You are connected to event: CFI-RPC7

WS250:  How to Make Remote Participation Sustainable? Room 7

>> hi, Ginger.  Can you hear us?  I will put you as presenter.  Hi, Ginger.
I just put you as presenter.  Can you try testing the mic to see if this
works?  Hi, Ginger.

>> Say hello and good morning to everyone.  Confirm you are not hearing me?

>> Hey, Ginger.  I can hear you now.

>> Okay.  Good morning.  Unfortunately my mic is not working.  Are you
having any interference or echo with this medium?

>> I can hear you as well.  We're about to start, which puts you in the
other session.  We will start in pa in two minutes time.

>> Ginger:  David, can you confirm that you can hear me?

>> Hi, Ginger.  I can hear you.  Hi, Ginger.  You are very clear.

>> Ginger:  Great.  Thanks.  Thanks very much.  We're all set then.

>> David:  We think we will be about to start in 2 minutes time because I
do think it's a fairly early meeting at 9:00 a.m.  It is about how to make
participation in two minutes.  We are waiting for more persons to join with
us. Before we start, this session is working with the interaction rate.  I
would like to invite people sitting in the back and maybe also sit upfront
to join the discussion. Please feel free to do so.  So, once again, thanks,
everyone, for joining this session.  This session is about how we can make
remote participation sustainable.  And I do think it is important to get
something e-mail participation in a sense since this is a fairly early
meeting and there are people on the way for joining the meeting.  Thanks,
everyone, for joining.  This session is interactive rate. We can talk about
how we can make remote participation on EC for everyone to join.  As we
know, I'm David from dot  dot Asia.  Discussing with the youth in the
region in Asia, we do find it is particularly to support more youth to
engage in the discussion of internet in a sense to direct participate in
the conferences.  That's why we agenda ideas of this workshop of how we can
make the remote participation more easy for everyone to attend a conference
and talk about a trouble and accommodation.  This kind of -- (lost sound)
barriers are very important to talking about this in this session. So
thanks, everyone, for joining again.  I would like to talk about how we can
structure the whole discussion for this one hour of time. Firstly, I would
like some introduction for the program. I also want to give some ideas of
how the currinse situation -- currency situation is.  This is for the
community and how they think the situation is.  We also talk about the
survey in a sense to know about the current situation.  We have 40 minutes
of time to discuss.  As you can see, I put two different things on site,
which is us. Also for status of the output discussion, we talk about remote
participation.  We really focus on how we can engage to remote participants
in a sense.  We also got remote participation facilitators with Ginger and
Haley who joined us to be the facilitators on the remote check room.  After
the discussion, we have 20 minutes of our recap from the groups to share
about how they feel we can make light of the situation and contribute to
give something outputs paper pertaining to the IGF secretary to make the
situation improve in the coming meetings. So I will just pass the time to
my colleagues to talk about the survey we have done in the past month to
know about our situation.  Thank you.

>> Thanks, David.  Yeah.  So this is YENIS for the record.  We have
circulated a survey before about 32 days, which is about a month earlier
before we had this conference.  So far, we have received 28 responses,
which I have to admit is not that represented, but for the survey, we would
like to get some ideas to kick start discussions and not trying to be very
representative in that sense.  So the survey is very short.  We just have
ten questions.  So let me go to the result.  Let me share this link to the
remote participant as well.  Yeah.  Okay.  Yeah.  So let's go for the
questions briefly.  So the first question we asked what age group they
belong to.  The majority is 80 to 30.  So basically covered most of the
participants, I guess. And then the second questions is:  Have you ever
painted remotely for age discussions?  And the answer was yes.  23 versus 5
respondents that said no.  And then from then on, we asked why they didn't
participate.  And those said they haven't participated before is because
they're not aware of the opportunities and they might not be aware of the
IG discussions or not aware of the channels and they can join the
discussions.  So for adults -- so for who continued for third questions, we
asked whether they have continued to participate and why.  So for those,
most of them said yes because they found it important and here for the
academia some of them.  They want to share that with the students and also
want to engage.  Those that can participate they want to spread and get
more people to join as well and that's one of the reasons.  And for the
fourth question, what are the key reasons for not attending remotely?  So
we gave separate choices for them and also to let them specify any other
reasons.  So, actually what we found and what is about the time zone
problem, which is I guess very critical for most of us.  Like for example,
actually right now in Mexico, it would be totally upside down the time zone
from Asia.  Some of them may have a day job, which they will I. fear with
day job, the time.  Otherwise, they have to join night and some of them say
they also need like rest time.  So they couldn't really have that much
spare time to join these discussions. And the second main reasons is the
interactions is either both -- their own connections at home or all the
house connection is unstable.  So I think the technical challenge and also
both the time zone is what we've always been known for is the major reasons
why we couldn't get more participation remotely.  And also the third major
reason is the moderator has not enabled remote participants.  I guess
that's some of the comments underneath that mentioned that remote
participate ants are not valued as much as if they  they participate on
site and they feel neglected by the moderators some of the time.  So that's
as well.  And also some of them feel they're not motivated to join the
discussions.  So motivation is another great challenge. Actually also in
some of the comments mentioned is more about how we engaged them and what
motivated them to join. So actually, we'll have more findings afterwords on
that. Also another challenge that our four respondents threw out is they
found difficulties participating as a newcomer. Capacity building is one of
the things we'll have to deal with as well.  Another question.  60% say no
on this.  But there are 11 people who said they have joined before.  We
didn't ask about their experience.  For question 6, we asked if there's any
remote (inaudible) in the region and so it is also a half.  For question 7,
will you be interested to host a remote hub?  I guess most of the
respondents actually are saying they're interested, which I think is a good
way to get other people, but it a huge challenge as well also due to the
time zone because it is hard to get people to join if the time zone is at
night.  Especially also if during like a prime time in the morning.  So
people get to work.  If they're not, it would are difficult to get them.
Yes. That's all eye challenge to host remote hub.  And also, of course,
there is the technical challenge.  Some of them have issues as well they
could not support to host a hub.  And then for question 8, we asked what
the current use they use for remote participation?  Mostly it is a W
Connect which are major to use that web base is what they're using right
now and for Adobe Connect is more widely used in Icam meetings.  Many more
discussions are using that and a mailing list and social media are also the
other major ones they've used.  And then we asked about what they think
about the current use and how -- so what do you think about a current use
and whether they're optimal for IGF.  Actually, one of the very important
comments that we saw is it generally works well.  But then if somebody was
disabled, it might not be very well for them and also language is another
issue.  So if they don't speak English, then it is actually hard for them
to join because it is more English focusd in most of the cases.  So
different people might be comfortable with different things.  So we need to
really figure that out.  And also there is also a positive comment on that.
It is good that we have the recording and we can refer to it more quickly
after meetings and even if they couldn't join on site, then they can still
listen later to the recording. So that's one of the important findings that
we see from this comment.  Yeah.  And so the last questions we asked is
valid suggestions and we believe that after our discussions to find out
more.

