain conditions that should be respected. From our perspective -- parties should include -- ensure the -- protection and privacy and personal data -- suspend the flow of data -- did it should ensure enforcement of measures related to the rights to privacy and data protects, not subject to -- on the basis of any trade agreement, not only in TISA, ant guaranty that the parties must not be required to -- least -- otherwise you would not be treating them as a human right but as a -- trade. As we know, this is not how it's supposed to be, the protection of human riepts. When it comes to data localization, it's another buzz word that I hear a lot. I'm very concerned actually because I have seen some research in the European union conducted by -- data lowlization, of course, if we talk about -- for example like in country like Russia, this is bad, for many reasons, like surveillance and security. However, the -- there are some -- that I view that data -- the Euros and data collection -- they should not be -- they should not be there. And we should do something against this. So -- the public forum, I have seen a lot of workshops as well, on E-Commerce, all of them, in all of them, they were saying that they don't want to undermined Euros in data protection, however, in all of the sessions, there is a speaker that is saying how bad -- it was for businesses. This is very interesting because I understand, actually, why this is the case in the sense that -- opinion, we now have Euros that are -- they were adopted last year and being enforced in 2018. And they unsuccessfully lobbied against this sphrawment instrument. And there's also some calls by certain stakeholders to actually repeat I that's not how you -- I understand why there is a push to have provisions on trade agreements, but as was mentioned before, this is not a trade issue and therefore if you want to include data transfer provisions, we would advise against it, if you do so, I already made some recommendations. And the third issue and final issue is on intermediary liability and -- some provisions on liability protections. This was proposed by the United States, opposed by Australia and the European union and others, but it's supported by other countries like Columbia. Same principle -- align on liability issues. However -- the data is not reliable if they decided to restrict access to or the ability of certain content. If this is harmful or objectionable, not illegal, but but, objectionable -- they would not be liable if they use filtering -- objectionable. If one wants to use trade agreements -- freedom of expression, it should reflected in the actual text. That's what we say, we don't want a detail -- rights to be discussed, well, not discussed, but be a part of -- because we think that it's about trade -- it's not about the -- promotion of human rights, if you want to promote human rights, why isn't there a binding human rights clause, why isn't the wording put in there recognizing the benefit of having -- neutrality -- and when it comes to data flows and transfers, we don't have have these -- we want something to happen. So, I really would like you to look in the Texas well and come to your own conclusions and I hope it's helpful for the debate. >> Thank you, Maryant. As I mentioned, it's highly technical, it's based on the -- Debra explained, and E-Commerce and -- has very technical rules, which are mostly inspired by the TPP. So the death of TPP doesn't mean anything because it lives in TISA. I want to giver the word to Kelly. Kelly is, used to work for the Korean government and used to negotiate trade agreements and Korea has -- a trade agreement with the US but no monetary rule on -- transfers and USFDA. What is Korean's position on TISA and how do you see TISA? >> Okay. So, are do I talk about what kind of privacy implications does TISA, tis's data transfer provisions have in Korean situation. Well, if we are going into details, let me give you a brief background pre-and data protect landscape. So, Korea has a very strong data protection regime, as strong as you, before DPR was put into force, but it -- Korean stronger Korean data protection regime, it's -- diminished by public policies that require verification in every day lives. So, Korea has -- system, registration number system, RNS, and these RNS are extensively utilized -- Korea's business, and we also have -- and we used to have a general internet -- system that was struck down by the constitution accord in like four years ago. However -- such as public official election and -- telecommunications act separately requires internet users to verify their real identities and they normally use this -- unique number to identify the -- so, in this context, companies have been collecting very sensitive, personal information like -- and all kinds of other personal information to verify their -- Korea citizens. So, behind that background -- civil societies better to negotiate, express concerns and constructive suggestions, regarding provisions that Maryant just mentioned, that effect stawnt's personal data and privacy, the -- concern that the -- on data transfers would -- powers to business and that some Providence would prohibit parties from placing restrictions on the location of computing fiments, data localizations. Well, we open that, of course, share the same concerns. And that's why we signed the letter. But however -- in light of Korean's current situation, I can't help agree with David's perspective that, you know, unhindered across border data transfer and restriction on data localization are, I mean, are there ways evil, in my opinion, that's a perspective of -- private sectors, like companies are bad guys and the governments are -- actors are always good guys. But to us, like in Korea's situation, it is opposite. We sometimes need to -- the private sector and -- companies and like -- some other companies like Google to protect our internet users and our citizens censorship, and -- are personal data, that the service providers -- in 2014, 13 million subscriber accounts, data, were accessed by the investigative authorities and in a country with just 50 million people, well, it was only telecommunications companies that gave those information to the government when major internet companies refusion to comply with the government -- and another example is, like, syncing of -- which happened in 2014, which killed more than like 300 people, mostly high school students, the public was -- with investigation team in September, 2014, took crack down on lenders and rumors against -- who is going to be impeached soon, and for her -- absence during the disaster, and her inability to deal with the disaster. Could you stop sending me the messages? Sorry. So, the team, the investigation team had a closed meeting with major telecommunication companies, and internet companies such as -- which is like 99 percent -- rating in Korea, and they, the team, as for like corporation, that meant that the government wanted to look into our private conversations of Korea citizens. So erased by the news, of this surveillance, millions of Koreans took cyber asigh lum by using foreign based -- specially the telegram, people believe that the server is outside Korea and government cannot seize those conversations and communication. This change in data is better protected by foreign companies, based overseas, and again, like Mary -- if our government bans data transfer and demand localization of service in Korea, and -- Korean government proposed a bill on -- the data transfer and we -- opposing the bill because it gives the Korea communications commission and the administrative agency the power to block data transfer if the transfer is in violation of the protects law. However, it sounds okay, but we fear that it's not the judiciary, but the government has such power, it might be used to disable citizens to use foreign -- services freely. So, to wrap up, I agree we should be concerned with those TISA data cross border transfer provisions and other provisions that might have some privacy end infringing impact. We should not assume that we could rely on the state actor for best judgment from protecting human rights and privacy of the citizens. >> Thank you, following up on her comments -- it's also an issue for us, during the protesters, they didn't share the personal information with the government, so it's an issue when you have an -- and when you have like a limited freedom of expression, it's an issue for countries and Turkey is one of those countries negotiating TISA. This does not mean that we have to -- privacy. We accept the exact that there is a place for the transfers in 21st century, yes, there should be a rule or a provision for the data transfer if this is what the technology requires, if this is the reality of technology. P. But this doesn't compromise our privacy, and exceptions that have been proposed, they are not good enough, they are not such -- enough and we are not having that discussion. For instance, my organization in the US is like one of the biggest consumer rights organization in Washington, D.C., and while -- has been negotiating this, never approached us and asked us, what's the consumer perspective? Because I -- it's called consumer privacy in the US and they never ask what is the consumer's interest in close border data transfers. That's why having this conversation is with useful and I'm so glad that this room is full and everyone is here and we are talking about these issues. So I will now -- pass the word to -- and hear a little bit about the -- perspective on this issue. >> Hi. So, my name is -- I work as a advisor in internet policy for the green -- group. And the European parliament have not participated in -- we have consent procedures. Once the trade agreements are finalized, the parliament actually gets to vote yes or no to the final text. This is, of course, not in the best -- well, the parliament, not super happy with this way of handling things where we are basically blocked out if the entire discussion until the very end, and then we have a finished paper in front of us. The parliament has developed their own methods of trying to influence the work of the commission in the negotiations by adopting resolutions on the text ongoing and also making statements generally based on leex leaks. I have to say if you compare -- the commission has taken steps to vosm the parliament a little bit more than the actual negotiations and briefing us regularly through -- so we can go and read and not take anything with you. But on thr, especially in the area of data protection, we are quite lucky in the sense that the parliament has been working in data protection for a while and adopted regulation that will be -- 2018, which means that the parliament has a strong interest