You are connected to event: CFI-RPC6 W SWS169: Regional Participation in Brazil: Growing Initiatives Internet Governance Forum "Enabling Inclusive and Sustainable Growth" services provided by: Caption First, Inc. P.O. Box 3066 Monument, CO 80132 800-825-5234 Www.captionfirst.com *** This text is being provided in a realtime format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) or captioning are provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. *** . . >> MODERATOR: Hi, everyone. Good morning to you all. We are here to talk about the initiatives in Brazil regards Internet governance, and this is a very quick workshop, I'm going to pass to our speakers. We have here Gustavo Paiva, and we have Kimberly Anastacioand we have Ephraim from accesssNow in Africa. Now I give you the floor. >> SPEAKER: Thank you, Renata. Since our time is limited, I wrote this. If you're interested, you can read the bigger document. Let's be quick. I'm Gustavo Paiva and I'm the student at the federal university in Brazil. I study law, and I'm the founder of the group of (inaudible), a research group approved by the national council of technical and development focused on Internet law. I am here to tell you the story of our research group and our students and how the work was impacted by the 2015 at Joao Pessoa. Let's begin on the context that led us here. The image please that I show. That beautiful place over there is my institution. I enrolled in 2013, and from day one I only had a mind for Internet law and governance. In the law course we have quite a few projects, but none absolutely known in Internet law or governance, of course. Where there's a will there's a way, and I took that opportunity. I brought together a handful of students that wanted to follow this path. Our course didn't have any discipline on the topic, so we knew no one who could teach us. We just studied by ourselves and shortly after we talked with two professors that agreed to give us some assistance on research. Around that time we learned about the IGF. It was set up to happen in Joao Pessoa less than 200 kilometers, from our town, so, of course, we prepared for it. It became the landmark in our year. The preparatory process by itself was a learning experience. Just a minute. That's over there. Of course, we had to take a picture of inserve, of course. The proprietary process was different unlike any other. For a newcomer like me, the idea of attending an event was daunting and scary while still exciting and stimulating. Still, even after months of dedicated study I did not grasp what the IGF experience was. On my first day I quickly met people that I read so much about and heard from their perspectives. I get interactive with activists with so many years of experience who selflessly offered me help and guidance, which, of course, is the very reason why I'm here today. The IGF was an invaluable learning experience, and today all of my labs from my students are somehow based what I learned. I still look at workshops from last year to have fresher content in my mind, and I model my classes around offering more participate and interactivity. That over there is one of our activities that my research group does. Ever since the IGF and our experience, we have 13 roundtables and one three-day series of lectures, which we are offering free, of course, for our students and interested people, even if they are not from the institution. We are spreading the word about Internet governance. In my opinion there is no better way to teach research about governance other than exposing him and her to the reality of our community and the stakeholder for the work. Were it not for the IGF 2015 happening at Joao Pessoa, most likely I wouldn't have learned it myself. Our participation in the IGF (inaudible) which in turn resulted in plentiful fruits. Let's take a look at them. Ever since the IGF we divided more eTISHTly team. We have over 25 researchers, undergrads and postgrad researchers studying in four groups Internet governance and human rights, the economy on the Internet and cyber crime and safe and the most recent one is the electronic process. We started assisting other projects in whatever ways we can. We helped to assemble this roundtable about this point, which was quite successful with the student population, and we worked with assimilation, the United Nations simulation about cyber security, and this year we work in the simulation to simulate the IGF and the topic will be focused on high school students, because we believe it's a population that does need to discuss (inaudible) point. In 2017 the second semester the law course that our university has two disciplines based on Internet law, which is a big victory for us. Every semester we have around 100 students studying Internet law and governance, which, again, is a big deal. That little slide is a part of the bigger presentation, but that's how we market, and we talk with the students in an accessible language with jokes and whatever. They like it. It means a lot to them. That's our last general assembly, that little head over there is VivViviana. Some of you may know her. She couldn't come. Just some last words. What is the lesson here that I want to tell you? I want to tell you that if you look at the -- the institutions of higher learning, there's a number of potential activists and researchers. They are students like us who don't quite know where to go and what to eat and what to do. So many of them are in the dark, and the Internet Governance Forum is a founding stone and shining light for our group. We are raising a generation of activists born from it, and wouldn't be here at all if Joao Pessoa wasn't picked at the IGF 2015 host city. So that's the last slide. Joao Pessoa gave us the opportunities and it will not be forgotten and changed our lives and institution. Thank you very much. >> MODERATOR: Thank you, Gustavo. No I give the floor to Kimberly. She's from the institute for the Internet and democracy. >> SPEAKER: Good morning to you all. I'm a student at the University of Brazil YA. I'm part of the institute for Internet and democracy, and I'm part of the youth camp you've seen around since the last IGF in Joao Pessoa. I'm going to discuss a bit some initiatives related to regional participation in Brazil YA. I'm from the capital of Brazil, where our national Congress is. For a long time discussions on Internet governance were centered in Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo and centers like that. It wasn't a place to be visited for a while when some ministries were building specific bill like the bill in discussion right now on data protection or they came to bra cilia to be part of the public hearings at the House of Representatives. When the situation demanded, there was a more focused strategy. People come to BRAZ la to discuss the specific points and it was a focal point on IG discussions but just in these focal moments.rasilia to discuss the specific points and it was a focal point on IG discussions but just in these focal moments. Brasilia was not that central for a long time. However we see changes on that, and I'm glad to see I'm watching this situation closely. At least two research groups are active on IG discussions, and believe me, this number is pretty high considering our situation. One of them just recently was created, and besides the Internet our universities show the importance of discussing Internet issues, but we're hosting more and more events on the topics SP more suitable to discuss the Internet governance. This is awesome. This is a coalition between many Civil Society organizations and research institutes in Brazil. The coalition was created in July, and right now we're trying to make our presence be more effective in the national Congress so that the so-called digitalized discussions because more evident in our legislative arenas. This means we're building a common understanding that it is important to keep an eye on everything going on in Brasilia right now. We will be engaging in our agenda in Brasilia. It's important to highlight since Brasilia discusses national problems, it's more into the direction of defending a national solid agenda regarding civil rights where people are participating rather than strict, regional interests from Brasilia. I think my city is a great example of engagement between different regional agendas as we have to come together to discuss what's discussed at the national Congress and ministries, but also at the Supreme Court. Right now we're having a discussion in the Supreme Court. So many students are coming to Brasilia to discuss that. Also, a number of bodies that are in my city that need people talking about Internet-related issues there. Brasilia shows the growing importance of the city as Internet issues themselves grow in our national legislative agenda. As our representatives start to discuss more Internet issues, we need more people and more agencies and institutes to talk about Internet rights, issues in Brasilia. This was just a common ground for you to understand what's going on in Brasilia right now and to state that even though many times the center of Internet discussions wasn't specifically Brasilia, with people only coming there to discuss specific points with specific people, right now we have many research groups and activists coming to Brasilia to engage in the legislative agenda. This is very awesome. Thanks. >> MODERATOR: Thank you, Kimberly. Now I give the floor to Ephraim. >> SPEAKER: Hi, everyone. My name is Ephraim Kenyanito from Ken gentleman but I feel Brazilian because of the energy I get to when I hang onto my friends from Brazil. I'm not something to speak much because this was initially on the Brazilian experience. I wanted to also share experiences from our regional and our interconnection. I'm a member of the youth coalition on Internet governance, which from last year of IGF in Joao Pessoa has had a great input from folks from Latin America regional and Brazil as well. We went to the U.N., and that was last year in December. It was a collaborative process with people -- young people from all over the world, and we just wanted to share these experiences and see where from Brazil, from last year's Brazil IGF, how are we progressing going forward. And it is good to share these experiences from the Global South, because of the challenges we face are shared. Access to resources and information. To give you that example from the Africa region, we have had the same kind of challenges where people are not available but some of these issues are as you mentioned. To just bring this home requires, for example, having resource people, for example, in my region, the biggest resource has been something similar to what you have right now in Latin America. This is a good mechanism with future activities and people involved in the space. Just trying to find a way how to link this together, like all our initiatives to share our challenges and our experiences together so that we can learn from each other and see if this works in this part of the world. How can we replicate this best practice and bring it somewhere else? Some of the challenges, for example, you try to do something, and it didn't work. So you try to assess and see why didn't it work? Why didn't this research -- how can we make it better in our different regions? So it's a pleasure to be here, and yeah, those are my few remarks about this. Thank you so much. >> MODERATOR: Thank you, Ephraim. Now, since we have half the session left, we want to open for questions and interventions from the audience. If anyone -- if you could join us on the table and to speak, I see a lot of faces here from Brazil, and I'm sure we can, you know, share more experiences, share more initiatives that we know are happening in the regions. We have within IGF all the five different regions of Brazil represented. That's really amazing, because from what I know last year, we didn't have even though there was ( inaudible ). I'm not sure, but now we have a large number of people from North, and that's very nice. We don't have many initiatives in -- related to Internet governance in that region. As Kimberly said, we only have more strong participation here and Sao Paulo. I'm from the northwest of Brazil, and also in my city we don't have a lot of people who knows what is Internet governance, even thousand we have a association and we have a commission that deals with Internet law and Internet-related issues, but it's not expressive. So I'm now I'm going to open the mic for anyone who wants to speak, who wants to make an intervention. >> AUDIENCE: Thank you, everybody. Good morning. I'm from Sao Paulo State University so I'm very close to the place where IGF was held last year. I'm currently on leave from university, so I've been in Europe. It was a really a shame not to be in IGF close to my hometown last year, but I'm very glad to see the developments IGF has caused. I think we're talking basically about interaction and integration. It says a lot to me, for example, that Gustavo brings to the table we don't have Internet law courses around in institutions, and that the lack of communication we have through others, in our university we have the course for 18 years now. We started in 1990s. It's about 18 years of the course. We also study our research that is called (inaudible) and it tanneds for jurisdiction law and technology in Portuguese. We clearly lack this integration. It took a global, worldwide event for us to get in contact. The professor from the (inaudible) is also a person very engaged globally and mainly regional in this area. He's someone I met here in Mexico. After a long time, we have been interacting. So I guess it's not the national discussion in Brazil is taken to neglect the region very well represented and also the roundtable concerning national issues. I think there's more to that. We have regional needs. One experience I'd like to show you is the fact that we have a very interesting thing about Brazilian universities which is the ought tone muss universities outside the base of the university. This is not common in Europe. The university usually belongs to the city. I guess it's probably the case in the United States, also. I don't know about here in Mexico, if the universities Guadalajara stands in other cities also, but in Brazil for example taking my University is independent of the units including one in the correction center. So it spreads all over the state. It creates a natural network of the necessities and the same realities. So maybe we could build up on this experience that we have concerning Brazilian -- mostly public institutions who are based in more than one place and spread their reach across other places in the region, and use this to a little bit more to maybe enhance even more expenses we have heard from IGF. Thanks. >> MODERATOR: Anyone else? Yes. >> AUDIENCE: So hi, everybody. I'm also Brazilian and I work with Internet Society, and I'm from the Sao Paulo, one of the hubs on those discussions. I'm going to jump in anyway, because I think there is -- I'm going to bring two experiences we have in other forums that might be useful