>> David:  Thank you, YN EZ.  There are some language barriers and also the
time zone limitation.  And also talking about interest.  Sometimes we
occupy our own work or even if you face by those studies.  So I think we'll
talk about some barriers we're facing in the discussion.  The reason of
having the research is mainly about how we can make suggestion.  So for a
few minutes in time, we'll make some suggestions to the whole discussion.
I would like to show the question of the 30 minute discussions.  We can
break out in groups and make suggestions to the IGF secretaries on the
issues.  I will show the Powerpoint of the guiding question to have a quick
look. So we got seven questions to focus on.  It is just guiding questions.
In a sense, the main purpose of this guiding question is how we can make
suggestions is talk about the reasons of the remote participants that are
tanning remotely and how we can attract the new participants to join with
us.  How to make a person feel more inclusive. From your own perspective
for this time, you can join the conference in person.  How about if we
really can't join the IGF, how can the situation be done in a sense to help
you to participate in the coming meeting?  The fifth question is about how
we can attract more people to join remote hub or is there other mechanism
in a sense because remote participation is not just talk about how we can
participate on site during this conference.  It can also be influenced on
the PE fin or post defend.  So this question is talking about on this.  How
we can help you in particular to get started.  So it is also the other
question we want to focus on.  How do we move the barriers we have
mentioned for the remote participants to join?  That's the seventh question
and I will just give it on post to break out into groups. Okay.  I also --

>> I love how we were on site.  We wanted to talk about remote.  That's
really funny.  But anyways, there's around 30 people here today.  Those are
great guiding questions, but I will put in full big categories that we
break out and discuss.  So I think the first one will be the organization.
There are a lot of complaints about the time zone.  So how should we enable
these workshop different sessions -- oh, my gosh.  The camera is making --
so how should we enable these workshop organizers to be aware of the time
zone issues and how we can rotate.  So for example, we have rotation for
one that's best for Asian time zone and one that's better for Latin
America.  So this is a key thing that I think should be built with these
workshop organizers or whoever is organizing the Intersessional meetings.
The second part has to do with motivation.  We heard a lot about the
promotion part, social media involvement, the localization part.  How can
we do better with that?  I think that's a second category.  The third would
be capacity building for remote participate ants.  I mentioned the
organizers of the works shop.  The third one is remote participants because
they felt they probably need some training to speak up to communicate
clearly what they wanted.  The second is how can we enable them to organize
a remote hub.  If so, then that could solve some of the issues they might
not have very stable Internet in their homes, but probably a remote hub
that would be a little better.  And thirdly, how do we enable new comers
that are remote participants.  And the fourth is how do we enable a
moderator -- for example, David tested everything before.  He spoke to
Haley, he spoke to Ginger about the starting of the event.  How do we have
them know more aware of remote interventions, testing remote like technical
issues.  So I think those are the four areas we can kind of break out to.
So again, it is organization for the organizer.  The motivation part, the
capacity and during the event, how do we enable moderators.  So I think we
can break out into four different -- three groups.  We can break into three
groups and choose one topic that it really -- you're more passionate about.
We were super lucky to have a funding to be here today, but not everyone
can.  I think be mindful of how lucky we are to break out here and we have
moderators that are available like Ginger and Haley would be moderating the
remote participants.  That's super important.

>> Hello.  One of those who routed for this session.  It was almost
excluded, but we luckily brought it back on thread because I think that
there are remote participation or online participation, which I think is a
better term is a really important thing.  And not only, you know, tweeting
from the sessions, but actually including people with voice and image
ideally.  In that sense, I also think that maybe we should add or maybe the
issue I want is already included in one of the groups regarding how can we
improve the workshop proposing templates and instructions in order to
improve online participation at the conference.  Because online
participation and workshop organizers plan how they plan to implement it is
a part of the workshop proposal. And it is a thing that we use among other
things great proposals for IGF.  So -- so we should perhaps redraft the
proposal template or provide better guidelines for the workshop proposers.
So maybe this could also be how to do that be a topic for discussion.

>> Thank you.  It's a very good suggestion about the workshop proposal to
insure remote participation to work smoothly.  Right now we'll be having an
output discussion. I would like to say in this way yet please.

>> I will ask if it is possible to show the questionnaire result on a hyper
link that we can look at the result?

>> David:  It was in the remote chatroom and I can also show it in the
Powerpoint for everyone to have a look on this. Right now, we're going into
three different groups.  I would like to invite Inata.  Get on the back to
be the second group.  And I'll be sitting here for the third group. And I
think because of the time limit, maybe we shorten the period of time to be
like 20 minutes for the discussion.

>> Just one comment.  As we are on site and now we are going to breakout
group to discuss, how do we choose the topics we're most passionate about?
Do we fight to death? [Laughter]

>> David:  Yeah.  It's just on the group to discuss.  You can decide.
Yeah.  And also get feedback from Ginger. Maybe put Ginger on mic as we
mentioned about in the research, the result the voice and also the chatroom
discussion is better to give voice to remote participants. Thank you.
(discussion in groups)

>> This is Yn EZ.  I guess Ginger maybe dropped right now.  I will read out
what is mentioned from a chat.  So there's a reminder saying that we need
to think to be physically present is not just about funding.  There can be
other reasons about time, dedication.  That's my add on in the time
dedication.  It was meant that presence is not just about funding.  When I
think about this issue and during discussions and then also Ginger
mentioned as a Mac member, she pushed for these sessions and would like to
point out there is a section about online participation. So as a remote
participant, so there are things that we as organizers need to be aware of
and change.  Remote participation, evaluation of the works is actually a
very strong component of the workshop.  So that's what she mentioned.  And
then -- yeah.  That's basically the comments.  Okay.  So I guess let's
break out into groups right now.  Maybe we repeat who is talking about
which topic.  So renetta will be the capacity building.  If you are
interested in capacity building, please follow her.  And Bianca will be
about organization.  The better guidelines, the wash up guidelines and
David will be on motivation and time, I guess.  Yeah.  So ReNata will be to
that corner and David could stay this corner and Bianca can occupy space.
Yne

(break out in groups)

>> Sorry for disturbing, but I want to remind everyone. We are looking at
the time and we have about four minutes left for discussions.  Everybody
hears me?  Are you listening to me?

>> Yeah.  Is this Ginger speaking?

>> David.  This is about the time to be getting back to the last group for
a report.  So can everyone join back to the round table for a short recap
and we will run out the session.

>> We have the enable organization, but we couldn't hear any one of you
talking.

>> Ynez:  So we were just?  A breakout group discussion right now, but
because of the time, we only have one hour for this session.  I guess we
have to assume to the large discussions and we have to report each group's
findings right now.