in making sure that a legislation -- it should also be said that the member of the parliament responsible for this file was notice commission when the data protection -- was initially worked with. So she has been quite up to speed on both traitd agreements and also on the data protection aspect. And it is very -- as a green, it's very nice to see that the statements of the parliament where it says that data protection is not a -- barrier but a non-negotiable fundamental right that in no way shush compromised. We have our -- organizations in the -- thank you for some of the phrasings, but it's also further down in this same resolution from the parliament. It says that, let's see if we can find that. It says that commission should ensure that the provisions of the final agreement are -- with the -- including the regulation of the -- data protection regulation, the E-Commerce -- and the measures -- market. Net neutrality, open internet to ensure the data can be transferred only if the provisions on the -- transfers into the data protection laws are complied with. And so on. From my perspective, it's quite obvious that the proposal on the table at the moment does not comply with this. So given that, you would say that if the parliament would have to give their consent tomorrow, they would vote no. Unfortunately the parliament is way better at passing resolutions than at actually stopping the commission when it comes to final deals. The actor was a bit of a turning point in that regard but I would not count on the parliament if they were voting tomorrow. They get a good conscious the last year before elections and sort of fade away afterwards. If, I think, if we want to push the commission, we need to push the parliament to, and the parliamentarians to repeat these phrasings from February in statements throughout the entire forces. >> Thank you. So, while we were proposing this panel, we want to have an interactive discussion. So that's why it's important to help you as the part of the discussion, and I want to open the floor for the questions, comments, and -- yes, please go ahead. >> #s. >> I'm with the computer communications industry association, represent many of the -- national tech companies, I think this is a great discussion. Of course TISA negotiations are on hold, but it's a good description of how a good agreement could look like and promotes human rights. I think this is a timely discussion. I agree with all the points, the importance of privacy, the protection, internet liability protection and net neutrality, we totally agree on those three points here. I want to make two quick points: Of course, addressing data flows and trade agreements is not something new, it has been done for more than two decades, so it's not like we are starting totally over, everything that is being discussed builds on -- and for more than two decades, the EU and all the -- countries ever been able to put in place data protection rules and they will be able to consider to do so to my knowledge. Internet liabilities, TISA would have been a great time to put that in place, of course, when you -- countries like Turkey and Pakistan, which has a pretty bad track record when it comes to freedom of expression and closing down on-line social media platforms, I think that would be a great time to put in place these kind of internet liability protections. The US has put forth one proposal, I think they are the only one that did that in TISA, but the EU put forth proposals in -- we should also ask not only what countries put forth, but how come in other countries like EU -- internet liability protections to promote freedom of expression. I think this is a great discussion, I think it's a good constructive discuss discussion on how a good trade agreement could look like. >> Before I pass the microphones to the speakers, I'm sure they want to comment on that. The first trade agreement, it has the mandatory rule on cross border transfers, and nowfer the TDP -- it's the TISA, you will see. >> Maryant, David, Kelly, anyone wants to comment? Or should we collect -- okay. Go. Let's -- yeah. >> On I'm Julia, and my question is, how can this be treated in a mutual lateral arena such as the WTO, and are there status already standards against TISA currently, because if you analyze TISA in the context of the industries for -- you will see that the integration of internet process enhance the localization of those national companies, that is the globalization and localization, and -- and this matters because it will affect negatively middle and low income countries and their capacity to shift towards industry -- 0, and -- sustainable, and economic development. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. I am was planning to talk about it a little bit later because now we are internet transition, and we don't know what's going to happen -- all discussions coming up with a new -- on E-Commerce, and I'm sure -- wants to comment on the WTO, maybe we can -- otherwise I can pass the microphone to other speakers. 2011. >> I can say something about it. Am I on? >> Yes, you are. >> Sorry, it doesn't seem that the video is working right, just the audio. Is that right? We just have audio, we don't have video. >> Yes. >> So, yes, I just -- thank you for bringing that up. The US is actually shopping their proposals on E-Commerce and multiple for us, we see it also in the G7, in the G20 and will in the -- LOCD, they are bringing it up, it's not just something to say cross border data transfer, but also, you know, they have a number of aspects to a proposal on E-Commerce prohibiting -- customs duties, protecting source code, prohibiting mandates for supporting local technology, so there's a number of them. The background on it in the WTO, is important to understand. In the WTO, we know it came into existence in 1995 and -- 20 so, which has then concludessed, and a lot of the aspect -- were proposals by developing countries -- is harming their economies and particularly with regards to development issues and agriculture. It unfortunately, what happened now, some of the countries have blocked any further discussions about reforming those aspects, development in agriculture and are instead seeking to propose a new agenda that is more friendly to their companies. And so these are the kind of proposals we are seeing. It's come under the -- the sort of idea of E-Commerce, but it really is about a whole bunch of other things as well as seeing a Trojan horse for, when talking about small or intermediate enterprises, but seeking to introduce these new rules that would be beneficial for the logistic corporations when developing countries talk about WTO and E-Commerce, there's interest in developing countries, being able to tap into that market, export on the internet, but the issues they talk about are very different. And I have spent a lot of time talking with developing countries about their concerns and their concerns have to do with issues like access to the internet, roads and infrastructure, being able to have address addresses, shipping information, the system. Payment, they actually want technology transfer which is the right of countries in WTO to have access to technology transfer which the big companies seeking to eradicate now. And -- fighting against cyber crime. You all are familiar that only one in five people then use the internet, one in 10 have it in their homes, and people in least developed countries, they only have a less than 10 percent penetration rate of access to internet. So it's a little bit because of the fact that there's been this inequality in the negotiations agenda right now, that we have this problem where developing and poor countries are saying we need to reform the existing system, give some con legislation that we have unfair rules, and instead you see the developed countries saying hey, let's talk about E-Commerce and selling things over the internet, we will all be rich but using that to bring in a bunch of other changes to existing rules that they would like to see. Right now this is very much in discussion phase. There is a mandate from a long time ago to have discussions on E-Commerce, that's been the case for many, many years. There's no mandate to have government negotiations. Those are two different things, to have a discussion and to have negotiations, and so some of the developed countries are pushing to have negotiations start and actually, they would like to see a new agreement on E-Commerce to be the main outcome of the next ministerial meeting, that will happen in Argentina in December, to 17, there has been major opposition to it. The last negotiations on this issue, which was October 18th, the Africa group had a joint statement rejecting the idea. There are a lot of different issues, if you are talking about farmers in Uganda trying to access the internet for marketing purposes and -- cross data transfers in ways that would help consolidate the market position of the 11 global tech companies of the top 15 company in the world, 11 of them are in the United States. That's why we see some. Push that would help them with their position in the world and why there's so much resistance from developing countries. I think those are the main points. >> I can make a quick comment to Christian's questions about internet liability. That would be speculation, but the European union and the commission in particular hasn't really been super keen on keeping the -- liability, if you look at the proposal, there have been discussions over and over about something called -- care, and that might weaken internet liability even though they would -- as the -- internally discussing what to do with the concept, I think they would be very likely to include it in a legally binding treaty. >> Okay. So, I have two points that I want to make, and then he wants me to speculate on something that I will speculate on. So, the first -- oh -- awesome, then I will make two points. The first is, I really, very strongly disagree with the concept that privacy is somehow binary, that either we have privacy or we don't have privacy, and discussing privacy in the context of a trade agreement somehow under minds people's rights to privacy in a global sense. The US and the European union and the European union and Australia and Australia and the US all have different views of privacy. These are all cultural views, culturally biased views, and this is a place to work these out. I'm going to use this as an example, I don't think it's a perfect example, but the US and EU have been able to somewhat intermediate their privacy issues by discussing the privacy shield. That provides a useful example of how we can address issues like privacy in the context of trade agreements. So I really -- I will under score this again, I really disagree