as I hear what Claudio said on the first point, which is within the creation of national IGFs, one of the challenges is how to bring people together from different stakeholder groups and how we make it happen, the dialogue. One of the things that's successful is to identify the top issues you were talking about. As Claudio was saying, look for the synergies. We turn the two or three main topics on Internet governance and issues that make a difference in your region. You can feel that into the national IGF or plans or whatever. You came in with a clear standing position and action items. Those are the issues we face. That's what we need to tackle, and those are the networks or the resources we have. So this really makes a difference. The other one is so we've been working now on Internet Society on creating this distributed event. What do I mean by that? It's bringing people together using the Internet. The very thing we're talking about called InterInterCommunity and your graphic barriers are important and face-to- face meetings are important. Like Claudio and Gustavo when we see in meetings in other countries, make use of the Internet. Try to create more of this not only remote participation and talking about really, really online participation. So just to get it flowing. >> Just to compliment Rakell was saying. As I said in any dissertation, I'm working with a coalition that gathers Civil Society activists from all over the country. Each discussion has the interests, but at the coalition we work remotely and everybody from different regions, and we see this clearly. And then we first ask together what exactly is our preferences as a group? What we think it really is what defines us as a group, apart from our specialties, and then we work together collectively. We mostly do the job in Brazil in the national Congress, so it's just an exact of what exactly Raquel was saying, and it's awesome. >> SPEAKER: We have seven more minutes, so we're going to Claudio. Interaction and INTE integration, you said. THART. I do believe you're quite right. The problem we face is that at least for what I see is we have many layers of well-developed projects. We have the CGI, for example, and all these incredibly well-developed projects, and we are, let's say, down near the bottom and try to directly communicate with the student population. I think all this discussion is very enlightening actually, because we are still trying to perfect our approach. So thank you all at least for me it was very, very enlightening. >> AUDIENCE: Hi. I'm Pao from Malaysia. I was here in Brazil to attend this forum. ( Inaudible ). The Internet is very, very difficult and very, very expensive. Would it be reasonable to consider making sure that the Internet access to universally available through Brazil before you talk about that? Thank you. >> SPEAKER: You said Pao, is that right? Well, the fact is Internet access in Brazil is not universal yet, certainly not. We're fixing many issues. I for example, can't directly act with universalizing the Internet. There are many stakeholders, and we are doing what we can with the resources we can, and I think these are not mutual exclusive battles, but you're quite right. The Internet access is not universal in Brazil. In many places it's expensive. In my town -- I don't live in a town. I live in a very small town near by, and the Internet access there is difficult. That actually is a problem with participating in Internet governance issues. There are many battles in doing what we can with our resources. >> AUDIENCE: It's always nice to see everyone here discussing, and I believe we came up with enlightenings that we should be discussing, and that's why we're here. I believe we can continue. I was going to say -- we still have a few days, so we can continue to think on how we can engage different stakeholder groups in different regions and in different countries, because Internet governance is a global thing. It should be a global thing. I believe that's it. Thank you all for coming, and thank you all. ( Session ended at 9:27 a.m. ) >> SPEAKER: Thank you, everyone. It's been a big honor and pleasure having you. DC on the Internet of Things Room 6 6 December 2016 9:45 a.m. >> MODERATOR: Good morning, everybody. Welcome. While we're waiting for other people to arrive, it makes sense to make best use of our time and just start. I'm aware people are not having awareness of time, but there's traffic in the city that sometimes keeps people down. No judgment here, and everybody who comes in later is welcome. For sure welcome to those people that contribute to the session. They have been carefully selected based on their involvement in the work and their earlier involve of the work of the Dynamic Coalition. What you see is both from an industry perspective but also a government perspective, and I'm sure if the people in the room are also from the Civil Society perspective, we'll have a pretty good multi-stakeholder approach of this thing that is developing so rapidly in our time. The Internet of Things, so if I may move to the presentation. We can move to the presentation there. I've seen my head before in the mirror every morning. A very quick introduction, Internet of Things is something that bringing good things. We can't say skip because the challenges are too difficult or daunting, but we should take the challenges seriously as well, and we can see that in this world today, which is intensely used, it will be impossible to continue without good use of technologies. At IGF I would want to point to the specific -- to the sustainable development goals. Many of them that deep require technology to help ranging from monitoring the environment to better crop management and also effort. There's many applications out there, and applications sometimes we just enjoy a FitBit or something on our wall that makes it even easier to see how much energy we use. On the other side, we also see that there is applications just being developed on a societal level like the tsunami buoy on the upper left. Wouldn't it be great if at least had a little bit more prewarning? Lo and behold, with technology we can do that. So this is the need to -- also the need to get it right. Here at the IGF, we're talking about how IoT can be developed. It's an aspect of the Internet rather than something separate or different, but it has specific characteristics dealing with a lot of data and also ought toe mussily or at least acted and based on triggers by sensored data than even by machine learning and AI automatically taking charge of part of our environment obviously to our benefit if it all works well. The Dynamic Coalition is set up in hydra back, and we aimed to develop a shared understanding across stakeholder groups with regards to this. There's a lot of meetings about I iYOT in the world all the time. We meet on the global level on equal terms. We have developed a good practice principle, and it's published on the website. It comes with mother just this paragraph, but basically it's about taking ethical considerations into account from the outset, and justify an ethical, sustainable way ahead in the support of creating a free, secure and enabling rights based environment, a future we want. So what ethical is something that will never be ready with determining, but we are zooming in on making that clear as you will find in that paper. The current declaration focused at achieves reasonable trust through dividing together meaning transparency to users, user-controlled data, education, security, privacy and a commitment from stakeholders to take this into account from the outset in whatever role they play in this environment. The focus of today's session, because we won't talk only about the same things all the time, but it's that five points that have been spelled out on the agenda as well and that are asking the speakers to consider. First is the statement thattette R ethical approach should be from the Civil Society point of view and do-able from the business point of view and sustainable from a technical point of view. Some technical solutions have been set up in the past, that are not sustainable. Particularly in this field a lot of trials have been set out with batteries lost FOIA a period. The batteries don't function anymore at time, so things like that. The second one, do we need the principle? I'm using the most available technology possible. This was almost triggered by the fact we're on the global level and the level of access and technology isn't the same everywhere. Some of the services we made we'll be able to develop on GSM standards or whatever. Why shouldn't we try to do that when we can? We have the high needs to raid IoT awareness from consumers. It's nice that people know what's possible and happening. People should not be expected to be technical experts. In many of our talks I say this goes for politicians, too. Questions -- not a question. There's value at having onliology for IoT so we understand privacy, security and safety. If we get a clear picture there, it helps us to understand better what the challenging are and where the emphasis of addressing those needs to be. The last one is triggered by the DEM network from months ago, I think, where they're things that have computing power used to take down the Internet. The interesting thing is a lot of information on this one is online, and yet I think it's a good trigger because it raises awareness at the right level that we should take this seriously. From that point I'd like to take it forward as well. Having said that, there's many more questions for tomorrow that you can find on the website as well. The focus will be on these. It's up not my ambition that we're going to be exhaustive about all five subjects, but very much I would like you to focus on those subjects that you feel need to be addressed most and then in the first place I'm looked at the committed speakers, and after that I look at really involvement of all. Wolfgang, may I ask you to -- >> SPEAKER: The problem is you have a lot of interesting sessions, and then they're at about the same today and Megan Richards from the European Commission has a lot of activities also specifically in this field. Megan has been involved for many years SWG as well in in discussion. Thank you for the dedication there. If since you have to be somewhere in ten minutes, share what you want to bring. >> SPEAKER: Thank you very much. I apologize for putting the agenda in disorder and jumping in front of Wolfgang. First of all, I wanted to say from a European Commission perspective, we have been very much involved in the research and innovation aspects of Internet of Things for a number of years, and also the commission launched something called the alliance of Internet of Things actors, I think. I forGOLT got what the Los Angeles A stands for her. It's a multi-stakeholder group that brings together industry, government, and other interested actors to look at implications of Internet of Things. It covers a whole series of issues relate to the Internet of Things which includes ethics, standards, research activities and innovation and the way all the different actors work together. I just wanted to mention this. Maarten knows about this very well. There are a number of members of the European parliament here, so they can give you also a perspective from citizens' points of view I'm sure. I apologize for jumping in, but I wanted to put that on the table and I will follow the discussions from a distance. Thanks again. >> SPEAKER: Thank you. Thanks for actually coming and getting that said. >> MODERATOR: Let me introduce he. He would be the moderator today. >> Since we had a speaker speak I figured I would thank the speaker. Wolfgang, if we can go to your talk. >> SPEAKER: I want to make some very brief introductory remarks, because I was involved from the very early beginning of this Dynamic Coalition, which was established in the year 2007. It was when Internet of Things was still an emerging issue. By the way, France was also involved, and he was a driver and unfortunately he passed away in 2009. We should remember his work he has done in preparing the field for the building of this Dynamic Coalition. Today the Internet of Things is the Internet of everything, and so it's difficult also for this Dynamic Coalition to find its place. It's discussed everywhere and every time, and so we had to be smart and have a good meeting two years ago when we -- the leadership was handed over to Maarten, and I think since then we had tremendous progress by really finding out what this Dynamic Coalition can contribute to the debate. There are a lot of IoT meetings and conferences. My observations are a lot of these meetings are one stakeholder meeting for the technical experts that discuss amongst themselves and government people discuss amongst themselves and business people, or they are isolated in the sectors. We have people discussing smart cities. Transport people discuss it among themselves. The health people discuss among themselves, and I think this multi-stakeholder platform is a multi-sector platform pull people out of their silos and enable a dialogue. I'm very happy that there's a general agreement that this will concentrate at least for the moment on the dimension, because you know, I remember when madam curie discovered the this, and there was excitement. Fantastic. Nuclear energy now, and then people started to think about it. I remember the debate whether it's good or bad to have a nuclear bomb. Is there a good bomb? Is there a bad bomb? Is it good to kill a million people to save our lives or not? I think these are fundamental, ethical questions related to research, and the group around Mr. OP pen HIEMer had a lot of issues to consider what is right and wrong. We are doing this with the interventions. In the Internet of Things we are moving on similar -- in a similar situation where we have freely to rethink how we can get all this channeled in a way that it's useful for the future of mankind, and therefore I think the ethical dimension is really important. First, we have to know what are the implications, and then we can make decisions. So it's not to make quick decisions, though we don't fully understand the implications of all this new technologies, and I stop here just to hope that this discussion here in this year and the years ahead of us will help us to understand this complicated issue a little bit better. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you, Wolfgang. Very much appreciate your historical memory and for bringing that up. I also want to thank you because you are the one that basically brought this Dynamic Coalition back to life after it had sort of drifted into inactivity. So now I'd actually like to go -- so now I'd actually like to go back to the speaker order, and the first speaker we have is Karen Rose from the Internet Society. Please go ahead. >> SPEAKER: Thanks a lot, everybody. I'm excited to be here. IoT is something I'm excited about. If we look out to the next five to ten years, this thing we call the Internet of things could really be a fundamental game changer, much more beyond the little interesting gadgets we talk about or even applications from improved health care to cities, agriculture, et cetera. If we really think about it, we are talking about the convergence between the Internet and the physical world. Talking about what it really truly means in the future to live in a hyperconnected world where the Internet is connected to nearly everything around us. I think this could fundamentally change our relationship with the Internet. If you think about it now, erroneously but in many ways the Internet and the worldwide web people think they're synonymous because so much of our interaction with the Internet is with humans interacting actively with content one way or another. If you think in the context of five to ten years of a hyperconnected world, our relationship with the Internet could fundamentally change to one in which our relationship is a passive interaction with the Internet, whether we drive in smart cities, whether it's coming into our homes. So I think really fundamental and as we said here, there's great opportunities. I'm really excited about the potential for the future. There's also really great challenges as well. We saw what was mentioned some of the challenges coming to life particularly recently, can it seems this year. The DINE attacks from unsecured IoT devices discussed. There was recently an attack in -- I'm going to pronounce and you can correct me. Lap Ron that, a town in Finland where there was an attack on building automation that precluded to be able to control the heat and cooling of this building, which if you're in Finland and it's the middle of winter and you can't control your heat, that's a potentially life-threatening thing. Also, the recent attack in San Francisco on the municipal rail system, which fare payment machines were down because of an attack. We start to see some of the challenging come to life here, and one of the things that's really different, I think, of a dimension of the challenges is once human lives and assets are at stake because of attacks in security, the stakes go up and governments want to react. In terms of privacy, we see people starting to second-guess their relationship with the Internet, including with things like the Internet of Things. So our vision and the excitement for what we think IoT can accomplish is not going to happen if people are turning away from the Internet or, you know, governments are reacting really strongly because of security issues and other concerns. So in terms of the statement on the ethical approach just thinking about this going back, I think the real key is about trust. Not only trust in terms of security, but about promoting trust in terms of the user perspective as well. Are users going to trust the objects they're interacting with? This also if we frame it in terms of trust has a relationship with business as well, because from a business perspective IoT is not going to take off if people don't trust the Internet or trust these IoT objects and if governments don't truce the security of objects and big restrictions are put on innovation. One of the my suggestions would be that perhaps we really take a look at sort of a multidimensional aspect of trust whether we talk about the ethical approaches, because it's so fundamental to ensuring that this technology can flourish as well as us thinking about what kinds of practices need to be in place to promote that trust for all stakeholders involved. I know my time is short. I have at least another minute. In terms of some practical approaches, I think, you know, one of the real challenges in this space is how to get practical about this whole range if we're really talking about a hyperconnected world. That's really broad. Without becoming overly prescriptive, because the field is so dynamic. I think some practical principles and voluntary practical principles and best practices really need to be in place, and we really need to think about them. Now, there's a lot of best practices that are being developed in different segments of this industry, so one of the keys here is how do we really avoid duplication like things like Bess best practices and make sure they're spread and in a way that gets implemented. We can develop as many principles as we want or as many practices as we'd like, but if people don't actually use them and implement them, they're not much use. So thinking about how we sort of expand and actually get things implemented is important. The other point, too, is it in terms of a stakeholder approach, we need to have more points of engagement and leverage, I think. We're a lot of Internet people in this room, if we think about the Internet of Things, right? We're a lot of Internet people. There's also a lot of the things out there putting this technology into the devices. The people that are making crock pots and coffeepots and, you know, you name it, right? Refrigerators, everything. It's this interaction and how do we get the things people Moore into these conversations as well. Avery is moves me on here. Just in closing, to hit with one of the other questions that was raised about needs to raise aWARNZ with citizens and consumer, this is absolutely essential, especially from a framework of trust, right? If people have to be technical experts in order to understand technology, the level of trust in the technology is going to be low so we need to think about ways to allow consumers to have more choice and more simple knowledge of the objects and technology that they're interacting with. So with that, I will close. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. I did have one hand come up. Now, I wanted to hold all of the interactions until the end, but I'm concerned that you're leaving. So if it was like a clarification question on something that was said, please go ahead. If it's discussing a point, I'd like to ask you to wait until -- >> AUDIENCE: It's a point. >> MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you for that. The next person I have is Olga Cavelli, who has worked with the ITU WSIS project. Is that the right name for it? Please go ahead. >> SPEAKER: Thank you, Avri. I'll stay until the end of session. Just to clarify my role here, I'm representing the IUT's study group Internet of Things and its application including smart cities and communities. I'm just a rapporteur of question six, which is about infrastructure for smart citizens and the communities. This is my role in the working group, but they asked me if I could give my perspective based on the studies that we are doing at my university with my students at the University of Buenos Aires and my working in the working group. My group is in the excellence SFR from Uruguay where I do some work, academic work with them, and also they organize the south school of Internet governance. Just briefly the study group is organized into questions. I lost it. Here it is. So it's one part dedicated to SFER Internet of Things and also smart cities and communities which is where I do my contributions at rapporteur of question 6. This is a general question about research and emergent technologies including terminologies and definitions. The group started in October 2015, and it has been having meetings in Geneva and other places of the world. I would like to make some comments, especially from if I can from developing countries' perspective. I've been studying Internet of Things issues with my university and with my students, and we have written some papers. I would like to focus a little bit on the ethical aspects of the Internet of Things from a developing country perspective. You know especially FL Latin America we have big, big cities, so we see an Internet of Things as an major element to improve. We see a major problem with traffic and distribution of water, electricity. So big, big cities are mostly in regions with developing countries, Mexico is a big city, Buenos Aires is a big city. Not every city has different types of public transportation. So it becomes very complicated. So we see Internet of Things as an element to improve the lives of people leaving especially in big, urban areas which are mainly in developing countries. But we see it also it has to be do-able and meaningful. Not all the applications may be relevant for developing countries. Perhaps in the first stage of the development of this technology. That has to be taken into consideration and has to be good for businesses and good for the people for social aspects and also to improve questions because we have to develop our economies. What we have seen is very interesting applications in smart agriculture. This is not so much related with smart cities, but we see that a good use of some resources in the agriculture could enhance the productivity of several things that are being done in this area. I was present in a very interesting seminar in Argentina last week, and we have seen many improvements in the use of water, for example. Using it in relation with information from the weather, if it will rain, then you can use better the water. We can use some good experiences that are being helped and used in Malaysia and other countries. So we're trying to improve that. What we have seen also in all this implementations of smart agriculture and cities is that the ones that are meaningful are organized or taken on by a group of different stakeholders and we see a lot of meaning in that. The national government and the universities have been the knowledge and the companies providing the technology and then the users, the agriculture people using that technology to enhance their production and also some people involved in the economy as a general issue for them. So those examples we see success in the -- in a multi-holistic perspective of implementing this project, and we see there in this multi-holistic order of approach a good way to avoid capturing. We don't have that that you were approaching to us. So the environment is different. >> MODERATOR: We talked about me waking the aisle there. >> SPEAKER: It won't work. I'll stop here. Thank you for the invitation and the opportunity. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Olga. So the next speaker we have is Jari Arkko, who is Eriksson and also chair of the IETF. Thank you. Please go ahead. sson and also chair of the IETF. Thank you. Please go csson and also chair of the IETF. Thank you. Please go ahead. >> SPEAKER: Thank you. I do agree with the importance to find the ethical approach, and I agree with the need to educate users and the industry that needs education as well. Definitely I agree with the need for proper security to capture devices. More of that in a second. With with regards to stimulating the use of the most available technologies possible, I'm not so totally sold on that yet. It's driven by need. This is another angle on this. In this whole conference we have talked at length on connecting the people who are not connected yet, and that is, of course, very, very important. Much work remains, but it's not enough. There's much more that we need to do, and it's not just a matter of high-speed broadband and a matter of quality and quantity. The opening Internet local content and the ability to do new services. On the IoT front what about the fields and farms that require the devices that help people's health. Clearly we have lots to do in the developing world even when everybody is connected. If you connect the persons only. But I wanted to get back to deeper technical things. I wanted to highlight two problems at the report have worked with this year. I'm -- I guess I'm quite happy about how we the whole world are building systems and standards and we have different devices that exist in the same networks. Then those networks are useful for MULTiple purposes. That's very important. Unfortunately, we actually have a ways to go when it comes to it at the application level. I want to buy a house with Microsoft light sensors, and I found out I can't plug in apple light bulbs. More work is need. I think we discussed this a little bit. I'm not sure if it's there yet. This is where there's differences where it comes in, so THAETHS a useful thing to do. Second we have seen recently that the problems into the devices are mounting and the situation is bad and not just about the devices themselves and then being miss used in their purpose, but also being hijacked to cause havoc somewhere else. Work is obviously needed here, and it will need to go into diverse topics inside that particular security issue. It's not just a technical thing. It's also a policy thing, a legal thing, a liability thing. So I think that's a perfect thing for the IGF in general to do and also we could say some more in the Dynamic Coalition about that. I guess finishing with a sort of perspective, I wonder if we need to write baseline RFC requirements, RFC that says you can't deploy devices with default passwords. That seems like a necessary statement to do at this point. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. It was a very short statement. Didn't have to do anything. Thanks a lot. We have moved from we need to trust to it's really difficult to have trust with a lot of work being done in between that's not necessarily helping. The next speaker is Vint Serf. >> SPEAKER: I will begin speaking to remind you if we have a big Internet of Things, it would be good to have a big address base. I want to tokes on a couple of things, particularly safety. We had a discussion in the previous session talking about principles, and I took the view in the principles discussion that safety ought to be high on the list of things that the technical community attends to in the creation and operation of devices in this Internet of Things space. Safety is a very broad term. You don't want the device itself to malfunction. You also don't want the device to be used for other purposes that create havoc to use an appropriate term. That gets back to what I would say is fundamentally access control. So I start from the view that the Internet as a network of networks is the kind of neutral platform on top of which we're going to attach or to which we will attach all these billions of devices. The idea here is that we want the people who use the devices, the people who make the devices to be attentive to the safety of these things attached to this neutral communication system. In near theory, we want every device to communicate with every other one. However, for the most part we would never want a device to be able to communicate with all of the devices. You want to constrain this and that's what the access control question is about. The task here is not solely in the hands of the programmers and the producers of the equipment. The users themselves have some responsibility as well. Suppose, for example, that you chose to acquire a collection of devices, and for your convenience you decide to put no access control on them at all. Well, you may be creating a hazard for other people, even though your devices may not harm you. They may be used to harm others. So in some sense there's a responsibility on the user side, which will not be exercised unless the users actually understand and appreciate what their responsibilities are and how they can execute them. So it's really an amazingly broad area in which to opine, because many different parties have some responsibility to achieve the outcome, which is a safe Internet of Things environment. Actually, I think I want to stop there. I realize I have more time, but I'd much rather get into interactive discussions than just preaching at you, which is what Internet evangelists tend to do. So I'll stop there. >> MODERATOR: Probably should have sat somewhere else. >> We can still pull the tables apart. >> MODERATOR: And have me walk back and forth. Thank you for mentioning the user responsibility. One of the things that comes up is then again ask a question for later is it really possible to make sure in the Internet of Things everyone will actually know what they're supposed to do, but I'll leave that on the table for now because that informed consent and informed user is a very difficult concept. Next we have grace Abuhamed from NTIA who will make a comment. >> SPEAKER: Many are familiar with NTIA, but those that aren't we're the executive branch agency in the U.S. government primarily responsible for advising the president on telecommunications and information policy issues. Like many of us have said already in this session, we -- the department of commerce has recognized Internet of Things as an emerging technology trend, but we recognize it's not necessarily have different from the Internet or from the policy issues we face with the Internet today. We're excited about the opportunities. We're also aware of the challenges. We recognize that there's a difference here with the scope and the scale of the effects that a policy could have on the Internet of Things, so we take the question of the policy issues very seriously. One of the things we've done to do this is we've launched a request for comments in the spring. We received 130 comments, many of you in the room did submit comments, so thank you. We're assessing the comments, and part of what we're doing with the feedback we received is we're looking at the -- what our stakeholder community wants us to do in terms of Internet policy and assessing role of the government in the Internet of Things. We held a workshop in September to further discuss some questions raise in the comments, and we're going to be issues a paper, policy paper at the enof the year. So it's coming shortly. That will kind of focus on the technical aspects, the potential role of government and benefits and challenges that we see that we collected from stakeholders. Another thing that we've started working on is NTIA believes in the multistakeholder model and take it seriously. We launched the sixth multi-stakeholder process. In one in particular is focused on IoT patchability and device. We were given confidence this was the right topic mainly because in 2015 we launched a request for comments on cyber security issues and asked people what they would like to see -- what our community would like attention drawn to in the cyber security field, and we got the most response on IoT devices and in security. We've been really digging into that. The multi-stakeholder process launched in October. They split into five subgroups and are working through the different issues. Like assistant secretary Strickland said yesterday, we believe very strongly that when you focus a multi-stakeholder process on a specific IFSH u, you get the best outcomes. So this is what NTIA is doing and the department of commerce at-large. We were very excited to work WO our stake holders around the world and in the United States to make sure that we get the policy questions right for the Internet of Things. So thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. And next we have Max Senges from Google. >> SPEAKER: Wonderful. Good morning. Thanks for inviting me. I thought I'd give a perspective from the private sector. I'm from how Google is thinking about the Internet of Things, thereby connecting with ethical questions that, in fact, myself and Vint Cerf are thinking about when we make a chapter we can discuss with the community when it's ready. Before I get to that, I wanted to reiterate the point we have education mentioned in the ethics paper, in the coalition paper already. Informed users is what we want, and the whole notion of a shared responsibility might be something that can be more explicitly addressed in the paper and teased out in order to hopefully encourage work in curating and thinking about the various responsibilities of the different stakeholders and how they come together. To report a little bit from what we're thinking and discussing, at Google interoperationability is clearly one of the key enablers for the Internet of Things. Jari pointed to the IAB workshop earlier this year. We started to work with a number of colleagues on extending ski mat.org, which is one of the most successful efforts to bring semantic interoperability to the worldwide web. It makes sense to explore if we can build on top that rather than reinventing the wheel and finding another sigh mantics base for IoT. Or the approach is not to say this is the standard, but to bring together a variety of schemas from the various stakeholders and see what is distilled on a level higher so we actually understand each other. You can have -- you can have a look at the initial information. The project just got started, but everybody is welcome to contribute. Importantly interoperability doesn't only -- it's not a technical goal -- not only a technical goal. It has the goals to collect and connect the different devices and elements in the Internet of Things to create ensembles or capabilities that go beyond any individual devices. I think that's a very interesting environment, because it brings new responsibilities and complexities in the environments we see. The other element that Google has -- you've probably followed with launches like the assistant is very interested in is machine learning in the context of IoTs specifically. How the learning is happening on devices in home environments or local cloud environments and then in the cloud. Again, I think there are interesting ethical questions that come with that that probably deserve a whole separate conversation but are also relevant in the context of IoT. Of course, privacy, security and safety is very high on our list of activities. We like to frame it as an opportunity for Google to show that we're actually a progressive player and helping to provide privacy solution for the space rather than causing the problem. Again, anybody who was interested in that is welcome to come up and talk to me after the session and see how we can collaborate. Clearly, the assistant and machine learning provide a new surface, a new interface or IoT and other environments, and we think that might be a real important driver of IoT adoption and development. My personal work is in the research arm of Google, and I'd like to invite everybody to speak with me about collaborating on research and open innovation efforts both from the academic community as well as the private community, and if there's public/private partnerships or governments, we're interested to do R and D with them, too. The last comment or proposal I wanted to bring to the coalition was to explore if we want to follow an approach that I've learned from the colleagues, professor Jim fishkin from Stanford is here today. He developed a method called DLIB RAIFB pulling. There are several elements of that. One in particular could be use for this emergent field of policy- making, and that's the development of balance briefing materials. In that approach you basically identify what the policy changes are, and then you list the different options and proposals. Almost like a Wikipedia article. What results is a neutral point of view description of what's going on. If we think that the issues that we're discussing should be in the briefing folders of a lot of stakeholders and policymakers, that might be a good way to ensure that the people are actually receiving balanced briefing materials and we'd like to discuss that with the group. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. And our last speaker before we get to open it to up to the whole room and those who are participating remotely is Joseph Alhadef from oracle and chairperson of ICC BASIS. Please. >> SPEAKER: Thank you. I was going to focus on the issues and questions and I want to say Wolfgang you look marvelous from being around seen Marie curie was finding radium. That was great. Sufficient and do-able and sustainable is fine and no problem with it. It's missing a societal dimension to it. The societal dimension is that -- this goes to the question of the maximum use of technology, and I agree with Jari maximum is not a good word to use. The question is, are we using technology to the maximum utility for the social benefit it can create? That's what's left off the table when you look at sufficient do-able and sustainable, because that focuses just on the individual as opposed to the societal issue. The societal issue goes in many ways to the eco-system concept. Not what is the sensor do but what can you do with the information the sensor collected in order to create that societal benefit? Whether it's in medicine or logistics and traffic management for a city, whether it's in urban planning, sustainable consumption. That's really a focus issue where there is a huge opportunity cost created by reddance risk. People don't do as much as they can, and the question is because often they're looking at what is a formula check box of what do I need to do to comply? And they don't understand how to put that risk in context. Therefore, they don't use what they can in the technology that exists or the data that is available. So the question is, how do we get away from the check box not to in my way lower the standard but to make its implementation flexible and appropriate for the level of technology we're at. Something that was drafted even currently may not be able to keep up with the pace of change of technology. So that's one of the things that we need to think about. We need to recognize there's an opportunity cost to not using these technologies, not that they should be used for the purpose of using technology itself. Using technology for the sake of technology is never a good idea. Using technology to accomplish a useful end is. The other thing Olga raised was the concept of what we mean. Occasionally we focus on high-tech. In many developing countries there are low tech solutions that help food state of the and security. A sensor text based message and university's database might be all you need to dramatic improve agriculture or lives or schedule a bus route so someone who has a bus that comes once a week they aren't waiting two days because it doesn't come with regularity. That gets us to the education part. There was a young man at the meeting we had, and he was -- he did not see himself in any of our conversation. It took creating an example of agriculture, we put sensors NPT ground and we understand what the flow rate of the river is. We match it to weather patterns and look at the soil composition and use a local university to do an analysis. All of a sudden a farmer gets a road map as to what is best grow and what might be most available in other markets and what he should think about growing. So that story allowed him to understand a utility that made sense to him. It's also important to have that kind of education for consumers. It is impossible for them to understand risks when you talk to them about theory. They have to understand the risks and applications, and risks vary across applications. Understanding the contextual application including the benefit allows them to do some evaluation of the risk. That doesn't mean that the people that develop systems don't think about risk or address it. You want a consumer to have some information based on which they can make decisions on what they use and how to use it. And understanding the contextual application both benefit and risk allows them to be better informed in making that decision. The last thing I wanted to talk about is kind of the eco-system issue, and we have to remember that a lot of sensors get connected through local area networks. That might be one of the places where we stress putting the intelligence. Yes, we'd like your apple light bulb to talk to your Microsoft or Google Home, but we want to make sure that they can instructions from it. You don't want the individual to have to go to every single device they own to program every single device for a preference. You'd like them to use a local area network with a smart house, and from an Oracle perspective when we think of a smart city, we think of a nervous system. We don't think of a bunch of connected sensors. We think of the back end connecting to the details and the decision-making apparatus with it. So perhaps we can think about houses in that way, too. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. I'd like to thank all the speakers and especially for not only the great content but also for all keeping to time, which was really wonderful. I'd like to open up the discussion broader. I already had one person that I put on hold before, and then I'll start collecting names. A second one. Okay. Then I see many. I'll try to catch them, bought yes. Okay. Thank you. So please go ahead. >> AUDIENCE: It's working here? >> MODERATOR: Yeah, that's working. Go ahead. >> AUDIENCE: I'm from the European parliament, and thank you very much for your inspiring presentation. I think that some issues are very important. Three points. First is that we need to raise the awareness of the problem and disseminate those awarenesses. We need to have users with much more responsibility and deeper understanding of all problems related to Internet of Things. This is very important in response to the common road between humans and learning machines. It will be completely new interactions, and we need to prepare people to cooperate with all of those devices, especially with artificial intelligence. Secondly, I think that those ethical approaches are very important and we need to talk about security, safety and privacy but also to ensure that the model of choice is for consumers. We understand that now there is just about 1,000 devices which can communicate on the SFROEK stroke of the middle. We will have devices that will be able to communicate among themselves, so it's a completely new situation for humans living among those devices. The third point, the legislation. I think that we need to be very cautious on this idea of the Dynamic Coalition and give us the possibility to exchange and disseminate best practices much to overregulate this completely new approach and solutions. Rather we need to use the European parliament and Code of Conduct. Invite all stakeholders to discuss how to use those new things, and not to start with the stronger and very strong regulation. The last point we will have the next meeting, so I'm very sorry we will need to go and move just before the end of the meeting. Thank you again. >> MODERATOR: I'll come to you next. I have one person there with the microphone, and then I'll come to you. Is that okay to let the woman who needs to -- okay. Thank you. Please use the microphone and introduce yourself. >> AUDIENCE: I'm not going to repeat what my colleague said and I don't have the time. I'm a member of the European parliament. Sorry. I would like to insist in one idea that was around, which is consumers. I mean, they say in some sense this is a responsibility in the user side. I think it's nothing different from the physical world. We make a list of the kind of things that because we have the prerogative where it's secure for us where it's done in a mechanical way town. It's a routine way. It's two generations, and we had landing on that. So I think it's a key point in order to have such trust we need. I mean, we can use this Beatles song "all you need is love." All you need is trust from what we have here. This is very clear. The Internet of Things development, and in that context and (inaudible) and I think proactive users is absolutely a key point to get that. So I have to leave now. >> MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you. Sorry I made you wait so long to get your comments in. Please. The gentleman in the back with the microphone. Please introduce yourself. I'm trying to do from side to side. >> AUDIENCE: My name is Jeff Jaffrey. I just wanted to point out to folks that the WSIS is starting a new web of things working group. We call it the web of things not because it's different, but we look at the applications of IoT at the web level. Indeed, that group is trying to develop open standards for SEM mantic enter operability. If people think it's important, pass the word around so we get a lot of involvement in that. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. I noticed a lot of seats emptied up, so we only have one mic. We only have one microphone, so please pass that microphone down to here, and you can go ahead, yeah. It's a really hard to tell at this point because so many hands came up. You're at the table. Please go ahead. While the microphone is passed, can then. >> AUDIENCE: I'm from the U.K. Firstly, Wolfgang is gone now. He did a great job in keeping this alive when is suffers from two early syndrome and they have a place to be ahead of the time. A number of things came to mind when I was listening to this, and the FIRSst for this and she said that now everything is connected to the Internet. That made me think that actually we were too Internet centric about thinking about this, which is actually about the people, which a lot of people said, which is good. I thought about the Internet of trust, but the trust in the Internet and the Internet of Things is vital to this. I was wondering whether and how much accountability for every transaction that happens in realtime might help to adjust this. I wonder if we can discuss that at all. It's a possibility. And thirdly, lastly, I think when Jari was talking about the security of devices coming to the floor and the need to be able to -- and the other people talk about this patch and try it, that is vital. That goes back to often because a number of things at the moment, for example, smart meters have been specified and the contracts have been let by governments and they have not actually thought about this and that's the lowest option is one of the requirements up until now. Maybe in the future after what happened recently it would be. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: We have someone with a microphone now, and then -- go ahead. >> AUDIENCE: Jim Fishkin from Stanford University. I wanted to follow up on Max's comment. I think the Internet of Things over time is likely to transform life as we know it. That has many social implications. That will pose ethical dilemmas, trade-offs, only some of which we can now anticipate. We cannot hope to have a positive impact on that just through general, ethical guidelines and principles. They're specific dilemmas posing trade-offs. We practice what I call deliberative democracy where we Tehran Dom samples of a population, usually the public. Sometimes as last year of the IGF. Other populations, multistakeholder populations, and the mass public. There ought to be a series of in my view, and I'm not just hawking my own line of work. There ought to be a series of representative and thoughtful consultations with the people who are going to have to live with this new world that is emerging in order to get their feedback in a thoughtful and representative way about some of these dilemmas. I'm not sure the exact context, but I think there ought to be a conversation about that. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. Would you please go next, because I had you on the list. Then I'll go over to the other side, and we'll get to as many people as we can in the minutes we have. Please. >> >> AUDIENCE: I'm Julie and I work with the U.S. state department. What I hear in my work with other governments is an impulse to regulate and standardize on a world wide basis the Internet of Things. So what I'm interested in from this community is what work have you done to ensure interoperability, and let the eCoke eco-system evolve and innovate without that worldwide standardization approach. >> MODERATOR: So what I'm going to do -- just so we have an idea, I'm going to go as many people to speak, and I'll come back to the panelists in the last 15 minutes. So that gives us another 15 minutes to collect comments from people. I understand that we have a comment that was remote. Who was here next? You were. >> AUDIENCE: Yes. Somebody sent me a message on messenger, and I love the Internet. This is from Tunisia who FOMed the discussion and she asks and anybody who wants to answer, what are the difference between policy priorities for the Global South as opposed to the north when it comes to the Internet of Things, and what are the primary I go regularities with bodies of government and in some cases historical abuse of personal data. Who is going to set the rules? >> MODERATOR: I think it's an excellent question by the way. >> MODERATOR: Please introduce yourself. >> AUDIENCE: Hello. I'm a project manager in legal and policy research in new Delhi. We've been engaging in these policy processes and, in fact, the government only this year brought out a draft policy on the Internet of Things, which is really ambitious. On certain applications and in terms of climate change and manners of things really, but clearly lacking in any sort of government framework. This is important because we don't have a law, and we don't have a constitutional right to privacy if some people have their way. In context my question is really to the gentleman from the industry from Google. In this context with jurisdictions and there is needed protection there are private sigh laws, and yet the Internet of Things continues to have these applications and continue to build these. Can you hope that these parties will engage proactively with these governments to ensure the data protection remains important and amicable? >> MODERATOR: Would you like to go next? Please introduce yourself. >> AUDIENCE: I'm from the Philippines and I work for a technology consulting condition in the Philippines. I specialize in the area of human resources as it relates to technology. With the discussions it reminds me with the conversation with a client where the HR head said how do I use the Internet of Things to improve the wellness programs of my company? They were talking about using things like FitBit and gathering data and how long you've been sitting if you've Donnie exercise the past week and using them to design the wellness programs. This amplifies two points today. First off is from the gentleman from oracle saying that maximizing the use of technology but not to look at the benefits to the individual but the bigger group. Secondly, I think the conversations that we had amp fight the point whether it comes to the enter of things. It wasn't really the technology issues you grasped. The medical technology is huge in the Philippines. Most of the discussions revolve around the business and consumer, but some of us forget the users of the IoT goes to the smaller scale representations. That's what I wanted to share on this forum. >> MODERATOR: Go ahead, please. >> AUDIENCE: Hi. I'm Larry with connect faithfully.org and we're a Silicon Valley security nonprofit and NGO. I want to pit up on what Vint said about user SPONLT. I don't know the NACHL of the chair questioning whether or not we can educate people. And I think the answer is yes and no. The answer is yes we can educate people and we can't assume in the near term we educate the entire population. If you look at the history and of the app world we lived in over the last 20E 20 or so years, many attacks have to do with social engineering or simply human error or bad password management and things of that nature. I think the same is true with Internet of Things. User education is important. I have pledged connectsafely.org to do all we can with others in the room to promote it for children and adults as well. I want to tell a story how I had to do research. I have a system that can open my garage door. The poor design of the app is if I put the phone in my pocket while the app is running, it's quite possible I will pocket dial the object garage door command. This has happened three times until I finally learned to always close the app before putting the phone in my pocket. No, that's actually bad software design, but it is also user education, and DHARZ a tremendous amount we have to learn as I at least close to what struggles with a home safer as opposed to less safe, and it's a little of both. I think Vint's proposal is absolutely essential and HOUP they provide the good consumer education. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. >> AUDIENCE: Thank you. I'm from IP nick. I came from another workshop about the YIE on the called finding the Internet in the IoT. I think it should have been finding the IoT in the Internet. I normally referred to the so-called IoT. I think it's damaging and risky to be referring to the IoT about being clear what it is or isn't, because it is not something that is identifiable or distinguishable or partitionable from the Internet. IoT might be awe Nye word for the Internet itself. In that case, it's fine. If we real estating regulate the IoT, we try to do something that is a losing activity, I think. We've been connecting things to the Internet for a very long time, and over the years they have become more numerous. They've become more importantly much more diverse in terms of the models and the manufacturers involved. But what we see today are really the same issues of software, security, device security that we have seen with laptops and operating systems and phones and apps and all sorts of devices over many, many years. Something is changing now is not just the numbers but the pressure on time to market, which is kind of a curse. It has been for Microsoft if we remember some of the software releases over the years, but it also goes back to car manufacturering and all sorts of stuff. That's not new either. We talk in the IoT about interoperability and rights and data protection and many things that we should recognize or at the application and usage layers in the Internet model. Of course, it's important to establish standards for those things gut again not to see them as new special needs of the so-called IoT. These are challenges that existed to R many years, and organizations like W3C absolutely need to be recognized for the work that they're doing and now collaborating and linking in with the IoT con SEMENT. They're working on payment systems and accessibility in media and encryption and things for many years. The risk of not seeing this is manufacturers want to become IoT companies and may not understand that they may need to become Internet companies before hand or at the same time. They don't have to see themselves that way, but there are actually huge benefits in looking at what is going on before over many, many years of Internet he haveon because there is an eco-system they're entering and there needs to be a merger or Harmonization between the eco- system and the existing manufacturing eco-systems to make sure they can take advantage respectively of what's going on before. There's one important subset of the eco-system, which is the security which itself is something that Internet companies need to understand and enter, you know, with eyes open seriously. The last workshop spoke about where we could see the multistakeholder aspects of the IoT. I don't think we need to ask the question if we say it's an inseparable subset of the Internet itself. We all understand and agree these days I'm sure that the Internet is a multistakeholder eco-system and we don't have to have a new argument to reinvent that wheel as a special move for the IoT. Thanks for that. >> MODERATOR: On this side, I saw some hands before, but I don't know if I missed anybody. I managed to get people from that side to move to the table. So I wanted to make sure were there any hands while I'm up here? I'll get the microphone down to the in a bit unless you can get to the table, and then I'll have a couple of hands over there. Okay. So excuse me. I probably did not duck thank you, Your Honored -- duck under that properly. Anyway, one here and then there's two in the back there and then I return to the panel for some responses. Yes, I should have done that. >> AUDIENCE: ( Inaudible ). I wanted to address three things rapid fire. First one we've discussed way too long Internet of Things without discussing in parallel the immersion of artificial intelligence in it in much greater depth. Second, in being careful not to go against one of the architects of the Internet, but I would -- I'm worried if such a figure and Google itself would think that the responsibility for this thing should be on the consumer level. I think that, you know, it's like opening up the floodgates and, you know, saying that, you know, it's your responsibility to swim. I think this is such a huge thing opening up that the responsibility should be at a different level. Perhaps I misunderstood, but it set it. A few people have said it like that. In view of that, I think somebody said the ICB basis gentleman mentions the concentrating on the long level. I would like to hear more about that, because I think creating like 3D intelligence on the Internet of Things at that level has some depth, and we should explore it more in this workshop. Thanks. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. I'm going to collect two more comments and go back to want panel. I think it's been an excellent set of comments. >> AUDIENCE: I'm from women from disabilities in Australia. I come from a user group crying out for applications that can be used in the homes, small towns, open and closing occur tunes, doors and garage doors and whatever. They have been very expensive up until now for people with disabilities, very expensive. And this is an opportunity for people to actually use mainstream applications as they come in under smart housing, but there need to be -- they need to be accessible and they needed to be user friendly. So I implore web designers and all sorts of application designers to consider making these applications user friendly and intuitive. Thanks. >> MODERATOR: Was there another hand back here? No, there wasn't. So then I guess you get to be the last commenter, and then we move on back to our speakers. >> SPEAKER: Thank you very much. I'm the chair of the Dynamic Coalition on values. Before Vint came over to you, he was in the room across the DOR corridor and presented his proposal to us, and that brought lively discussions. I'm not quite sure what discussions were like immediately after your proposal here, Vint, but I can see there's a lot of movement here and it's a topic very important. We also had Maarten Botterman with us, and I'd like to take this opportunity to ask whether we could continue collaboration between our Dynamic Coalitions? I think it's important to coordinate values. >> SPEAKER: Just make sure not to schedule at the same time next time. >> MODERATOR: Of Dynamic Coalitions, we really need to work on and have a meeting on it later in the week. This time we try and go through reverse order on the speakers. Joseph goes first. A minute or two. We have 15 minutes left to this discussion, and I'd like to give you all a chance to comment. Thanks. >> SPEAKER: I'll answer the question related to India, because yes, it is a problem if there's no data protection law. The closest thing in India is the IT act amendments this look at security issues, but it's a conversation that has to be had a multi-stakeholder all across the elements. I wanted to make one comment on Paul, because Paul is more complex than you said. They have to become a telco, because they're using SIM cards. So there's a huge complexity to how this happens. Manufacturers are not looking at what that complexity might be, so that'sen issue brought to bear. Lastly, from Vint I think it's not just the hijacking of the device but the use of the data from the device in the RFID tires that come up. >> MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you. Max, any comments on what you've heard? >> SPEAKER: Yes. Quickly I agree, of course, that the definition for the Internet of Things has an ongoing point, but what we find in our discussions in internally, which are also, you know, different product areas, is the Internet working of these things is what it's about, and that defines the scope of what we talk whether we talk about IoT. I think in a good way regarding for a coalition here, we couldn't talk about everything. We can't boil the ocean. How do we enter connect the things and make them interoperable and work together? I think that's a useful distinction also for the comment on privacy and IoT. I think it has been said before, but important to reiterate all the existing legislation and regulations on privacy remains, so there's no need to come up with an IoT privacy law or something like that. A quick comment on the colleague from the Australian women with disabilities group. I think IoT has enormous potential to transform exactly the lives of people with disabilities and other challenges, and, in fact, accessibility is good design and good IoT accessibility is going to be a great way to promote the use cases and the values of IoT. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. Grace, please, if you have any comments or responses. >> Thank you. You know, I think the -- we've seen the -- there's been a difficulty with incentive for the private sector. In the United States we've been proponent of a private sector-lead policies and development of Internet of Things standards and technologies, it's, but there's a difficult on the incentive side. Part of what commerce is doing it creating multistakeholder processes is to help with fostering an environment that is friendly to the private sector and self society. We heard a lot of people in the room with different nicheatives, and we want to continue to foster the initiatives and work with the Dynamic Coalition to keep this sort of private sector Civil Society led in MULT FIE- stakeholder led movements. So that -- you know, we encourage you to get involved, and you heard about different multi-stakeholder processes today. We encourage you to get involved in different ones, depending on your expertise and as Wolfgang noted earlier, the Internet of Things is it multi-sectoral, if you spread the world and bring more in the community, we develop the best policies bottom up. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. I hope you take this trip of this session and add it to the information that you're collecting. Okay. Vint, I have you next on the list. Thank you. >> SPEAKER: First of all, I did not say that the users are solely responsible for safe operation of their devices. What I said is that they have a responsibility so let me make this more plain. From the ethical point of view, we should make devices responsibly so the makers have a responsibility, but we should use them responsibly as well. Second, I'd like to point out that artificial intelligence and machine running are not the same thing. There's a lot of machine learning that goes on that's quite mechanical, and I discovered devices that learned the wrong things. Like my thermostats that they I'm never home and keep it very cold in the winter and very hot in the summer. I also wanted to remind people there was a comment about local area networking and connectivity of devices locally. Very very important. It would VENT not be a good thing to have a house that doesn't work because it's not connected to the Internet. I don't love it that way that my house doesn't work when it's not connected. So it's important. When we speak of Internet of Things, we actually misrepresent what's going on. These are programmable devices that are capable of being networked. Let me just stop there. They don't have to be on the public Internet to be useful. They may be very useful on the public Internet, but they could be quite dangerous. Let's be careful with our vocabulary. I think Paul was right to remind us about that. That may mean using the term Internet of Things is embedded in the vocabulary now. It may draw the wrong picture to what these devices are capable of doing and what we can constrain them to do. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. Jari, I have you next if you have comments and responses to things you heard. >> SPEAKER: Thank you. I wanted to say quickly on this comment that Joe made about the question regarding areas where you have no regulation on, say, privacy or data protection. I want to add one thing, which is that when the industry or companies create solutions, they usually try to accommodate the whole word. Even if there's no regulation for a particular thingthing, it might not be required to use them. They do exist and apply to this discussion between different governments and there being a knee jerk reaction to have more regulation and standards for IoT. I very much agree about the regulation piece but not surprisingly I disagree on the standards piece. Maybe there's a distinction between mandatory and voluntary standards. I may be more on the camp on voluntary standards. I think so most of the world is. If you like something you find useful, you pick it up and use it. If your customers demand you to do a particular standard, then that's business as usual. I'd like to point out it creates a new solution and we can't stop talking about it anyway. You can have standards. I can't say what the other governments were saying, but we in the industry are calling four sufficient innovation on top of that or for innovation for further variance of standard. I think we currently would have the world benefitting from further standards in the area of IoT, because our solutions are fairly fragments and we could create bigger markets by having more standards and more interoperability that benefits all of us. It's not about shutting down anybody's other ideas. Nor could we do that even if we wanted to. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you, Jari. Olga. Please, if you have any comments or responses. >> SPEAKER: Thank you. Again, I'm trying to bring some perspective from the developing countries. I do agree with Vint that IPV6 is a big issue in developing economies. I think RARs and ISBs are doing the best they can. There's still a way to go on. There are policy challenges, and the thing with developing economies is that the priorities are always others. So we're involved in this discussion and they're the ones to bring this issue to the local authorities so to avoid future captures or security and privacy implications. I like the idea of the neutral point of view briefing papers. We have a language issue, so if we can help in translating those documents that can be very useful at the local level, and then to the private sector, I think I also captured my idea of doing simple things with simple technology may change a lot at the local level. And then it can enhanced with other layers of complex technology, but that could be the starting point. Thank you very much. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. And very much preached the conversation, the brevity with which people made their comments and the multi-variant picture built of this problem space that we're working on here. So very much appreciate that. Before passing the microphone back to the chair of the Dynamic Coalition, I want to remind you that the Dynamic Coalitions, all of them, have put forth a bunch of different questions. There's a Dynamic Coalitions booth in the booth city where these questions and there is a survey on them. So I'd really appreciate it if all of you, since we all pass through the area several times, to stop at the Dynamic Coalition booth, check out the questions for this Dynamic Coalition as well as some of the others, because getting those survey questions answered would be useful for the dynamic Coalitions in general, which as a member I'm trying to help coordinate. Thank you very much for that. It's yours. >> Thanks again. Yes, these questions are also online. This is the Internet. So I really wanted to thank you all for your active participation and for your interest. I got the impression that people left the room before time and didn't do because they were bored by the session. So for sure in that way finding better ways to schedule the next IGF will be excellent. I do also believe that we did have a good session, which brought us further on multiperspectives. This is not that is stuck before its time anymore. It's the business and we're in the middle of it. I think the need to have even more people be aware and not only to tell us what they want but also to be responsible players in this on all levels and it's important from the user up to supplier up to network provider up to platform provider. In that indeed the call for open platforms and one that is still out there, and I think several will. I'm not seeking one solution, but at least some they're interoperable for the Google light bulb in the house or the other way around. Very important. Also particularly on this level what has more emphasis here than anywhere else is what the application is for developing countries, and I heard Jari say that we really need a lot of that. I also heard recognition about that as well. It can already bring such a lot with these technologies in areas that really need it. So in that I've been privileged to be part of the sec at the international ( indiscern I believe ). Think bring in YUN people from Africa to learn. They come three for three to six months and learn everything about certain subjects from connecting the bits to the wires to the wireless to how you go about it in the country that support the technology. So initiatives like that, capacity building around world is important, too. If those countries if people themselves know highway to do it, they're much closer to the problems and technology becomes easier all the time. Privacy and data protection, yes, this will connection to be an issue that needs to be addressed. Otherwise you end up in a world that we don't want to be in anymore or we don't want our children to be in. Can I have the slides back for the remarks for -- the questions for tomorrow, and I would like to leave you with that. So tomorrow these questions are already there today. This slide set is connected to this item in the program, so you can download it as well. There's also links to more information on the Internet on the activities. First, complexity will go up, and I think we will need to increasingly use technology to deal with complexity. This is also something I'd like to take out there. Algorithms, maybe they should be ethical, too. I'll leave it there, because we don't have a discussion. Broke chain is go that's a term but let's be realistic about it and see where these technologies can help. That's the complexity dealing with complexity. The other one was the remarks already on machine learning and AI. Imagine an environment that is totally arranging our lives around us, or that of our parents who cannot take care fully of themselves anymore. What happens if they take the decisions on what is best for those people that they care for? Basically in that way the environment is almost like a low boat acts, and obviously my best insight in is that is coming from that, but we may need to find and implement -- >> SPEAKER: There are four laws and not three. >> What is the zero flaw had to do with not harming humanity, but go ahead. >> That's a tricky one. The last one is data protection and privacy concerns that stays with us. Woe sue new bigses are data ownership is seen as a liability. Wouldn't be great to use Datar to the good in this world? Let's keep that balance in mind as well. These subjects might be be on the agenda next time. For this time we make a report on the session. The transcript provided is very useful in this. Again, if you have more suggestions realize that you can always inform us. I'll share it with those in the Dynamic Coalition. Last but not least is a call for you to get involved. This work is done with volunteers for more than 18 years now. I'm impressed by the work and the support I get and we do together while we've got them to. We always find good interest and high quality sessions at IGF and in between. Maybe there's benefit in other organizations and sponsorship to come in and get real work done in this same fashion of independent global level multi-stakeholder approach. If you have ideas to make it more sustainable or more impactful in that way, I'd be interested to hear from you as well and I'll be the rest of the week as well. So speakers, thank you very much for your excellent contributions. Avri, was impressive as well. Thank you very much for your attentive SFW and I look forward to hearing more from you. ( Applause SFLCHLT ( ( Session ended at 11:18 a.m. ) WS266: The right to access the Internet in Latin America. Room 66, 11:30 a.m. >> MODERATOR: Good morning. I'm the defender of the defense network. We're glad