>> David:  After a report, we do want to have remote voice and give me some
feedbacks especially from the discussion in the chat room.  So we would
like to have the group moderator Bianca, Renata and me to report on what we
have discussed.  And then we will go to remote facilitators Ginger and
Haley to speak a bit and recap a bit on discussions in the chat room and
sharing some things.  We have two minutes of time to do a recap and we hope
to keep the time and not running out to lunch.  So maybe we can start from
Bianca about the organization of discussion.

>> Bianca:  Hi.  We were in a breakout room earlier and I was specifically
on the organization part.  This is the first remote participation workshop
that we've had.  I think there's a lot we need to improve O. on the
organization part and I had a group of really interesting and engaging
participations.  Icam is probably easier to remote participation tools.
The of the thing is how we should integrate the chat.  I felt a lot of
remote participate ants are in the chat versus us who are here present
outside the chat.  He mentioned a few things.  One thing is making it
easier to find the remote participation tools and the tool is good enough
and easy to use that even people in the room are part of it.  So even
people can read the chat on-screen. So that's another thing other than only
broadcasting what is happening here.  We should also broadcast the chat.
People in the room are also aware of what the chat room is happening.  Chat
is also a more casual format.  One of the Hong Kong youth IGF participants
mentioned that because it is more informal and they feel more interested
instead of a block of text.  And the other part of it also mentioned that
there are a few things in the room that should happen.  The moderator
should be in the chat room, session chair and there should also be
reporting on the actual remote participation chat.  That's in the report.
So in that way, we can make the chat room also a good ground for speaking
and include that in part of our discussion.  And yeah.  So I think that's
kind of where we are on the organization and there are a few things that we
can implement right away, and things we probably need more coordination,
but that's where we are going to stop.

>> David:  Thank you, Bianca.  And on the motivation part, we do have some
suggestion on how we can (inaudible) from the community in the sense.
First suggestion is about we can have more education and engaging young
people in the sense on the discussion.  For example, we got students -- we
got some suggestion like having and maybe talk about law and set of crime
sessions.  We can have some discussion and introducing the IGF uses and
related issues in a sense in the curriculum.  So this is the first way.
And the second way is participants encouraging them to participate in the
discussion as a reward.  And more importantly, I do think for the third
point, we have to make some suggestions about making the participants feel
they are part of it and including the result, discussion result from the
remote participants to the discussion and also discussion outcome papers
including the forces from the participant remotely. So these are the points
we have made.  And also for the third point is the remote hub can be set
beforehand the meetings or after meetings that helps the situation to
improve.  So there's the four areas and four suggestions we have made to
make people to be motivated.  Right now, we also want to invite Renata to
talk about capacity reading parts.  Thank you.

>> Renata:  Thank you.  Indeed.  The capacity building work shared many
insights on how do we build for successful remote participation.  And we
brought insides from before, during and after a remote participation
experience.  So before preparing remote participation.  How does one
register to a remote participation session?  Is the registration
accessible?  We had great input from a colleague about the dynamic
coalition of success and accessibility which has built a document available
to gather knowledge on how todo an accessible registration and remote
participation experience, analogy, quite interesting if there is a building
and you can't get in, how are you going to participate.  So, um, that would
be the before the remote participation experience.  And during the remote
participation experience, also we talked a lot about standards and
protocols like for instance, non-verbal protocols or queues that we have
and non-verbal communication which do not translate to remote
participations.  And looking at each other's eyes instead of actually
asking the question or gathering a record that this is consensus.  So
remembering to translate the non-verbal queues is very important as well.
And this should be something agreed upon on remote participation
experiences. Also translating standards and protocols.  There's a universe
of tools for remote participation and tools also increasingly freely
available for their code or for demo versions.  So experimenting with these
tools and building upon them is is pretty interesting.  Leandro made here
quite an interesting list.  A colleague from the group left some
interesting aspects of it.

>> Leand row, for the record, we talk about accessibility, exchange of
knowledge, but we also talk -- we're talking about online participation.
We should also be thinking about these powerful new tools repository codes,
sharing knowledge through APIs, make things starting from taking an API to
translate the whole transcriptions in every language to user interface that
it's really good that a colleague was talking.  So with the group, I think
that we should also add new tools that are available in code and it can
make -- we can make it happen.  Thanks.

>> Renata:  Yes.  So continuing down our participation journey.  Building
blocks, the environment was mentioned the intercommunity ISA event which
had several blocks of translation support, chat on that online
participation that the user can use.  And the building blocks will generate
the last part of our journey, which is after the remote participation
experience.  The importance of record keeping. So live scribing for multi-
cultural, multi-lingual support is also very important.  Telling
participants how to use those transcripts, how to disseminate them and how
to easily search through them in order to get their information. There is
difference in Connectivities in regions and you may have some participants
which are highly connected in a broadband environment.  All those
participants should have easy is to the same information.  Being kept on a
record for live scribing capabilities and through languages support.  A
suggestion that was made to the mag to reinforce the importance of U.N. in
languages support whenever possible have varied languages material
translated at least in the U.N. in languages set.  And I guess I would sum
up our experience on the capacity building breakout group as learning about
standards and protocols to remote participate.  To make remote
participation more effective, we need to exchange information before,
during and after the remote participation experience.

>> David:  Thank you, Renata.  We do get a very good patch on how we're
doing capacity building issues.  As I also mentioned, we have remote
facilitators have the having the chat room discussion.  I would like to
invite Haley to recap a bit on what we have in the chat room.  I am happy
to see in the chat room you have keen discussion on how we can do better on
the remote participation.  I do think for remote, there is quite a new
issue for us.  You still have room to be improved, but I first want to
invite Haley to recap a bit and follow by Ginger maybe.  Could the host
help giving Haley be -- be the representer?  Yeah.  Her to be --

>> (speaking)

>> David:  Her to be presenter.  Haley, yeah.

>> Testing?

>> David:  Yeah.  We can hear you, Haley.

>> Haley:  Good morning, everyone.  I'm sorry just now the mic (inaudible).
I was reading their chat and it's scrolling down and I cannot copy and
paste for the chat. And basically we had a very good discussion in the chat
room just now.  And based on these three categories, motivation,
organization and capacity, mainly the four points.  First of all, it's
about the accessibility.  Not everyone has the accessible tools to get
online.  And the second point is that someone suggest that we have to let
the remote participants so they can be in the meeting.  And the last one is
remote participation.  Just like now, they're separate from the on site
participants.  It is suggested to have the Skype maybe to let them get more
involved and also the registration for the online --  well, it talks a long
time to get registered for this remote participation.  So, for the second
part, which is the motivations, there are many points as well.  The first
point is good to make a session.  It would be good to make a session for
remote participants to call in and make summation during the whole
discussion so that they can be more getting involved.  And remote
participant also has -- they are usually filled out to be isolated, but not
present in the discussion.  So it is something that we have to be aware of.
And the second point is about it is good to check the comments right --
like in the meeting so that throughout the workshop so that they can be
more engaged.  And finally, it is suggested to have someone who is really
dedicated to the remote participant to let them get involved in the whole
discussion.  And for the final part about the capacity building, the first
one is suggested to assign a new format for the participant so that they
can be more involved, like more advanced to the chat room now.  And the
second point is that it is good to have the resources now.  Organize and
perhaps on more participation chances.  And the third point is about it is
good to create and build more advanced online participants to get involved
in.  And the fourth point is about it is good to have a training for the
organizer and also the remote moderators and not just the online
participants.  And the final point is:  It is advised to have more on-site
training and human resources available so that the remote participant can
bring into a dynamic reality.  This will sum up the whole remote discussion
we had just now and I think Ginger can edit some more points.  Thank you.