of privacy as a binary concept. The second point I want to make 1245 trade agreements benefit all businesses, they don't just benefit big businesses. Our members, we have over 90 members. The vast majority of whom are small businesses. The company that I work for, that I'm general counsel for, we sell our services exclusively on the internet, and we are a small business. This is -- again, I disagree with the concept that somehow a trade agreement institutionalizes one large business's business practices over another at the exclusion of small businesses. I don't necessarily disagree with the concept that trade agreements do not even begin to fully encompass less developing countries' interests, and I think Debra's concern about internet access, that's a real issue that should be addressed in the context of these discussions. >> So, thank you very much. I mean, I wanted to say other things. Maybe I just -- on the binary issue of privacy. Yeah, the -- the point I want to make, as I said before, privacy is a human right and it should be treated as such. So there's actually a survey and a study conducted by the US administration that shows US consumers do not use on-line services because they are concerned about their privacy. That shows actually that's not protecting well enough privacy -- so, not -- prie privacy is not a -- trait. I hope I made myself clear, but I hope so. The discussions in trade agreements, I totally -- that we should bring privacy and -- to trade discussions because as you said, free trade agreements are designed to create growth and -- now how much this will contribute to the GDP, they are also designed to foster trade -- they are not there to -- they are not designed to look at how they can promote human rights. If they can do that, that's great. But for example, internet access, there's no clear provision in TISA that would achieve this very important issue. And that's the problem I'm trying to say, it's good and trade agreements can do something good. But we need to see it in a text. Of course all the comments I have been saying before is not because of the proposals being public, this is subject to the information that I have seen through leaks, for example, the most recent one -- November, and there are provisions that are Bring proposed -- for example -- proposed that -- enforcement capacity that make sure that the protection of privacy and data are complied with. To date, as far as leaks show, there is no other country that has -- about this issue. If the idea is to really use trade agreements to not undermined privacy, but even to foster it, why are no single party -- supported this? When it comes to privacy, I would disagree that the European and the US actually have managed to do a -- agreements, not because -- say so, because also because the article 29 working party, the group that actually encompasses all data protection in Europe said it has a lot of flaws. One of our members has brought a case before the -- justice and -- together with other organizations, have also brought a case before the European court of justty to show that this is not the right way forward. So, when it comes to, okay, rewant to foster privacy and we want to ensure that all countries rawnders the world have good protections, why don't, why doesn't the US endorse -- the council of Europe. It's open to -- and countries that do not belong to Europe, that actually have endorsed it, for example, Senegal, recently. When it comes to benefit of, talk about businesses, I totally agree, we need to make sure that small businesses are actually also represented. And then -- we need to ensure that the trade agreements work for the benefit of all, and not just big businesses. Wit comes to intermediate liability, it would be great if we had good provisions on -- however, in -- yeah, because I know, for example, that the CCIA organization actually supports the -- on the one hand, we want to have good intermediary provisions and do not actually agree with the US proposal, but at the same time you guys support -- the good Samaritan approach, so I'm confused. But I would definitely support of having liability protections in freedom of expression, but those -- rule of law and they are -- >> We have questions and comments. >> I agree that there is nothing -- about keeping trade negotiation without other public international law separate. Naturally I had some experience in negotiating on cultural diversity convention which was mainly European attempt to push back against the invasion of the Hollywood products into the European market. It involved a lot of resources and we were successful in negotiating and getting -- the convention. There was so much discussion about the relationship between the -- convention and WTO, but we never got around to actually saying anything about it, even in the -- text. Which made the cultural diversity convention pretty meaningless in terms of having some effect on the trade-in balance in cultural products between US and other parts of the world. So I mean, we don't have to call it a trade agreement, we can call it a hybrid agreement. It is possible, it is conceptually possible to create a forum where you can discuss privacy and trade together. And some of the FDA's already have like environment provision and labor provisions which force the State parties to make the regulations, domestic regulations that affect the -- of their domestic countries -- through these regulations, so, it is -- we should, we should talk about how to bring all the values to -- international law, if not in trade agreement, but to some mutual forum where trade can be affected by these values. For that to happen, the reason we are having this workshop is because at the trade negotiations, there are people who are not invited that should have been invited. There are some society, there are -- academia who are concerned about privacy who are not invited to the trade negotiations, that's why I think there is a civil society concern about, this is a civil society -- against bringing privacy into trade negotiation which is being exclusively shared with the government and companies. So, another example of the need to somehow, if not synchronize but Harmonize the positions on -- international law and the trade negotiation is the -- the provision of the US on TISA and -- reform, through TISA, the US is pushing for more cross border data transfer, but the -- through the reform, the US is pushing for a global warning that domestic law enforcement can use with vengeance to track down other people's data located in other countries. So I think that we need to bring trade, privacy and other public interest values together into a forum where all the involved stakeholders can have an open discussion about it. >> Thank you. And you are right, I totally agree with you. But we are making progress. 'we have thriek three trade related workshops and a main session on trades. And it is a huge -- if you look at the past, because last year, there was only one trade workshop, so there's another trade workshop on Thursday on the TPP, and there's a main session on Thursday afternoon from 4 qln 30 to 6 on trade and internet. It's good that we started to discuss, we started to have these scwutionz here because now we are in a transition period and in the US, unexpected happens, now we have to face, like a new administration and the post Trump trade policy will be different from the pre-Trump trade policy. And that was a a question I wanted to propose to David, and of course if the audience has questions or comments about it, they are all welcome, because I think they are missing, what's going to happen now? This is like the pre-Trump era and now we have to face the post Trump era. >> In my view, the curpt protection rules, not actually protective to protecting human rights now -- how does this kind of problem relate to TISA? >> I didn't get the question. >> You want me to reread it? Okay. In my view, current data protection rule are not actually effective in regard to protecting the human right to privacy, now or in -- artificial intelligence stuff. How does these kind of protection relate, this kind of problem relate to TISA. >> This is a good question, I always say we are not making rules for the technology, which is developing and we do not know what will be the technology in 10 years, that's why we need to have very informed discussion and decide and then make rules for the technology which has been developing. I don't have an answer for that question. But it's a good question. And we should have a discussion. I think this is a forum to have discussion. I'm going to pass the mic to David, can you talk a little bit about Trump? >> Yeah, so, most people probably would claim that I don't even know how to use Twitter. I don't know why I get to talk about Trump, but I will. I am preface this by saying I'm basing anything that I say on what he has said publicly, right? So, here is what we are thinking about trade and the incoming administration. It is highly likely that we are going to move from a kind of multi lateral, big global trade agreement rubric, at least in the US, to more bilateral agreements, that's what Trump seems to favor. That's what his secretary of commerce seems to -- or proposed secretary of commerce seems to favor. So, really, I don't know how that's going to impact big agreements like TISA, clearly it's already affected how the US the looking at TPP and that -- from a trade perspective, if you look at TISA, this is not something that we are talking about in this session, but TISA has a provision in it on the free movement of people. It's kind of an immigration type position. That is likely something that would draw the Trump administration, as a candidate, Donald Trump -- talked against -- that is something that relatively similar to what's in TISA, and we would expect things like that to draw his attention and be taken out. He has also -- I have also heard that he has discussed taking USTR and putting it into the Department of commerce, which would be a very interesting development, particularly as we are talking about trade and trade transparency and who gets to negotiate trade agreements from the US standpoint, taking USTR and taking it out of an executive place that it's in now and putting it into the Department of commerce would really change how trade negotiations take place in the US. That all said, my Trump crystal balance is probably still stuck in customs somewhere, so that's about all I have. >> Thank you, David. We have 10 more minutes. Any more questions? Otherwise I will give like maybe one to two minutes for each panelist to share their remarks with us. >> Hold on, we have a question. >> Hi. My name is -- I work for Wal-Mart Mexico. You were talking, and I think -- I do agree with you from a