to be hosting this workshop, which is entitled the right to access the Internet in Latin America. We will speak in English as a courtesy to everyone, although I would really like to have the discussion in Spanish. This is just to facilitate everyone's participation in this. And first, I want to make sure to give a little bit of pointers of why we want to have this discussion today. In other places in IGF we have discussed whether access to the Internet should be a right or whether it is a right. The truth of the matter is that countries have -- are starting to recognize access to the Internet is a right. It's even in the constitution so wept to ask the question of what does it mean to have a right to access the Internet? What does it mean with which obligations it has? There's a few questions that I have shared with the participants which I will introduce very soon that will guide the discussion. The first one is what is the important of the access to the Internet for the individual and for society. What is the relationship between the right to access the Internet with other rights? And the next ones are the ones we want to see if we can get a discussion on, which are the elements to the right to access the Internet, which are the positive and negative obligations that states have with regard to the right to access the Internet. What are the role of the states, private sector and other Civil Society and actors to achieve access to the Internet? Why would it constitute the right to access the Internet, and which principles should we consider when restricting the right to access the Internet? Naturally, we are producing and working on a document that wants to give a proposal on how we should understand this right, and we -- this is a work in progress, and we want to share a little bit of the things that we have thought that should include the right to access the Internet. For example, we go back to the elements to the right to access the Internet. Availability, equality, accessibility, and what do we mean by this? For example, there should be infrastructure, equipment and installations necessary to offer connectivity to the Internet to all persons inside a state and in a continuous manner. Quality, which means that connectivity to Internet should have the sufficient quality to access in an effective way to the main characteristics for providers of services and content provided and that based on the demand of the users. And that the quality of service, of course, is an element that will vary through time and advance in technology. Accessibility in three ways. Physical, access to an infrastructure, equipment, installations. They should be in geographical locations that are accessible. Economical accessibility, which means the access to the Internet should be through all that costs and expenditures direct and indirect associated with accessing the Internet should be acceptable and available economically. And accessing the Internet and spending and accessing the Internet shouldn't mean diminishing the access to other rights. Accessibility about the skills and knowledge. People should have the opportunities to learn the skills necessary to experience the Internet in its full potential. Also, the element of nondiscrimination in three ways in access, which means in general that people shouldn't be discriminated on any basis to access the Internet. On traffic management, which is probably more controversial, and in using the Internet as well. Other elements are privacy and open and interoperable architecture that all laws, strategies, programs, and programs and measures taken to guarantee the access to the Internet rights to access the Internet should be mindful of preserving the basic architecture principles of the Internet of openness being interoperable and neutral and global and decentralized as much as possible. Finally, acceptability and all the policies should respect the right to access information and participation, and this participation should be moved to a stakeholder and adopt the principles of the governance of the Internet. Also just to share a little bit about what we're thinking of, we're thinking about this right and trying to develop it mainly Z as a social right. If you look at the economic and social rights U.N. committee, which is the interpretive authority of the economic session and cultural rights pact, you see similar things with how we are understanding this right. We also are exploring how to develop the state obligations for this right, which are the obligation to respect, to protect, and to promote or to facilitate and to fulfill the guarantee and just to explain a little bit. In relation to the respect means the negative obligations of the state. The obligation to protect means what does the state have to do? What the state has to do to stop private actors from interfering with the right to access the Internet. To promote and celebrate should be the positive things the state should take to create the conditions necessary for the realization for the right to access the Internet to an autonomous way. It means what the state has to do to provide access to the Internet in certain circumstances with certain vulnerable and marginalized populations. This is just a few input that we want to give to the start of the discussion, and now I want to give the floor to our participants, and I will introduce them all. FISHGS, to my left I have Elaine and she's the pub policy chief at Google Mexico. She worked in the public sector for 12 years. Nine in the transparency section of Mexico. She's a lawyer with a masters in international legal cooperation at the university of Brussels. To the left she's the telecommunications regulator of Mexico. She's a lawyer for and has a masters from the University of Columbia in New York. She special lied in law and public policy and telecommunications and information technologies. She was also the director and founder of an NGO that was pioneered in the rights of consumers here in Mexico. To my right I have Erick Huerta, he's the general coordinator. He's a member of the council -- consultive council of the telecommunications for Mexico. He's a lawyer. He has a master in social sciences by the University of Queensland and a doctorate Canada at the university. We also have ( ( indiscernible ) and he's a lawyer by the university and a master in Latin-American economic. Finally Claudio RUZ is the executive director of the main organization digital organization in Latin America. He's the organization that as has an Latin- American region reach. It's a nonprofit founded in 2005. It's an organization that has the main purpose for the development and defense of human rights in the digital environment. Without further adieu, I will just leave the questions here just in case you need to guide the discussion. I will give the floor first to Lena, please. >> SPEAKER: Thank you very much for the invitation. I would like to talk a little bit about the first two questions you mentioned today about the importance and what is the importance access to Internet. And also, it's related what the relationship with this right and our rights are. I would like to say that once I heard Alenjandra, he said there's water and Internet right? Everyone needs water and it must be clean and available and with quality as well. There's no discussion about the need in the world for everyone to have access to Internet, to have access to the world information and the things that happen on the Internet. What is the relationship with other human rights? I must say I consider the Internet is an enabler. An enabler of other human rights, so without it, you can cannot have freedom of expression and access to information and you cannot have a better democracy, better services from governments, and everything. So I think it's, in a way, instrumental. It's like data protection. You perfect data to protect persons or people, not data itself. It's not the heart of the right. Since this table has to talk about Latin America and how is this an access to Internet as a human right, if it's already there or not, I think, of course, we have different velocities and all governments and Civil Society and industry are working towards giving all the population these human rights and these possibilities to access to clean and quality water for everyone to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, between those that don't know anything and they cannot use all the power that the Internet brings. I think we have a very, very huge opportunity to think about that we are 400 million of Spanish speakers, and that from those 400 million, we have 280 already connected to the Internet. So we have to spread all this to the region, and have this for a huge market for all kind it is of content. Of course cultural content, and we need to bring all the digital skills to people to be able to access the technologies, because you can have all the physical infrastructure and old information there, but people are able to use it and get all the possibilities of Internet. So I think I will leave that to open up the floor. I think people need to have all the digital skills to be able to get into this world. For instance, it could take digital economies and the effect the Internet has on the life of people and the creation of jobs and everything, we have seen how this small and medium interfaces or companies and start-ups, they have a huge possibility to solve the products and everything. We call them like the micromulti-nationals. So you don't fleed to move to different countries and I have different places to work above, and then you can explode the market to Latin America. We have a possibility to share experiences and knowledge and culture, so I think we have a lot of things to work on. Of course, to start with, we need to bring the Internet close and have all these digital skills at the same time. I will leave it at that because I want there to be questions. I don't know if you want to continue with them or we may have the possibility to add something later. >> MODERATOR: We want to have the discussion to involve other people besides those that will definitely talk. Now I would like a commissioner in Mexico to give us a few words. I didn't mention time limits. I would just say no more than ten minutes will be best to allow other people to participate as well and to engage in a discussion. Thank you. Let me see if I can -- >> SPEAKER: Thank you to everyone so interested here. I'm very glad to see a true multitable. We need a bit more gender equality but we have had industries and governments and NGOs and OTTs and regulator, and competition authority which is IFT in Mexico. I'm very happy to see Mr. Javier from the ministry of communications in charge of connectivity and universal service problems. They're extremely important to give Internet access to everyone. So very interesting and important questions. I will try to address a few. First of all, in Mexico, yes, access to Internet is a human right under our Constitution, and only access to Internet but access to public services such as telecom and broadcasting services, Internet, and broadband are all human rights. With certain things, they have to be available in terms of competition, free competition with quality, interconnected networks, with continuous services and not subject to arbitrary interference when it comes to Internet. We really want to move to human rights to human reality for everyone in Mexico. As we all know, it's a very important reform and important to have all these rights at a constitutional level, but it's not sufficient to make them true. We need the implementation of effective public policies, and we need investment as far as resources such as spectrum among others to make all these services available in a country where we have a very specific geographic situation. A lot of very small villages in the mountains, some of them with 100 people, and they're in conditions of poverty. The other very important and we've heard a lot at IGF about this very important condition is to work on horizontal policies that we need to work collaboratively with the ministry of communications, with the other -- I mean, IFT and the municipal and local governments, which to this date have actually set up barriers for the deployment for infrastructure. So municipal regulations make it expensive or TOUF to deploy, that can be a major barrier against universal access. So we need to work in horizontal, effective collaboration. Whether we as independent agencies. We have toll sit down also with privacy and data protection authorities, some of which I would like to see more often and I should be present at much more of these discussions. So how do we move from right to reality? I want to talk a bit about what IFT does regarding availability, accessibility, equality, and economic accessibility. So we have been growing a lot whether it comes to penetration of these services in Mexico, but still we need to move forward. Five to six subscribers of mobile broadband out of 100 people we have so far. I mean, there's more or less 90 people for every 100 have access to a mobile phone but only 56 connected to broadband. Also, only 12, almost 13 million homes have Internet availability, and so there's still -- it's been growing a lot, especially in the mobile, bought -- but we need to work more to make it a real, true, universal service. And there's a number of factors dealing with that in the supply side and also in the demand side and access in preparation of these technologies. We are working in IFT and we have made available more spectrum than in the last 15 years so that we have more mobile services, and we need to model faster whether it comes to deploy of 4G. The highest coverage of mobile service in Mexico is 2G, and as you know, you cannot live in the information society having only 2G, which is not designed for data. Deployment of 4G is growing, but it's very, very low still, and I would like to see at least everyone having 3G. So that's one. Accessibility. For the first time ever, IFT very, very aware and also the need to bring people with disabilities to the information society. Just past a week ago, guidelines for accessibility to telecommunications services and access to them through online services, accessible websites, accessible promises for the telecom operators and access to phone booths, et cetera. Also, whether it comes to economic accessibility, in only two years due to an increasing environment of competition we have been able or the market has been able to compete more aggressively and in all telecom services prices have decreased by 25% from 2014 to 2016. Mobile services have decreased even more. More than 30%. Now, that is really important, and as we see prices coming down, we see more penetration, more people connected, and more traffic being exchanged, but we need to make sure that all these networks and services are secure, that privacy is protected, and that we -- that the networks are being built in a robust way. Quality. Quality is an issue that is still a work in progress. We have been for over a year analyzing how the requirements for quality of service and mobile networks, to what parameters the industry is subject, and this should be completed shortly. We need to make sure that a minimum quality for everyone, especially when it comes to -- see, this is self-regulation. Sometimes it needs enforcement, you know? So quality. We need to work a lot on quality both for mobile. The difference between announced speeds and actual speeds in Mexico is not acceptable. There's differences up to 80%. You offer 10MGs and you release less than 1. That's not acceptable. I think there's factors that made the speed variable, but you can't offer only 10 apples and only deliver 1. So that we need to work a lot on. Also, quality of content. Today and yesterday I heard a lot about the need everywhere in the world of relevant, local content. And that is important to increase the use of information that is relevant to the people. This is the bottom, and the real human right, the access to information, access that you can find only 1% of all apps downloaded in Mexico are Mexican. 