>> David:  Thanks, Haley, for the recap.  There are ways to do recap for
remote facilitators and we also got Ginger as to remote facilitators.
Ginger, you want to add on to getting some feedbacks on the whole
discussion?  Can the host put Ginger as presenter?  Ginger, are you
speaking right now?

>> This is Ynez.  Ginger, we don't seem to hear you if you were speaking
right now.  It seems you are speaking right now and we are not hearing you
as well still.  I saw your mic, but we don't hear your audio.  I'm not sure
if that's technical issue that the staff is working on.guess while we oh on
it, I want to add on to that Haley said. Actually, on a discussion that was
very active just now and actually there is also one thing mentioned which
is similar to the group which is the design of the workshop in breakout
discussions.  So hard to engage the online participatants and to different
groups, but we do have a very active discussions in the remote groups.  And
they want to be included in each group.  So there are some technical issues
that the tools have to enable that.  So that's also one thing that I want
do add on.

>> David:  Thank you, Ynez.  As we get the section for this, for doing so,
we wrap up for the whole section. Thanks, everyone, for joining on site and
remotely for the discussion.  For this session, we do feel there are
difficulties on how we can engage both discussions and even like engaging
-- engaging people to voice in the remote panels and also in the remote
hubs and also the chat rooms to participate in the whole session.  So, I
would like to give a last word to Renata.

>> Renata:  I just wanted to congratulate everyone.  I guess championing
this workshop and making it happen is already a huge effort towards
inclusion and remote participation and sections in the IGF.  Very, very
needed. So congratulations all and all the participate ants as well.

>> David:  Coming from Ginger, we can channel a discussion and everyone
channeling in the discussion is a very good idea.  We will be doing a
remote discussion on a better way to discuss in the host sense.  Thank you,
Ginger and thank you, everyone.  Thank you.  Round of applause. [APPLAUSE]

WS168:  Implementing human rights standards to the ICT sector Room 7

>> LUCA BELLI:  Okay.  We will start in two minutes so the technical
assistant can get logistical detail.  Thank you.  Also suggest a
housekeeping note, we do not have translation to Spanish.  So for those who
are hoping for translation into Spanish, I'm sorry.  Can we start? Yes.
Excellent. So welcome, everyone, to this workshop on implementing human
rights standards in the ICT sector.  We are here to discuss this very
relevant issue because at this time, we have reached a label of
understanding of maybe on some things consensus and also a critical amount
of evidence produced by a lot of very good initiatives and organizations to
have some more material to really tackle this problem.  We all know that
from an international law perspective, duty bearers have an obligation to
protect and human rights stays, but we also know thanks to human rights
guiding principles that every business entity has a responsibility to
protect the respects for human right.  Thigh have to provide effective
remedies.  So we have here today an amazing set of panelists to analyze
this with us and not only to deepen the question into the details, but also
to provide some concrete evidence of what is not going on properly and what
could be done to make things better.  So we will start with AMASTO which is
representing professor David Kaye could not be here because he left and he
has agreed to substitute him.  He is the legal adviser on human rights.
Then we will continue with Joao Brant that was previously working with the
Brazilian ministry and observaer too regulation media and convergence. Then
we will keep with Katie Shay which is the legal counsel at Yahoo.  Jamila
Venturini is working with the society.  Peter Micek has global policy and
legal council at access.  And also last but not least Rebecca MacKinnon.
So to start the meeting, I would like to ask AMOS to provide us a little
bit of information of the work that the UN is doing on human rights and
particularly on offering of expression.  What are the main challenges that
you are currently facing in the work that you are developing.  Thank you,
AMOS.

>> AMOS:  Thank you so much, Luca and also for organizing this panel.  I
will give you a brief overview of the work that we are doing that we are
about to do in the next couple of months and then maybe also identify some
of the challenges that we are seeing in the process of working on these
issues.  Since August of last year, the mandate has began looking into
state regulation, impact of freedom ever expression and the responsibility
to respect human rights and freedom of expression that springs from this
environment.  We think of this as a really huge topic.  For us what we
wanted to do was initially scope the project and to met out the legal
frameworks that might govern some of the gaps that we see and also a work
plan for moving forward. And to really bring, you know, the set of issues
before the human rights console and U.N. member states which isn't
necessarily something on their radar.  So this report in the human rights
counsel in June 2016.  So the next phase of the project -- the next phase
of the project will be focusing on telecommunications, as service
providers, ISPs as well as any other entritthat really is engaged in
facilitating and operating the digital communications in the structure.
Equivalent providers and exchange points, subMarine cable providers and
this is where you really get into the meat of things.  Again, our findings
and recommendations will be presented to the human rights council in June
2017.  We just had a call for submissions and we still welcome them to the
stage. So, take the question of government access to customer information.
I do think we see that selfcompanies have developed a fairly well indrinkd
set of due diligence strategies including, for example, whether request are
based on law and enacted law, whether they're in proper format or
appropriate requesting authorities and I think we see they're fairly well
established set ever tensions.  The need to respect customers privacy and
freedom of expression on one hand and other tensions when it comes to
employee safety and the safety of telecommunications infrastructure and
investments in a particular country.  I think the calculous changes will
have other factors.  When we think about medium and small enterprisers in
the Teleco and ISP space, they might not necessarily have the resources to
deal with more than a certain number of requests and they might not be
connected to the CSR in human rights community to understand this might
trigger human rights considerations dealing with requests might have
considerations.  So we move --  if we change the issue slightly from easy
is to customer information to the provision of equipment that might enable
and facilitate direct government access to networks, my sense is that human
rights conversation is not quite as far along.  It is still critical to
convey kind of the baseline importance of due diligence processees and the
need for human rights assessments and it's also not clear what the
responsibilities and the processees might look like when it comes to the
sale of the use of equipment and when these companies receive requests for
modification of infrastructure equipment in order to enable future
surveillance demands. Finally, I think in certain geographical context
regardless of the issue that's at state, companies are so constrained by
pressures that states put on employees and infrastructure that looking for
leverage might be harder or at least might have to be set up earlier at the
stage of neg negotiating contracting licenses.  And that might be the human
rights responsibility there.  So I think that these various levels and
phases of issues that we need to be thinking about and so that's kind of
what I see to be in the challenges and questions we are dealing with.