legal standpoint that you cannot put in trade agreement the stuff regarding the human rights, like privacy. But at the end of the day, you also have an opinion of which one is more important than the other one? Because that is the question that, if TISA gets through in the way that it's being negotiated so far, that is a question that is going to be asked to a judge to decide whether it is more important, uh right of a corporation under the TISA or the human right of a person to privacy. >> Thank you. That's a very interesting point, because, so, in TISA, this -- would not be composed of judges, it would be in principle -- it would be a trade focus, a -- body that would rule. If the purpose of trade agreements is trade -- to further protect privacy or data protection, then what would be the balance, right? And a lot of tests to be complied with. A big article about -- it's very difficult to actually defend. There's some research that the provisions of -- have only been successful out of 45 days, only two cases. So it's very difficult for a party to actually -- that measures are actually necessary and the -- in accordance with trade rules. That's why, it's not that you cannot include human rights provisions on agreements like TISA, but if you do it, you need to do it right. It's not about saying, yeah, we should perhaps recognize the benefit of privacy. That's not how it works. Afn that's why we agree with -- with the question that was deferred, even -- rules are not addressing all of the issues that we are experiencing. Why don't we just discuss it by what should be done in other forums because trade agreements, as I said before, the purpose is really trade -- it's not about -- the focus is not about human rights, I wish it was, but it's not. That's why I urge for caution. >> If there is no questions, okay, so,. >> I think I would have to start to say that I agree very much with what she said -- legislation is beneficial for traitd, it makes it easier to trade if you have the same legal framework. Everyone agrees with that. From that, you jump to the conclusion that we should do legislation as part of the trade agreements rather than finding other forums to actually see how we can harmonize legislation, which would be compatible with the way we legislate in general. We operate, because of this negotiation we should do this through trade, we have two ways to lij slate. The regular method, whatever that is, and through trade agreements. And of course the problems with trade agreements is that they are not generally built to change, which means that once we put something in the trade agreement, we are more or less stuck with it, when there will be heavy conversations if you want to change anything. If you Harmonize legislation in any other way, you could, if for any reason you found out that was not beneficial for society, you can get in and change the legislation again. But we lose that option when we legislate it through trade agreements, therefore I think we should always be extra cautious whenever we do trade agreements that might infringe on non-trade. >> Who want to be the next? You haven't been speaking for a while. >> So, I come from civil society, but I kind of have a very different perspective from you or Maryant, and I was disappointed, big disappointed to hear that you gave, you as a didn't intermediary liability and won't be pushing forward to put the -- are not trade agreement, especially TISA: Like in Korea context, and, you know, our -- mission is making the internet open and free, and, on internet, internet is open and free because it has no borders. And, I mean, I do not read other chapters of TISA, I oppose other chapters, but regarding E-Commerce or, like, telecommunications or internet, I think we should -- we should, how can I say? We should protect other intermediary's or our internet companies from the government or the State, who are really, who are willing to control and regulate the internet so they can have control overall the information, on the internet. And to protect our cities and our people from government censorship and surveillance, I think those -- and E-Commerce chapters, telecommunication chapters are actually promoting human rights in a sense. And I agree, I mean, I think that you should, we should propose or, US -- I mean, I'm glad that US proposed the intermediary liabilities -- and I think TISA should have, yes, that's protection for intermediaries. >> Thank you, who wants to be the next? >> I will be next. So, there are two points that I would like to make: The first (lost audio) . >> Okay. Sorry, apparently I -- okay. So, what I said for those who didn't hear me is, what we have been saying, what -- we have been saying, and this panel illustrates, that the trade discussion benefits immensely from multiple viewpoints and a that's not occurring. Right now, the viewpoints of most of the people who are sitting, who are talking, aren't considered in a substantive way. And I think that this discussion really illustrates why that needs to take place, even though that's not why we are at this particular session. So moving to TISA specifically, on TISA, TISA is too important of a trade agreement to be rushed through. And that's another thing that all these viewpoints indicate, is that there needs to be substantive discussion about the impacts that TISA is going to have on issues that are non-traditional trade agreement issues like privacy, like how the agreement is going to include and anticipate the needs of countries whose internet has not developed to the extent that industrialize have. These are two important issues to rush the agreement through. That's my final remarks. >> First, I would like to say that if -- too important, I am encouraged to have political leadership to really take into account all of the perspectives that we have heard today. And not just be one sided. I agree that the trade agreement can be beneficial but in order to be more beneficial even for citizens -- rights need to be respected and those -- in particular, that's what we are talking about today. Finally, in the -- agreement, it has good provisions on internet liability, but I would of course agree that the -- proposal would not achieve -- the standards that were set in -- for example. But I would agree that including intermediary protections would be beneficial. And finally, on surveillance, that would be great, trade agreements would solve the problem of surveillance, we haven't discussed this much, but in the E-Commerce, even if you had the most perfect provision against surveillance, then no party -- is obliged -- national security interest. That's the issue. >> Thank you very much. This was a very, I think informative and very interesting discussion. I'm glad all of you joined us for such a boring topic. And if you have questions, please don't hesitate to approach us. Thank you very much. >> Oh, I forgot you. Sorry. Deborah: >> I know we are short on time. So I really appreciate the other panelists comments and I just have a couple quick points. To address the issue of the fact that the TISA and the trade rules might be good for small companies, completely agree with that. The problem is that a lot of the proposals are written primarily by the large companies, and they are not necessarily designed to promote growth and jobs. They are primarily, you know, designed to increase trade and to give new rights to corporations on how they operate in the public sector and the prieftd sector. So, yes, almost every trade agreement has increased trade, but they have nearly all universally fallen short on increasing jobs and they are a major culprit on increasing inequality and putting pressure on wage growth and that's why there have been negative impacts for the majority. Citizens, that doesn't mean that the trade agreements have to be like that, obviously because trade certainly can increase growth and jobs if it's done right. I just wanted to make one comment about the new services issues, because this is a big fight between the EU and the U the S, the idea of of the of the companies promoting -- many of the countries that are representing them is to have a provision of technological neutrality, meaning that the current rules, whatever is developed in the TISA would apply to services no matter how they are being developed, we have on-line moves, E books, carbon capture and storage services, all of these are services that weren't included in the original classifications, and the idea would be to use public regulatory power, which say the corporations decide and and it has to be the same rules, sending a pizza deliver ri boy out or having a drone deliver it, they would be the subject to the same rules. Any normal person would say these are two different things and maybe need some different rules. So, I just wanted to say, you know, I really appreciate this discussion. There's a lot to talk about in terms of balancing things like access to internet for poor countries, access to internet for people understand repressive regimes, but if we look at the entire proposal on balance, because of the fact that it is generally, companies that have a lot of access to the negotiators, 85 percent of advisors in the United States are from the corporate sector and there are international agencies that regulate every one of the topics in the TISA from finance to area transport, every single one of them has an international regulatory agency. Another one of the panelists brought that up. That's where the rules should be set, not to have the power usurped in secret trade agreements dominated by companies, you are going to have an outcome that -- not only privacy but regulation in each one of these areas and have rules that only are beneficial for the companies. And I don't think that's where we want to go as citizens from democratic countries. >> Thank you very much for organizing. >> Thank you, Debra, thank you for joining us. Okay. Thank you. 12/6/16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12/6/16. Internet Governance Forum. Room 4. Outcome of G7 Ise-Shima summit a and ministerial meetings. >> We have the distinguished speakers today. And, oh, before that, I'm -- I'm supposed to be the moderator of this session, little jp niece cell phone company, Suzuki was my very able colleague and I want to congratulate his promotion to vice minister. I'm also impressed that he put up with the 35 years of government job and -- I didn't expect that he would stay that long. I -- I got out of it early. Lets me introduce the distinguished speakers: First, okay. Sitting by me, Mr. Suzuki, he helps the policy administration. And second, Mr. Stefan Schnorr, a G20 -- direct general for the digital and innovation policy, federal ministry for economic affairs and energy. And, Ms. Megan Richards from