1%. That was presented in a recent study that we had on competition. I mean, with 400 million Spanish speakers, how come? There's creativity. There's a lot of maybe programs like purr soft should be reviewed and more accessible to start-ups and to small enterprises, not just to the big ones. Finally, I would leave it there. We're working on the spectrum of net neutrality and nondiscrimination practices, and there's a lot we -- and most of all, we're working transparently, very open to listen to the Civil Society, to the different views, and I think IFT is making a difference in how the decision-making processes are made. We have to work more on quality of content. That is something our board has refused to do. Only technical standard of quality and image. I think we should do more on what the quality of content is, whether it's broadcasted or not, but we need to incentive to foster more local content. So that all this access to technology really means more sustainable development. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: You talk about content in Spanish, but what about in the English language, for example? That's even a stronger barrier for that and just on that note I would like to give the floor to Erick Huerta, who has a lot of experience in the connectivity of communities, of rural communities, of people that are not given the service by the private sector, and that they find alternatives to connect to the Internet. Please, EricK. >> SPEAKER: Thank you very much. It's really a pleasure to be on this panel. This have been very interesting. I think we have just one day since I was here yesterday, and I've learned a lot and heard a lot and come to deep reflections in the discussions. Some of them are a bit philosophical even. I think to try to answer all the questions, we had need a workshop for each question. I'd like to focus on a couple of stuff that it comes through. It has brought me to very different talks on things. Also, I want to challenge some of the thoughts we have always learned in relation to spectrum and networks and I have to go back a bit to when I was looking at the symbol of the United Nations. It came to my mind that this is a declaration for the information society, and how many years ago and it's 15 years ago and it's more like that. Ten years, 12 years. You see that. Especially I think that's the first paragraph of that, and it takes about enabling environment. So the old countries came out and said, we have to build an enabling environment for -- in order to bring the benefits of information society to everyone. But I think that what it does in those days was an enabling environment. It's quite different from the environment we have, but still the same obligation for government to build this enabling environment. In those days we didn't have much of the infrastructure we have nowadays. In those days a lot of countries don't even have a backbone to connect to. Some of these countries have a cable to go out, and some of these challenges even that some of the countries that were probably looking very hard to reconnect like Cuba, and all of that going on and none connected to the island, and now it has a cable. A lot of old countries have built backbone infrastructures, even in Africa we have some good backbone there, but still we have the same challenges. We have 1 billion people that are unconnected. Why is that? What was done and what wasn't done? So I'd like to talk about the thing of availability. Availability of infrastructure. So I think that in those days of the information society, availability was a big issue in some countries. Now probably it's not availability. Accessibility also, I have my doubts on accessibility regarding cost. I think the most -- one of the most profitable businesses are networks. You use it a lot. Motels as well. Sometimes you can use a hotel for hours. It's a set of the same. You can -- it's a world that if you use is a lot, it doesn't matter. You can -- the most people that use that good the best, the better. So I think this main style of networks and backbone networks, and also I will say the spectrum is something I called a nonnon(inaudible) good. They use it, and I have a land, and we have to bring a lot of people to use the land. Then it comes less valuable resources, so we don't have to get many people using a piece of land. Whereas, regarding a network, the more people that use the network, the better the network is. So it's not a thing of to discuss. We want the people to use the networks. If we're talking about fiberoptic fiber, the capacity of the fiber is infinity. We can use a lot of frequencies, all the spectrum frequencies, we can use it even in a single fiberoptic system. So this what we discuss. Also on the spectrum we have this. It's not scary. It's not. It's not. It was scare because of equipment, but now we have intelligent equipment that can move from band to another band, see what is used and what is not used. So this problem of viscosity is not there anymore. So then, yesterday we had' very nice discussion on a community network there, and at the beginning it was what is the problem to connect these communities? Is that a physical barrier? No. We know that it's not mainly a physical barrier. Is it a cultural barrier? Was that an economic barrier? We came to realize that the barrier is mainly a regulatory barrier. So the experience shows us that if you eliminate those regulatory barriers, people can do the things by themselves. So if you allow access to backbone and spectrum, then people can do and create their own networks. This is not new. I mean, in Argentina a long time ago the government companies say I cannot connect you. We don't have the budget to get to you, to these places, but you can connect to the backbone if you manage to build your own network and come and connect, and that's a way that comparatives came up and started to bring services to those areas that were not able for it. So we have those barriers and the operators connect to the backbone now? No. That's a big question. Do they have access to spectrum? What's happening with the spectrum is really scary with the spectrum. Only 30% of the spectrum assigned to a operator is used. The 70% of the spectrum is not used because those areas are not of interest of these. But you can reduce it. So, I mean, mainly we have to eliminate those barriers, and if we eliminate those barriers, then a number of areas that are probably related to technology, to financial resources to that, then probably we'll be thinking in allowing this part of the right to Internet is a very important part of the Internet that is accessed. So how do you react to the backbone at the fair prices? How do we allow the use of a spectrum that is not used and you ended up with this forecasting. That's the question that I'd like to end with. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you, Erick. That was very interesting. Now you can give us your perspective. Thank you. >> SPEAKER: So thanks. I apologize by my presentation is in spanish, and it's too late to go in English. ( Speaking in Spanish ) >> SPEAKER: I would like to thank you to talk about this important topic about Internet access and human rights. I would like to refocus basically in two or three questions you sent out. I would like to tell you different thoughts regarding what's discussed during the last minute. If you analyze the way that the Internet rights have been discussed over the last years, you will see that mainly that's focused into the forum of civil and political rights, and that's the most important framework where all this discussion is framed not just from the academia and the government and Civil Society. So the question that I would like to adapt to these is what about the rights related to their development? Definitely those sort of rights totally left out of the conversation at least at the main forum, which I think is pretty sad? Not just because it's important to focus a little bit more into these, because what I want is I'd like to underscore the last part of my presentation, which is about what are we really talking about when we talk about Internet rights or access to Internet? I would like to say this, because maybe the economic source and cultural rights are a different frame to understand better what the kind of questions we have are actually trying to answer here. Of course, the impact of these and of course the role of the governments and the roll of the private sector, of course, is very old discussions in a legal and constitutional sense for at least 50 years. Of course, we will not solve that in in conversation, but it's important to underscore this conversation at least from my perspective is not just about civil and political rights. It's not just about freedom of expression and enhance these kind of rights we've been trying to work with during the last year, but also about other more rights that are related with economic and social and cultural rights. So the question regarding what is a mistake when we talk about it, it's another layer of -- it's another layer of complexity to the conversation we're having here. So to understand what is the realization of the economic and social and KULT TURal rights basically means, HING we may take a look at different frameworks of people we've been trying to address questions in a deep way during the last years, and, of course, there's -- the important framework just to name one of those from the ma chef SKI, the special rapporteur that was very important for himself to fit into other frameworks related to that taken by UNESCO or UNICEF in terms of how these frames of understanding human rights is a different way of social and political rights can be understood better in terms of what it means for the overall population of societies. So I think that taking this different framework, of again economic and social rights into this conversation is helpful in terms of defining better this cope, and the beauty of different actors and the roles of each one of them. Not just the public or the private sector but every single actor involved in policy in our region specifically. I would like to address one of the most important frameworks maybe to suggest a little bit of our talk in this workshop is about the framework as well as the connection between these sorts of rights and access to Internet. I would like to underscore this specifically understand just in the manner different sort of elements that you actually mentioned at the beginnings of the conversation, but specifically in terms of what acts of civility means in these specific frames. What inclusion will mean basically in terms of minorities, indigenous populations and so on in our regions and what adaptability means in terms of Internet access to over all. I think that, of course, maybe adding another layer of complexity of the conversation but I'm totally aware of it. I want to speak out more in the frame of human rights and not just in terms of civil and political rights to have a complex understanding over what is happening and what is a mistake when we talk about Internet access. Just to finalize my remarks, I'm connecting with the framework, and I think it's important to talk a little bit more about the content as well. If we do agree about accessibility and prepared -- sorry for that work. It's complex for a Spanish speaker. That's some of the most important principles behind this, we should not avoid talk about blocking of content, we should avoid talking about censorship, surveillance, data protection, of course and criminalization of online content and so on. There's a couple of other things that we need to address. This is not just about the role of the government. This is not just about the incentives for the private sector in terms to invest more money into this. It's a more complex situation. So sorry to add more layers of complexity to this conversation, but I think it's useful to have a meaningful conversation on this. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: I totally agree with you, and actually the way we are devising our proposal, it's understanding it a social right with what you mentioned and the complexities. We see this not as founding a conversation. This conversation has been going on for a long time, but the human rights -- the human rights have been in the economic and cultural discussion give a good organization to the discussion and put a very clear horizon on what we want to achieve. We have experience on that and in many other rights and the rights whether we want, the Mexican constitution says our rights and needs are universal access. It doesn't mean it needs to give you access right now to everyone, but that is a progressive right and that understanding this and classifying the obligations of everyone and their principles allows everyone to work towards that goal and achieve it easier. Now I would like to open the floor to questions to participants. I would really, really ask you to be really brief. Make a tweet question, tweet comments. It's not like you will become a speaker in the panel. We really want to make it flow. First, I would like to check on remote participation there is something that she can mention. Is doesn't seem like it. Can I get hands raised. Please say your name and organization, institution that you are in. Please make your comment here, over here. >> AUDIENCE: How many people here do not speak Spanish? How many people? Okay. So let me say this one in Spanish. ( Speaking in Spanish ) >> MODERATOR: So I want to make a comment, and it's over there. The microphone is on the way. We'll take this question and another question and then we'll give the panelists an opportunity to answer and then we'll make -- okay. Okay. There will be a second round. To the panelists and then more questions, okay? >> AUDIENCE: I'll ask in Spanish. >> MODERATOR: Go ahead. ( Speaking in Spanish ) >> ( Speaking in Spanish ) >> ( Speaking in Spanish ) . >> ( Speaking in Spanish ) . I'm sorry for the English speakers. >> AUDIENCE: ( Speaking in Spanish ). >> AUDIENCE: ( Speaking in Spanish ). ( Speakers and audience speaking in Spanish ) Copyright © 2016 Show/Hide Header