>> LUCA BELLI:  Thanks for highlighting two very important points.  The
first one is basically all we do online is intermediated and this
ubiquitous termination means there is an extremely wide range of
intermediaries that have some sort that facilitates communications and also
have a great impact and potentially a control on our communications.  On
this point, I would like also what is the impact of some of those
initiatives that we can concretely assess at this time.

>> Thanks very much, Luca.  Ranking digital rights is a project that
benchmarks Internet and telecommunication in other ICT company sectors on
core commitments policies and practices that affect users freedom of
expression and privacy.  We've passed around some information about the
project and my colleague Alan Aplease hold her hand.  She has some Spanish
information as well and also some Spanish copies of the report, Spanish
copies of the summary.  You can get the Spanish language from her later.
But our findings, we evaluated last year 16 companies and the list of all
the companies is in in of the material we passed around and on the website.
So I won't do a recap there.  We evaluated eight Internet companies from
around the world.  Not just Google Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo, but we had a
Chinese company, a Korean company and a Russian company and we look at a
range of telecommunications companies that are husked in a different rage
of jurisdictions.  So we got a good global spread. What we found in brief
last year was that across the board, companies are doing a very poor job of
informing users about how their user information is collected, shared, kind
of what's happening to it. There are some positives in that there's a group
of companies in the index that have been doing what we call transparency
reporting and that report on not only what their practices are for handling
requests either from governments or other parties to restrict content or to
shut down networks, block content or to hand over user information, but
there's all a lot of companies that don't report on these things at all.
So there's a big gap and in many instances while there are some legal
restrictions on some things that companies can disclose, across the board,
there are many things that companies could be disclosing that they're not
disclosing and there's no legal impediment for them do be doing that legal
disclosure.  There are also some regulatory ambiguities that governments
should clarify so that companies can maximize their transparency on how
they're handling user information and access to information.  Another
finding had to do with the private regulation of content.  So companies had
terms of service and you'll talk about this more. They set private rules
for what you can or cannot do on their platforms that may or may not relate
to what the law requirements or have varying relationships to what the law
requires.  And there's no transparency about the practices for enforcement
of what's being taken down, the volume and nature of the content being
taken down.  We're going to be releasing a second index in March.  You'll
be able to see if to what extent there's been any improvement in any of
these areas, but there's certainly going to still be a lot more room for
improvement and in March, we're also going to be adding a few companies to
the index.  So Apple will be added, Samsung, some other companies as well.
So stay tuned for that.  Regarding the GNI, we have a section in our 2015
index that's called commitment which we're changing the name to Governance.
It has to do with accountability around what their practices and policies
are.  So does the company have the public commitment, but also they
conducting human rights impact assessments.  Do they have internal whistle
blowing, are they doing internal training?  Question, do they have
grievance on this? Questions like this.  What we found is companies that
are members of the GNI and that are members of the telecommunications
industry dialogue, many of which are currently observer members of GNI,
perform strikingly better in the governance section than the index than
companies that are not members of GNI. One further comment on sort of GNI
membership because I know there's a lot of discussions.  What impact does
this have in the fact they're carrying out impact assessments to determine
to help them make decisions and include these factors in their decision
making about going into new markets and rolling out new products, the fact
that there's board level oversight over these issues that the board of
directors actually makes it clear that managers are accountable on these
issues, to what extent is that making a difference to people on the ground.
In a way, it is hard to quantify because it is saying how many accidents
did the air traffic control system prevent?  So how much worse would the
Internet be if Google, Facebook and Yahoo and Microsoft and the number of
other growing number of other companies didn't make these commitments and
weren't putting these practices into place.  It is hard to say, but my
sense is from also having been in the GNI that I was on the board for
several years and continue to be a participant is that I think -- I think
that despite all of our complaints, which are many and justified, I think
things would be a lot worse if we hadn't had this system where companies
are being held accountable to whether or not they are implementing their
commitments, whether or not they have a system in place and I think the
extent to which you have companies that are put in place.  Are instance, a
process for A-- for instance, a process for demands and they made that
process clear.  When GNI started, most of these companies didn't have a
company-wide process even and policy for how managers across the world
should handle government requests.  And most of the companies were not even
tracking government requests across their companies globally.  And as part
of these commitments, they've had to do that and they've had to really
understand what the impact is. And I think that's really huge.  That's
really significant that that is now happening at least among some
companies.  It needs to happen more.  It needs to be expanded to terms of
service enforcement and other things, but I do think there's a lot of bad
news in the world.  I do feel that this is one of the things that has made
the Internet a little bit less bad than it might otherwise be.  So, I know
that sounds funny, but yeah.  Or maybe a lot less bad.  It's hard to know.
But so that's my kind of observation on that as well.

>> LUCA BELLI:  Thank you, Rebecca, for this injection of optimism.  And to
keep on discussing with going into some deeper details of the issue, I
would like to ask JOAO who has dealt with specific details in Brazil.  I
would like to ask, what would be the impact of selfintermediaries --
several intermediaries on several culture states.

>> Joao Brant:  Thank you for the invitation and thank you the audience for
the presence here.  I would say firstly, the panelists that came before me
just set up the framework, I think.  We're talking about intermediaries,
big power and big responsibility and rather than saying as we were saying
five years ago about okay.  We have to limit the intermediary liability, we
do have when they are dealing with third-party content, but we have to take
into the table their responsibility on the conference and the terms of
services and how they rule and how they do with state and government
requests, how they deal with the content users by their own terms, et
cetera.  It definitely impacts human rights and cultural rights.  I would
say I like to mention two or three things on that. Firstly, we have to
strike a balance. Intermediaries have to be liable when the responsibility
are their responsibility, but have to be protected when responsibility is
not there.  Like this big power and this big gate keeper that we have now
is, of course, under pressure of everyone of state, of other private
sectors of users, et cetera. We face an important situation in Brazil.  I
would like Ana to put the image on the screen please. When the ministry of
culture had a page censored by Facebook, we posted a historical picture of
an indigenous capital from 1909, this was the picture. More than a specific
case for us to was important. It was a national exposition on historical
pictures, but for us it was a discussion on cultural diversity that is
really important on this case.  We were saying intermade areas like
Facebook, but like other companies sometimes, they are defining global
standards, common global standards based on their own assessment of what
has to do a global code of conduct that has the effect of uniformizing --
can I say that in English?  And if I can't -- I think you can understand
what I mean.  Making defining uniform standards for the whole world.
What's absolutely the contrary of what we're discussing UNESCO with the
convention of cultural diversity.  The idea of -- you have to have common
global standards that uniformize global understanding of culture is really
the opposite of cultural diversity.  This is a big problem.  We had also
the discussion with them to say we don't want to refine your global
standards to understand how it may be more uniform.  We want to discuss the
power because they play this intermediaries because of their overwhelming
market power, if I can say that.  It is not only a significant market
power, but an overwhelming mart power and because of the place, the idea of
human rights are not only -- have to be taken a vertical way, but in a
horizontal way and, of course,s companies that deal with them.  They play a
public role whether they want that or not, they play a public role.  They
have that.  I don't mean that we have to do the common regulation rules
that we've been using in the 20th century, but we have to discuss how to
face the situation and we have to understand just to finish to wrap up this
first position to understand some specific issues for developing countries.
If we talk, for instance on cultural (inaudible), then we have to talk how
the economy is supported.  For countries like many of the Latin American
countries, many Asian countries that are big producers ever culture and big
consumers of culture, we are actually taking part of our economy of culture
has been taken off by this  I.  I. intermediaries.  I am saying just really
to finish. Of course there's intermediaries and new reality. It is part of
promoting freedom of expression, promoting freedom of culture and
understanding one side.  We just have to strike a balance and understand
how it can be a way to promote and have a great cultural diversity in 10,
5, 20 years time. Thank you.