European commission, director, general of DG connect. And Ms. Kathryn brown, president and CEO of internet society. And Ms. Brown also participated in the G7 stakeholders conference. Thank you for taking that long trip. I liked it there. And drr Makoto Yokozawa. He is in the working group, the organization -- Japanese business, it's the largest non-profit organization, the members, so the mostly the members -- major corporations. And first, Mr. Suzuki is supposed to tell us all about the G7 summit and the conference. >> Thank you. I feel grateful to share my presentation with all of you. It is will the expansion of the G7 -- meeting in Japan, my name is Suzuki, and Japan health the meeting in April, my presentation today focused on the result of a discussion about internet governance, at the G7 meeting. The conference was held with the participation of the -- and those are the government and -- as it were. On that day, just before the minister meeting in April. The result of the conference was reported as a G7 meeting. A G7 ICT meeting had a discussion with conservation -- and the result and the recommendation from the stakeholders conference. The G7 ICT -- result in three policy documents. After their discussion about the wide range with ICT issues. Thea agreed on many of the recommendations at with regard to the agreement on the internet is governance, in particular the approach, and the -- openness of the internets was highlighted, and reowe reflected in the documents. >> Some of the slides -- >> Okay. I move to the slides, too. Incidentally, the G7 ICT meeting was held for the first time in last 21 years. The previous -- the previous G7 ICT meeting was held in brews else, in 1995. At that time moderator, Mr.-- and I worked very hard. That year, in 1995, was a timing, spread over the internet had started. In other words, it was a -- of the internet G7 was -- the information society. Over two decades have passed since then. And the internet has regulated every corner of society and economy, and it began some infrastructure or platform that is indispensable, not only for the economy, but also for social life in general. With the progress of the information society -- communication and -- widespread as means of communications. And now -- internet of things is forth coming, in which all things will be connected to the internet. Therefore, we thought that new -- policies are to be necessary and it was time to discuss them. Globally connected to the world will be achieved in the near future, in which -- will be bridged. All people in -- will be connected to a network, and the large body of data will create economic and social innovations. We decided to -- the forth coming world that this study connected world. And discuss the visions and policies for that world. The internet has been devout with open participation of stakeholders, the process of which has been maintaining little openness transparency and freedom of internet. Therefore, we thought that the r participation will be necessary of the stakeholders. The be can stakeholders conference was held the day before the G7 meeting, we had many experts from the countries who participated who discussed topics along with -- over the G7 ICT minister meeting. The result was -- at the beginning of the meeting, and reflected in the G7 discussion. Next slide. The r this resulted in three outcome documents. The first one as charter for the digitally connected world. The principles from medium to the long term perspectives, second is a -- by G7 ministers, summarized the measures to be taken from a -- perspective based on the charter. Third is the G7 opportunity for collaboration as an and next is a correction -- first one is improved quality of life, second is economic growth, innovation, and third is sustainable and inclusive development. Then as fundamental principles to achieve these goals, the charter specified the -- point for us to promoting and protecting human rights. Second promoting and protecting the free flow of information. Third it's supporting -- approach, fourth is strengthen -- inclusiveness for all -- the potential over the digitally connected world. These strategies, first is promoting access to the ICT, second is strengthening international collaboration, promoting the free flow of information, privacy, protection, and cyber security. Next is fostering -- fourth is addressing ICT to address challenge and opportunities, and strength in international -- and cooperation. Summarized with action to achieve these -- in order to achieve the actual plans, there are several opportunities for cooperation as an annex what is compiled with the connection of -- enabling each country to share information to -- expansion of their collaboration. The joint -- action to be promoted by each country and promoting and protecting the free flow of information. This actual measures, the G7's commitment -- in the world, economic growth and social reform through innovations. And enabling the global community including -- and developing countries to share the result. These plans will not be accomplished by p only the G7 -- country. The understanding and cooperation of all countries, people are indispensable to the accomplishment of the plans. In that sense, today's opportunity here in the IGF where many stakeholders are gathered -- to the government of Japan and the G7 countries. In the future -- disseminate the result -- in a meeting in Japan, in many countries, these are will people through international conference. A major part was reflected in the meeting -- and the summit in September, and and the -- also. A meeting to pull up the progress of the achievement was held -- was a meeting to discuss how we should -- implement these achieve many times to us next year at the G7 summit in -- by director -- by reporting IGF today, we are hoping that we can share the same understanding with a wide range of stakeholders, so leading to a collaboration with them. We have had -- attended as, from the German today, Germany as a G20 is going to host the next G20 ICT meeting from now on, we would like to discuss with, stakeholders of various countries and visions for the agenda of next year's G7 and good 20 in pursuit of more achievement. And we -- the cooperation of stakeholders, not only the G7 and G20 countries, but strive to achieve -- and eliminate its -- and make progress with all of you. Thank you all for listening so attentively. >> Thank you, Mr. Suzuki, for sharing the information. And also the number of -- public policy agenda that came out of the G7 meeting. Appreciate it. Now then we could have European views from distinguished speakers from commission and the German government, can we have miss Meghan Richards? >> It's a pleasure to be here, of course, and we are very pleased that the last G7 summit included the minister's discussion. As you said, it was a long time since the is last discussion on this issue took place in the context of G7, although the -- principles also related to internet policies, et cetera. Of course, it's so particularly important for our modern economies and their societies to address these issues, we so really appreciate the effort that Japan did and all of the G7 participants and we are looking forward to seeing this carried forward in the next discussions in Italy and also of course in the G20 discussions as well. And I think one other aspect that I wanted to underline in particular was the aspects of having a multi stakeholder contribution, it's very important to hear the ideas and the contributions from other stakeholders. I also want to identify what we are doing in Europe in the context of encouraging free flow of data, access to the internet, and fostering innovation. In Europe, we have digital single market initiative which follows on from what we call the digital agenda for yiewp, and this is to try to ensure that these activities are brought forward to enable a better use of information and communication technologies, which of course are under pinned by the internet in our economy and our society. And even though we try to improve and make a real digital single market within Europe, this doesn't mean that it closes the borders of Europe to the rest of the world. On the contrary, have a good solid robust single digital market makes Europe more open and accessible to the rest of the world, a better trading partner and easier to have relations and exchanges with other parts of the world. I think that's a really important element that I wanted to underline. I won't go into all of the details of what we are doing in terms of free flowing of data and foster innovation and research or in access to the internet, but those form some of the basic pillars. Of our digital single market strategy. We are working not just with the other states in the European union but also the council of ministers and the European parliament. There are 13 members of the European parliament here and they are following the discussions very closely. I wanted to underline this they have a particular interest in this. The other areas that we are working on in the context of the digital single market relate to cyber security, and making sure that the internet is stable and secure and can work in a more robust and secure way in the future. And there, of course, we are very much actively working with other stakeholders with the private sector and making sure that we have a good public/private partnership. In addition to a series of legislative initiatives that have have been taken. So, one area where we think more work could be done in the future, and we think an area that is a particular interest to the G7 and probably in the G20 context, could be brought forward as well, is in the area of internet and jurisdiction. This is an issue which has particular resonance for governments but it affects everyone. How do we manage the cross boshed border of the internet, based on the jurisdictional principles, this is a challenge for everyone and I think that a lot of work has already been done by a number of interested parties, in a multistakeholders context but we think that the G7 as forum that would push forward on this issue. We hope this is something that could be brought forward into the G7 discussion in Italy next year. So I a pool jies profusely that I have to go to another meeting at 1:00, but my colleague will stay on, and I will hear the results of your discussions and I wanted to thank again the Japanese for your initiative in this and continuing the work and we expect our Italian partners to bring this forward in the future. Thank you very much, and the -- in G20. >> Thank you. I understand the German government is working on the action plan and other goals listed in the G7 meetings, so could we have some views of the German government on these