>> LUCA BELLI:  I want to get back to you on the question of how
government, what could government do to tackle this.  But probably in the
second segment of this workshop.  First, I would like to exploit what you
are very wisely saying, which is that on one hand intermediaries should not
be and be liable for what other people do.  On the other hand, they have a
responsibility to respect human rights.  And also a very second point that
is emerging is in their role of private regulators, they set rules,
standards, terms of service that is precisely behind how people can enjoy
their human rights within their spaces, their platforms and within their
networks. We have been doing terms of service and human rights in
corporation with council and the department for information society.  It is
here and maybe after he can say something later.  Then we have Jamila.
This study has been evaluate something very core elements and is one of the
few studies that provide concrete evidence on how platform specific e made
areas respect human rights.  The purpose was not to have a ranking, but it
was to highlight best practices and worst practices.  I think Jamila will
have some very important and relevant data to share with us.

>> JAMILA VENTURINI:  Thank you, Luca.  Thank you all for coming.  Good
morning.  Yes.  I'm very happy to talk about this after the presentation
that came before because they kind of set the scene on what we have been
doing.  As Lucas said, we analyze the terms of service of 50 online
platforms.  We have this intermediation phenomena across all Internet
layers, if you could say like that.  You were looking at content layer.  In
context with what we observed is more and more concentration of platforms.
So terms of service now a days they basically define the rules and
conditions as Luca was saying for the exercise of the right to freedom of
expression, of the right for the ability to communicate online on
selfoccasions, access to information.  It is important to highlight just to
follow up on what JOAO was saying before.  Several countries and developing
countries mainly, access to information and the ability to communicate is
highly mediated through these platforms.  Right? Especially if you consider
that access through Internet is more and more mobile Internet and more and
more mobile devices.  So what we see when we analyze terms of service is
that there is a first challenge that is identifying we chart the binding
terms.  So understand which are the documents that users and platforms.
This was either due to a large number of documents that are resighted in
the main terms of service or to the -- to the non-presentation of the
documents in a clear way when the user has to create an account or in the
first access by the users.  Once we identify it is the language and I'm not
talking just about a legal discussion that is common to several contracts
and selftypes of contracks, but also computer science language.  Especially
when we look at the privacy policies, you can see several terms in further
explanation.  When there is explanation, you can't really understand the
impacts that these technologies can have on your rights.  When it comes to
freedom of expression and this Connects a little bit with what JOAO was
saying.  We didn't analyze the so-called commute guidelines.  We can't
analyze which content was or was, lowd or not, but how -- allowed or not,
but how they deal with this content. There is little commitment by these
platforms with guaranteeing justification, notice and the right to be heard
in case.  More thanna, most platforms explicitly state they can end users
account without any notification or the possibility to challenge. When it
comes to privacy policies, they are much more longer and much more
detailed; however, the terms are usually broad enough as to insure that
companies can perform various uses of user data without having to require a
new consent or having to change the terms.  Usually they require consent to
track users activities on other websites.  Most of them do that.  I would
say more than 80% would have the precise data on the book we are sharing
with you afterwards.  Mostly, they also request consent and they say they
may allow third parties to track users activities in their website and they
do that usually talking about picks of tags or other types of technologies
we had to find out what they were while we were doing the research.  And
also they may share content with third parties without detailing which are
these third parties, what they will do with this data and under which terms
they will be processed. Even when it comes to government requests for
access to users data, only 10% of the platforms are analyzed say they only
shared data following eligibility of the due process.  That means 5
platforms out of 50 explicitly making sure there is due process before
handling users data.  I'm glad to hear as Rebecca was saying before that
there are order levels of commitment, but as we were saying, it is
important that this is also reflected on the terms of service on the
specific legal terms that they present to users.  Right?  More than
establishing the conditions and the rules for interacting online, these
platforms also implement and establish rules on how disputes will be
solved. So another aspect we analyze was due process and we can observe
that users may never know about changes in their terms of service.  There
are a lot of Contra dictions in these types of clawses.  You will say you
will notify users about change and another part is they say they won't.
But it's hard to have some certainty on this regard.  Besides that, legal
disputes are subject to several limitations.  For instance, users may never
be able to go to courts to take -- may never be able to take their disputes
to courts.  There are limitations on the presentation of class actions.
There are obligations on the use of arbitrations and resolution mechanisms.
There are a lot of -- most platforms present impose a particular
jurisdiction for dispute resolution and this all makes more difficult to
solve this dispute. So, this basically is the scenario we found in this
research.  We are aware that there are several challenges in changing these
-- this context, but we also believe that our best practices have already
been implemented and these terms should respect human rights as several
international rights and bodies including special opportunities with
freedom of expression that have already stated several times.

>> LUCA BELLI:  Thank you, Jamila.  I think this is the first start of the
whole due process.  It is a fundamental right and it analyzing not only
freedom of expression privacy, but it is something that's been arising, but
due process is the first thing that is analyzed.  When you know that  that
30% of platforms will notify when servers are changed. That is something
quite scary from a due process. 26% of platforms in terms of service and
the waiver of class action is something not only scary, but it would be
illegal in the majority of jurisdictions. Before we pass the second
segment, I would like to open the floor for comments and debates.  I
propose to have three.  Although, there is a result of a lot of people and
three people can have the pleasure of raising comments.  Raise your hand.
1, 2 and 3.

>> Good afternoon.  I work for an online team. Something that was very
evident is focus when we talk about human rights is on the content layer.
And David came out clear in his focus that we also need to look beyond
that, look at technical aspects, et cetera.  Some of the questions being
raised here is how do we do that?  So ARTICLE 19 is pioneering some of the
work around human rights on the technical layer of the Internet.  Most
specifically, we have been working on the Internet task force and assign
names and numbers.  So I figured I would share some of the work we have
done doing as sort of -- well, best practices or first practices to have a
look at what creative solutions exist.  So for instance, in the internet
engineering task force, we have a set of specific working group called
human rights considerations groups.  We were trying to develop human rights
considerations for engineers.  So it is pretty much a guideline that has
engineers think through the technology they built and make sure they
document what kind of potential impact this might have on human rights. It
seems like quite a basic step, but it is necessary because right now we
don't have that kind of documentation.  We don't necessarily understand
what the human rights impact is.  With the internet corporation assigned
names and numbers, we have been heavily involved in the development of the
bilaws and specifically ICANN's new commitment to respect human rights.
They actually become alive.  Some of the things that we very much have seen
is that we need new and creative approaches.  Only leaning on existing
labeled principles.  They are unwilling to engage in these kind of
discussions, but that is a difficult question for them to ask where to
start. So some of the things we have been focusing on is that there are
mechanisms that do this and we need to start talking about human rights.
We need is to start looking at the principles.  And these are very, very
concrete things.  I hope that by sharing these with you, we will also take
the discussion beyond the content layer because if we don't look at how
this technology is built, we are missing out a huge part of where it might
impact our rights.

>> LUCA BELLI:  Thanks for highlighting this.  I think there was a
gentleman there.  If we have an open mic, maybe it can be useful here.  Do
you have a roving mic?

>> Thank you.  My name is mugame bee from Kenya. I am curious on the
research that's been done.  When you talk about human rights and business,
we kind of stop.  So is there a process where perhaps the global network
initiative you look at the business for having human rights in the ICT
sector and I can give an example of the mechanism.  You work with
corporations and there's a business case to this. There is sustainability
issue.  You don't look at privacy issues.  If you don't look at freedom of
speech, freedom of expression, then the business itself is at a certain
risk.  One of the biggest risks is you put a lot of (inaudible).  This
litigation impacts on the profits that the institutions make.  Whether you
help this corporation look at what is the business case for having human
rights for the ICT sector, but it is something that has profitability and
sustainability. Thank you.

>> LUCA BELLI:  Yes.

>> Thank you, Luca.  You introduced work on the terms of service and human
rights because in fact, this was a direct result from memorandum of
understanding between the Vargas foundation and the council of Europe
following the publication of our human rights guide for the internet user.
This is only one aspect of the work that the Council of Europe is doing in
order to promote human rights online.  I won't go into much detail, but if
you visit the Council of Europe, you will find elements such as a guide for
human rights for the internet users, the free flow of data, network
neutrality and human rights.  And I think it's extremely important that we
do this in such a multi-stakeholder environment, but also to directly work
with business.  We have started to set up a platform. You could call it
with business to discuss directly with them on human rights implications
and their policies.  On this IGF, I noted down three key words.  One is of
course, sustainability and one is ethical reflections.  In the work we're
developing, that goes to the infrastructure level as well.  I think that's
quite important.  And thirdly, it is also trust.  How can we insure that
this trust is maintained?  Therefore, I think it is important to also look
at the constituents of the Internet basically.  That going from logistical
infrainstructical subscriber information with anything to do with content
information.  All of these are very specific.  Working on the bilaws within
ICANN, working on the generic top level domain names, all of this is
crucial.  At the same time, that's what our Internet freedom recommendation
concentrates on is on a whole aspect of the transparency not only of the
companies and thanks to ranking to what they're doing with regards to
companies.  It also goes to governance. Governments also have to be
transparent in what they're doing with regards to the Internet. Consistent.
Right now there's a number of preoccupations I would say that we have with
government intervention not only in the traditionally lot of governments,
but specifically also due to the developments that we know and anti-
terrorism legislation.  The impact of government all over the world on the
human rights issues on Internet.  Thank you.

>> LUCA BELLI:  Thank you.  This is a very crucial issue.  I would like to
keep ond with second segment and give the floor to Katie Shay so she can
provide us in elements on the private sector and what they're doing.  Go
ahead with perspective on this.

>> Katie Shay:  Thank you very much.  I am legal council and human rights
at Yahoo.  I am here to talk about how Yahoo is taking its commitments and
implementing it internally. I want to start off with a little bit of
history from Yahoo and how we came to Jesus with how we need to make
commitments and uphold them. So, Yahoo was one of the early Internet
companies and in the early 2000s was a pioneer.  In the way that Yahoo went
about is that the theory is the best way to create a global company was to
rely on infrastructure.  So Yahoo created local companies, local entities
with local personnel.  We translated content into the local language.  We
also incorporated the company under local law.  So that meant that we were
subject to local law in the countries where we were operating.  And that
created challenges.  Sometimes there are conflicts of law in the countries
where we are working.  Sometimes we were subject to laws that may not have
been consistent with international human rights standards.  And there were
certain points where that created issues for the company and opportunities
for the company to really learn some lessons.  So there's a very public
example that some of you may be familiar with.  A journal named Chaletel
was in prison because of valid legal requests from the Chinese government
for information about this user. And after this came to light, it really
impressed upon Yahoo the fact that our business increasingly impacts
freedom of expression and privacy potentially in negative ways, but there
are ways to promote privacy and freedom of expression where we work.  So
through these hard lessons, Yahoo had a choice of what to do next.  And the
company decided to engage with those issues to make commitments and to
invest resources in implementing commitments to human rights.  The most
tangible way that Yahoo was to create a dedicated program called the
business and human rights program at Yahoo and it is stacked by two full-
time human rights attorneys.  Some of you may have met.  And also cofound
the global network initiative and I am happy to talk more about GNI and how
we think about our membership in the organization.  We coever had founded
with Google and Microsoft and now linked in are members and the industry
dialogue many of those companies are now observing and may join in the
coming year.  It's a growing organization.  I will leave it there for now.
But I am happy to dive in on what the GNI means.  So through our business
and human rights program, we focus mainly on privacy and freedom of
expression because that's what we determined to be the greatest area in
human rights for the company. That's where we face the largest risk.  It's
also where we have the greatest opportunities to promote those rights.
When we think about privacy, we are thinking mainly about privacy vis-a-vis
governments. We are thinking law enforcement requests for user information
and other ways that governments try to obtain data and better users.  And
on the freedom of expression side, we focus mainly on government censorship
and how governments interact with users and with our company on our users
rights to free expression.  I just want to mention that in this area, we're
noticing growing trends and I think Peter will speak more to this as well,
but we're seeing governments crack down on privacy and freedom of
expression.  This has also been an issue, but we're seeing new challenges
come down on things like internet shutdowns, trying to take local or
regional concepts and apply them internationally, things have the right to
be forgotten in Europe and they try to apply globally.  Arrests of
journalists are on the rise.  There are numerous issues.  We are seeing
that governments have a duty to protect human rights.  They are creating
new problems and problematic trends.  So as a company that just kind of
raises more awareness for us and raises the importance of these issues for
us internally.  Sod work is becoming increasingly complex.  So I mentioned
we have a dedicated team.  Two people may not seem like a lot, but it is
more than some companies have and we try to kind of increase our capacity
by working with people across the company that we've identified as key
partners.  We call that our cross functional or virtual team.  So we've
done an inventory of the company and looked at what are the key issues for
our company and who is our partner in the company both in the legal side
and in the business side.  We have identified key people to work with us in
promoting these issues.  So we have trained them in human rights.  We've
trained them in the UDHR, the ICCPR, the UNin guiding principles on human
rights and, of course, we're spoiled in the ITC sector and we have sector
specific items.  So we talk a lot about these things internally and we
translate what the concepts mean for our counter parts that our company may
not be steepd in human rights law and talk about what that means for their
role, what should they be looking for.  We create processees for them to
flag issues up to us and to escalatey withs for a human rights review.  And
then we also sit in the global public policy team.  So, we work with our
government labbists around the world to try to promote laws or push back
against problematic laws.  So it is not just a focus on the company getting
it right, but promoting a bert working environment for our company and a
better online environment for our users. Our internal processees touch on a
variety of issues.  We've talked a little bit about the transparency
reporting and government requests, but we also look at new products.  If
Yahoo is creating a new product or we are modifying a product or launching
a product in a new market or in a new language, we consider what the human
rights implications of that might be.  We also look at merger and
acquisitions.  Typically when we purchase a company, that company would
become part of Yahoo and would operate under our policies, but we do look
at the company before it is integrated and determined where might be risks
and how we should address those.  On Tumbler, it is run as a separate
company, but we work very closely with their trust and safety staff and
their response team so that they are aware of some of the issues we're
thinking about through GNI and the broader business of space. So we work
through with them post acquisition, but since they're a separate company,
we have made a commitment to continuing our relationship with them and
advising them as well.  We look at things like data storage.  The list goes
on.  I won't give you the whole laundry list, but just to give you a sense
of all the different areas that we're looking at.  I think that I mentioned
this work is becoming increasingly complex.  This is not to say that having
a dedicated team like we do and developing these processees means that
you're going to get it right every time, but it really positions us, we
think, better to make good decisions as a company and to be considering the
right questions when we're making decisions.  So I advocate for this
approach for other companies as well.  Companies that are thinking about
how to approach human rights.  So in addition to our internal work, we work
externally with the network initiative.  Rebecca and her team have digital
rights and really appreciate the work that you're doing to promote good
practices.  Thank you.  And groups like access as well.  So the external
work I think is really important to us because we're able to take back what
we're hearing from groups that are operating on the ground or that are
working more directly with our users to hear what concerns are, what some
of the Americaing trends are to bring that back into the consideration and
vice-versa.  GNI is very useful for that because of the multi-stakeholder
component there.  I am out of time.  Sorry.