issues? >> Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Suzuki, ladies and gentlemen, it's a great pleasure for me to be here with you today as a representative of the German government. I look forward to discussing the importance, the implementation of the results of the G7 final documents with you. The G7 meeting of the ICT ministers was indeed the first one for -- in decades in which -- were discussed and dedicated ministerial conference. We are very grateful to our Japanese colleagues for taking up important digital policies and discussing them in the G7 context during the Japanese presidency. Even more important it's now that we have achieved good resides in -- let me stress one point in which I would particularly like to highlight here at the IGF, the commitment to the magistrate -- for internet governance and -- in the -- for digital connected world. Germany finally supports -- both national international -- in this magistrate -- the German government represented by the economic affairs ministry was involved in this discussion. And I, myself, attended the key meeting in March at which joint proposal by the stakeholders groups was presented. Ladies and gentlemen, the ICT ministerial conference -- these documents contained a whole range of tasks and objectives and it would certainly take my far too long to list all the steps we have taken in Germany to bring our country into a digital connected world. Therefore, I simply will give you some sort examples. Point 1, meeting up -- beyond this, our goal is also to step up an investment fund for the future with the volume of around 10 billion Euros for Germany, this is to enable all rural areas right across Germany to be connected up to going gig a bit networks. In 2050, the total of allowing to 100 billion US dollars were invested in start ups around the globe. In the -- the figure was around 12 million beyond Euros, 3 bill Euros in -- last year start ups created 50,000 new jobs in Germany. Point 3, creating a regular -- framework toward greater investment and innovation. Our national and European regulatory framework needs to be modernized in order to provide the right stimulus for the digital market to grow and become stronger. For example, anti-trust -- control, regulatory experiment for room for technologies and business -- point 4: Pushing forward with smart networking and the or -- is our economy. Our smart -- initiative supports the digitalization of key infrastructure in education, energy, healthcare, transport, and public administration. The initiative aims to make better use of the social and commercial opportunities deriving from digital connectivity in these five areas of infrastructure. It can lead to -- benefits of allowing 56 billion Euros -- per year. Point 5: Strengthening data security. Over the last two years, some 51 -- of companies and Germany have fallen victim to cyber crime. We need to be in a position to create our security ecosystems for both software and hardware. Point 6: Enabling new business models to be designed and used by -- the correct sector and in services. The aim is to support -- the challenge of digitalization mainly by providing support and information services that Taylor to their needs, for example, by special -- for SME's that were built nationwide in Germany. Point 7: Using industry 4.0 to modernize Europe and Germany as a base for production. This process is being accelerated through the platform industry. This platform is jointly headed by the economic affairs. Minute -- as well as key representatives from industry and industry associations. The industry -- this is the job -- in the union, and the -- society -- into one of the world's largest network in the field of internet of things. More than 300 stakeholders represented more than 150 organizations have joined the platform. Particularly they want to help small and medium sized enterprises to get involved for industry 4.0. At the same time, the platform is also producing recommendations for government, for example, regarding changes to legal framework or of the design of R and D policy. This is policy -- in realtime. Point 8, bringing research, development and innovation in digital technology to a competitive level. We need significantly boost funding for such and development in the area of digitalization of the economy. We also need to step up our efforts to intensify research and development projects at the pre-competitive stage. Point 9: Enabling people at every stage of life to participate in digital training. Europe, we need an additional 3.5 million IT experts by 2 20/2020. We published a green paper in March of this year, this is continuing a broad -- consortium process in Germany in a regulatory framework for the economy and it will feed into a paper next year that consists of measures and goals. As far as my brief overview, thank you very much, I think it's important now that we all work together in these issues. Thank you. >> Thank you, that was very important. And now we turn to the private sector view, and Doctor yak Yokozawa,. >> I should like to be brief, I would like to hear from many -- I am just highlighting and echoing what we have discussed already which is a multistakeholder model in the G7 process. And -- this very important minister meeting and including the ICTs. So, just, could you just switch to the, to my slides here? Okay. I will continue my explanation. And my -- I would like to answer, what was the meeting of the -- for business. I'm a vice chair of the internet economy in European -- which is a Japanese -- and I have some goal in the -- which is an advisory board. And also some experiments in -- so this particular G7 meeting was a very good -- thank you very much, was very, very good. Yes. The -- I would say this is -- this is a multistakeholders conference ans this picture is of -- brown, this is you. So, back to the government discussion, and we had a multistakeholder conference like this. And also we have some separate meeting for youth and the universities student and the -- high school students, that's very interesting, and just -- here in this next -- and the -- so the multistakeholderrized -- was a meeting for a business, this could be a very good question. We as a business, we have highlighted very important concept in the ICT policies, which is the industry 4.0 and society 5.0, so, and the -- totally new ecosystem, which covers society as a whole, and the -- Japan business Federation is collaborating promote can this idea as the next step innovation and proposal from Japan. And the example in business in society 5.0 -- remote sensing and remote control over the internet, in many cases cross border operation, and the ought my sakes and artificial intelligence and the post ubiquitous society. We have discussed all of these things. And what is society 5.0, or -- 4.0 needs multistakeholders, this is a very, very good question. And the -- I'm trying to answer to this, and because of the time saving, I would like to just highlight some of the points, that the geo location binding is not productive, in the ICT supported society. And also the -- in the needs information flow to make the most of scale benefit including the cloud come piewlting and the clouds services. So, for this reason, we need a free flow of information, particularly which was discussed in the -- we ahighly appreciate that. And this is the graphic, society 5.0, but if someone is interested in this, I would very much, happy to show you later or -- as an opportunity. Thanks. >> Thank you. We have -- represented today, also professor -- who is a board member, I thank you for joining us today. Please. >> Thank you. Again, for this opportunity to participate in these important conversations. P vice minister, I was honored to be here. I was honored to be invited to the multistakeholders session that was held the day before the ministerial. I think that what I would like to focus is on why the Japanese of government's first hosting of the G7 ministerial on ICT was so important, and secondly, why their modeling the multistakeholder model for what was an inte governmental meeting was also a break through and so very important. I would note first that the jap niece internet community is quite familiar and quite good with respect to a multistakeholder approach to the technological advancements that have happened and continue to happen in Japan. My colleague and others in the chapter in Japan have really developed a way to bring stakeholders together for very important issues, including issues around the internet of things, issues around security, and many other things where they do a very fine and very efficient job of ensuring that they reach consensus on important technical and policy matters. So I would say that Japan, and I have said this since the G7, is a beacon for other governments and for us as multistakeholders participants in how this can actually work in reality. So why is it so important, then, that this approach was taken at a -- at the first G7 ICT ministerial in 20 years? Because I think it reflected quite well the actual state of the internet as it exists today. And that is as a complex distributed trans national network of networks. The discussions of the G7 of course are about mutual issues of economic growth and resiliency and mutual aid in some respects all across the years. It is indeed odd that one had nt discussed the result of the -- in this economic group of nations before then. So that it was discussed in this year, is a good thing, and that it modeled how the discussions should go forward, I think, is actually quite promising. The year before, in December, the world's nations had come together in the review of the document where in the, all of the nations of the world discussed how they would think about they growth of the internet cross a so year period and came back so years later and tipped the box of things they thought would happen and actually noted things that went beyond their expectations. The nations also a p doptd an output document that clearly embraced the multistakeholder process as the way we would governor ourselves as nations, as nation statements, as an international community, both at the global level, at the sovereign state level and at the local level, how we would govern ourselves with respect to the evolution, the use, and the issues that would arise on the internet. In this inte national arena, we were able to discuss with the various governments what we thought were the fundamental issues that needed to be embraced before any other conversations could really happen with respect to the economic implications of the internet. And so I look to and think of as very noteworthy conclusions of the declaration that came out, they pledge to promote internet openness and to protect the free flow of information. 2: An agreement to promote privacy and data protection, including a suggestion and recommendation we made for a proactive approaches to privacy by design. And third, a commitment to promote a collaborative approach in addressing issues of cyber security. I find these agreements quite profound, and I find them legitimate, because the discussion took into consideration the views of those stakeholders at the table, which included the technical community, the civil society, and business, who had offered and discussed with the ministers these very important 21st century internet issues. So that we would think about this kind of process, when dealing with the internet, seems, in my mind, absolutely necessary and clear. But let's pause for a moment and consider that most of the intergovernmental conversations that are going on today do not include the stakeholders which will be affected by the outcome of those discussions. In this case, where, as I describe it, the internet is the economic backbone, it is the spinal cord of the global economy, how can we discuss the implications without understanding the full extent of both the opportunities and the challenges which the internet presents in today's very interrelated economies. So as we go forward to the G7 next year, which I hope in my beautiful friend's country of Italy, we are hoping, we would hope that our chapter there will be as active at our chapter in Japan to remind our government that this is really the path forward. We know that when we go to the G20, that Germany has already extended invitations to various stakeholders. Thank you very much. We, again, are honored as the internet society, to be at the able, to ensure that that conversation is multistakeholder as well. We would ask the governments of Italy and the government of Germany to follow the, I think, amazingly oppress yant approach of Japan and ensure that the fundamental issues that we have decided upon as a global community, and that the G7 in particular has led with respect to openness, freedom, privacy, data protection, and collaboration that they be embraced by you. I am asking very specifically that the issue of cyber security be at the top of the list in a way that does not assume that anyone government, or any group of governments has a single answer for the trust issues that are now presented by the very facts of the complexity of the internet that has grown. That decision, to open the discussion around security, around trust, around how the vulnerabilities of the network, the socioeconomic issues, and the political issues that are affecting both the growth and evolution of the internet and its affect on our citizens must be open and must include the relevant stakeholders. Again, I want to thank the government of Japan for giving me this opportunity. And I look forward to the discussion. >> Thank you, Ms. Brown, I thank you for the good work. We appreciate the -- internet community as a multistakeholder -- and we are running short of time and we want to have questions answer and answer time. I will try, before that, could we have one more comment from the G20 presidency, government, the German government, and then we will try to have an interactive discussion. Sorry. >> Thank you. At the beginning of this -- Jeremy holds the G20 presidency, the focus will be on liberating the opportunities and coping with the challenges of an increasingly digital -- world. It's -- for individuals countries and for the global economy as a whole. In particular, digital technologies can contribute to innovation in products, processes, and organization structures. They often view opportunities for workers, citizens to engage in economic activity and to enhance -- at the same time new technologies can affect the -- of work in certain sectors, and may increase gaps in excess and use resulting in a new digitally wide and greater in equality. It is therefore a challenge to ensure that the benefits of the digital economy are widely shared and inclusive. To unleash the potential of the digitalization can have for innovation, growth and employment, it is important to identify and overcome barriers and to put the necessary conditions and frameworks in place. If we are to reap the benefits of digitalization, we need to Harmonize stand out so that business and -- and governments can take full advantage of the opportunities. In the first -- we could develop a common ught in the G20 group and actions such as digitalization of the manufacturing industry, smart cities and smart mobility. In a further step, we could work towards developing a joint action plan for standards, which recognizes that internationally Harmonize standards and policies are a precondition for the integration of new policies. To bring G20 members even closer to teaching our common digital goals, the German minute sti of economic affairs and ministry will host a G20 ministers meeting on the 6th and 7th of April next year. This will be the first one in the G20 context. On the first day of the meeting, a -- conference on digitalization is scheduled. It will involve business and self societies and awr ole stakeholders in the process. Day two will give the plam form to the ministers themself to discuss policies for the future. We hope that we can also in good 20 context reach good goals in these fields and it is clear that this must be the start point for the common work in the next years, so thank you vmp. >> Thank you. >> I think we have time for one or two questions for the internet of discussion. But please -- yes? >> Okay. I wanted to say that I do not represent the government now, because I am the chair of the Italian chapter of the internet society. But in the past, I had a lot of -- government representative and naturally, especially in 2011, I was digital share part for -- ministry in France for the meeting in France, and we elaborated a good document regarding the management of the internet. And so I'm glad that now you broach this -- that is -- G7, G20, I consider it normally multinational -- organizations. But to bring this -- is essential. I thank you very much for this occasion. And so then I will report to the governor that is preparing this next meeting, that will be held in Sicily, apparently. And so I hope that this will become something very important for the future of this kind of meetings. And naturally something like that to start the -- with Canada in 1995, that they set up a 12 project for the experimentation of the internet society. That's a good approach to be more coordinated and convincing. Thank you. >> Thank you. Please, yes. >> Yes, thank you, UK government, UK is one of the G7. First of all deep appreciation for Japan and their presidency this year of the G7 and hosting an ICT ministerial conference, a very successful conference, it's been noted in earlier presentations a at this meeting. And we were very appreciative indeed in showing that a G7 made a very solid commitment to supporting the multistakeholders process. And there was a multistakeholder conferences and we had inputs into the process of finalizing the G7 charter and declaration and indealed the -- opportunities for collaboration, we have a number of projects there. Your recollection US projects that we have included in the G7 takes -- smart cities, G5, innovation, digital access, including opportunities to collaborate on promoting access in developing cghts, in Africa and so on. So the G7 process has been significant on a nursing home of levels in terms of addressing key challenges for the global digitalization of -- social welfare and so on. We look forward very much to continuing this important dialogue of examining issues and opportunities under the Italian presidency next year and following the summit, which ste fan mentioned in may, there will be an ICT ministerial conference in September, and -- on the 26th and 27th of September, and there will be a much stakeholder conference there. We are very, from the UK, we were very supportive of ensuring that the inputs from stakeholders through convening of a conference for private sectors and others to contribute and that will then inform and can relate to what we discussed as the G7 group of government, so we look forward very much to that vital linkage with all stakeholders in preparing the next step for the G7 on the ICTs and all the issues that we are going to address. So I wanted to make that point very clear, the UK will continue to support that process of inclusive dialogue in the G7. Thank you. >> Thank you. I think we are out of time. I would like to thank the speakers for sharing with us a very important policy agenda today, and also to the, all the participants in this room today, thank you for joining us, this concludes this meeting. (Applause) 12/6/16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12/6/16. Internet Governance Forum. Newcomers track.Test test >> Good afternoon, everyone. And thank you so much for joining. We are continuing the new comers for the very first time organized at the IGF. Many of you I saw in day 0 when we had the mentor session, but I'm also seeing some new faces. And now I need to stop. >> We are just waiting for the streaming to be set up. For those who are not at the table, come join us. There are plenty of space here. We would rather you participate and speak to the mic very easily. So those who are sitting behind, come join. Thank you. Let me continue. I work with the national regional sub-regional new IGFs. On my right side, we have biank A. me and Bianca discussed that we should explain to the people why coming to the IGF for the very first time and what is the approach. It is not just a huge conference, but it is really a process that lasts for 10 years and will continue for the next 10 years for sure. Bianca, would you like to say briefly what newcomers strike? And we have many, many speakers that want to share their experience. >> Bianca: Hi. So the new comer main objective is to make you feel welcome. So for the first time, Sebastian, you can put on one of these badges so people can reach out to you. So you might have been hearing a lot of acronyms Isaw, ICANN and we want to put them in touch with you. So they will start with an introduction about themselves and their roles and go to free style Q&A. You may go with them so you know two of the stakeholders. >> Let's start with Ken because he needs to leave us soon. >> Ken: Good afternoon, everyone. I am Kent. I have to make a presentation at 1:50. So I will make a comment of what we are doing. Thank you very much. Actually, our company is providing a lot of services like news or shopping services and also some auction sources. The internet is a global muse and, of course, special Connectivity activities. We will focus on the Japanese market and we do recognize the importance as well as getting involved in the discussion. We have never been prospering a lot of discussion and we have a workshop. We are adding protection of use online as your first region. And also we attended the first day and the forum. This time, we are supposed to hold our regarding of use online with some people from Asia. So, if possible, please attend my session and also from 1:50, I will make a presentation on policies. Hopefully you get to get my presentation from the IG riverside. I am very sorry not to participate for this session the whole time. But I hope we are able to work together. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Kent. I have a lot of questions for you, but I know you have to go. Thank you for coming and joining us. Now you can stop him wherever in the venue and ask whatever you want. We have colleagues here from ISA, from ICANN, Microsoft, Google, Facebook and I would like to start from this side to briefly introduce yourself and tell your participants what is your interest here at IGF and why are you involved and concretely what do you do. >> Yeah. Absolutely. Can you hear me? Okay. Hi, everyone. I'm HIBA and I'm based in gookel's offices in D.C. Google is engaged with IGF for many, many years and we were very, very happy when IGF was renewd. We have a team here from around the world and also a team of people that are not just policy people, but folks from our technical teams to really, really reflect diversity of why we care about the IGF. So just a few reasons. Can I go on why we're here and why we're investing. First of all, we think that the IGF is very unique and how it fosters cross-sector collaboration. I can't think of another place where representatives from academia and private sector are all in a room talking and trying to figure out good areas to collaborate on emerging policy issues. We really do value the fact that IGF emphasizes the value of discussions over making decisions. We think that having a sort of open dynamic base for conversations where you can listen, collaborate and even disagree with one another without having to worry about what language is going to document a treaty or something like that is very, very valuable. Finally, we think it's a critical component of the multi-stakeholder model of Internet Governance. Very democratic and I do think that we're seeing around the world more and more attempts to tighten control and have more top down models. I think that makes IGF more important than ever to have new people come into the poll and have a very quarters set of stakeholders. Sometimes when you hear about IGF, it is hard to justify why are you sending so many people and spending so many resources. We really have emphasized that IGF paves the way for policy making and even in others and some of the issues and discussions we have here really do shape other discussions in varied productive ways. I am excited to be here and to meet all of you. >> Thank you. Let's move on your right side and then we will open the floor for questions and answers. >> Hi. My name is Andy O'Connell. I work at Facebook. While HYBA was talking, I was frust rated because she went through all of my talking points. I want to reiterate why we are IGF is valuable and why we send a team here. Lead Let me say what we do here. We have panels of speakers talking on topics that we think are important. Tech nerves and people that work in policy and engineering and that work at Facebook are all tech nerds. They have courses, discussions and that are important to our company today and that are important to our company in the future. The other thing is we participate in panels where we think we have something to say or where there's a lot of interest in hearing from Facebook. So you'll see us on the agenda for a number of panels and then the third thing we do and I think this is arguably the most important and valuable piece of this is we have lots and lots of bilateral and side conversations formal and informal. IGF really is -- if you had to pick one week in one place to get the most to have the most touches with people that are influential and thoughtful about leading technology policy and internet governance issues, this is where you come. Everybody's here. We want more people here, but we find a great opportunity to meet with people in civil society, governments, other companies. So it is really a great forum and I am happy to meet all of you sort of and hopefully we can talk after the panel and happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you so much. Carl? >> Carl: Thank you very much. My name is Carl. I work with the Internet society or ISOC is also what we're known as. Very happy that we're an acronym and known in this environment. So since I was following Google and Facebook, I think I should start with just a brief explanation about what the Internet society is. Slightly less well known than those companies. We were founded by the so-called founders of the internet, founding markets of the Internet as they are referred to as that which have Ben Surf and Bob Con. We founded the organizational home to the Internet engineering task force, the ITF. That role later evolved into a broader mission, which is essentially to insure that the internet's fundamental properties are protected and we have an open Internet that is everywhere and accessible for everyone. So our work is mainly done through roughly through pillars which goes by infrastructure where we work, for example, deploying Internet exchange points around the world. We work with policy to insure that policy development is combatable with the fundamental properties of the Internet and technologies that under pins it. And then we work with education and capacity building and the kind of human side of the internet. But our interest in IGF and why we are strong supporters of IGF is really related to the kind of middle word of the internet governance forum in the governance role here. Most of you know, Internet Governance is distributed into different regimes for us and all the stakeholders have different roles in there. You have Technical Communities, for example setting standards and work management. You have government with legislations. Companies and civil society protecting human rights and creating norms around behavior, for example. All of those are performed in governance and the IGF is kind of a central point where these stakeholders can meet and exchange information and insure that their role contributes to protecting the overall internet. An example would be an example that legislations that are coming into place are compatible with the technical layer. For example, issues around data localization should be discussed with the technical community, but also with civil society because it translates into privacy issues, et cetera. So the IGF is really a focal point for all of those discussions that allows for all the stakeholders to come together and create a common mindset of how to solve the issues. I think I will stop there. I am happy to describe what we're doing in the week. We have a lot of different workshops ranging from community networking to collaborative security discussions and I am happy to take any questions after. I will pass on the mic for now. Thank you. >> Can we move? Would you like to say a couple words? >> Thank you. My name is so much Tomlynnson. I am from the International Chamber of Commerce. It is an international business association with local chambers in 130 countries. (echo) so what we do at ICC is basically create self-regulatory tools, full private sector, we have policy statements and all different areas to do with perhaps arbitration, intellectual property and also we focus on digital economy issues. When we're at IGF, we're participating for an initiative called ICC business action to support the information society. So what we do here is that we gather our cross sector membership which has from small businesss, but also large corporations and we gather them at the IGF and try to create a vehicle for private sector to engage. So we contribute to the IGF agenda by suggesting workshops with topics that business will be interested in following. We also set up daily business briefings for business participants at the IGF. This is not only for our members. We invite and encourage all business participants at the IGF. If you are business in here and you are wanting to meet other private sectors and representatives and hearing the key topics that are going to be discussed at IGF, I need you to come to those meetings at 8 8:00 every day in workshop room 2. Another thing that we organized the business as well this year is IGF app. We have one that is specific for our numbers, but we also organized one for business participants at IGF. Again, this has a lot of different material on kind of key sessions. IGF should be interested for private sector. I urge you to download the apps. And I've got a lot of flyers and different material here with me. So if you want to come see me after and ask any questions, please do. >> Anyone else who wants to -- >> Mark from Microsoft. Yeah. I would like to repeat some of the comments made by people at the other end of the table about what a great place this is to meet, touch base. It's a wonderful opportunity to meet people across the spectrum to talk about technology policy and the like. I have a list of all the things that we're doing here. We have nine people here today. We're covering child sexual abuse imagery, terrorist content, Internet Governance, sustainability developments, spectrum, sovereignty, net neutrality, digital economy, universal acceptance, IPv6 and some more things like that. So you can see what a broad opportunity IGF is. There isn't anything like it really to cover all of those areas in a single week with a pretty small team and walk away having accomplished something, made connections, spread ideas, advanced policies. >> Thank you, Mark. Anyone else who wants to briefly introduce their organization? Okay. Good. So, now we have had people from Yahoo, Google, Facebook, ISOC, ICC and Microsoft. Did I miss anyone? Okay. Great. Now that we had everyone comment on why they're here, these Technical Communities and companies, I would like to open up the floor. I think there's two type of formats. Either you just kind of go and chat with them or the other one is do you want to ask questions at the table? Which would you prefer? Okay. I feel like the pressure of asking a question on the table might be a little more daunting. So yeah. I would just like to break out into groups. You can kind of walk out now and you know who is who. Hopefully you have been paying attention. Now you know who is who and you can go and chat with them and ask them questions about what you might potentially have. Thank you. Copyright © 2016