>> LUCA BELLI:  So I think we can close this second segment with Peter
Micek's reflection on what the society concerns with regard to human rights
and best practices and also what is access doing.  You know that access is
a very active organization and they're doing very amazing stuff.  Please
tell us what is going on.

>> Peter Micek:  Yes.  I want to take a section to recognize we're in a
room full of bodies and that there is an overwhelming interest in asserting
the role of human rights online.  I think this sort of convening is really
important to recognize because not all convenings look like this.  From the
conference in February to others, many spaces that do not reflect the
diversity of the Internet's users which is the diversity of the world.  So,
as far as convenings, yes.  Access Now has their own.  Rights com, many of
you have submitted to in March.  This is just not meant to be another place
to talk shop. It's meant to extend human rights and digital rights.  And
that is our mission to defend and extend the digital rights of users at
risk around the world.  I think we understand defending human rights.
Human rights defenders is someone we know and what do we know by stand?
For me, that means three things.  It is sending guidance to companies who
are doing their due diligence and who are working to comply with the U.N.
in guiding principles.  It is essentially educating companies on how
they're impacting their human and digital rights.  So we hear about this
hidden layer, these unknown names who are digging the tubes and having itch
with ising points and the ISPs and all these layers we do not know as
houseful names, but do impact us on a daily basis and don't necessarily
know that.  We're at the high level creating norms, prescriptive norms.
That's a problem that we've seen arising like mushrooms in a dark forest.
They're popping up around the world on almost every continent.  If they're
not occurring, they're threatened.  We encountered over 50 in 2016 alone.
These are just in time throttling.  It is not necessarily a new measure,
but it is scope and scale that's unprecedented and it is increasing.  So
how do we extend our norms of keeping the internet on and resilience and
openness over the people making the decisions to shut down networks?  Well,
we're starting at the top.  We're going straight to the U.N.  Advocate of
the human rights counsel.  I have some freedom of expression.  We're going
to the GSMA.  The world's biggest technology association and they issued a
wonderful statement on service restriction orders.  If there is someone
here, I would love to hear how it is being implemented. These are norms at
the international level that we heard Katie talk about the local versus the
global level as well.  There are global standards being imposed on local
cultural situations.  So, we're having difficulty at the local level and
that's the third place where we extend digital rights is through users.  It
is through our digital security help line.  We have a clinic set up in the
village and that's a physical manifestation of our work.  It is digital
security network where we feel complaints, concerns, questions and really
rapid response as scenarios from the users at risk around the world 24/7
basis.  We also hear from coalition members.  Many ever you in this room
and 100 plus ORG network are pledging to keep the Internet on. So we've got
this coalition, but again the local to the global.  The solutions are going
to happen locally.  What we will do is we can show you another
international companies is to enable those local partners to find those
solutions and make progress in a multi-stakeholder fashion.  We need DI.
We need all of us to go back home and not wait for the saviors to come.
You talk about your own company and CEOs.  We heard some people talking
about the silos that can be created within companies, but it is talking to
your Presidents and maybe new presidents and educating them a bit and
talking to regulators too.  I think the regulators are the intermediary and
the governments that should not be immune.  They should be very much
engaging in this discussion.  Where do they convene?  I don't know, but
somebody in the room does and they should be found.  And so yeah.  That's
extending norms.  One more talk about the challenges is the question. What
I heard IGF is a lot of challenges around local identity requirements.  SIM
card registration.  It is very local.  Where you get your SIM card?  Your
local shop.  It is national ID cards creating honey pots of data
unnecessarily against GSMA advice. Sale to law enforcement is another area
where companies are proactively creating capacity to survail users and
selling that for profit.  You want to talk about business cases, talk about
where the business operations teams of your companies are actually making
their own business case to law enforcement for unlawful surveillance or
unlawful restrictions on content.  That is occurring.  We have seen a
couple major cases even in the U.S. lately.  They are storing data much
longer for ordinary, purposes and creating a new, which is sell access to
that data of that new law enforcement.  It puts users directly at risk.  So
they're paying for their own surveillance because local police are paying
the company to access this.  There's a lot of work to be done.  I think
I'll leave it there.

>> LUCA BELLI:  We have a lot of work to go to here.  I would like the last
words from AMOS of what we will do, but very quickly so we can also have a
round of interventions from the floor.

>> AMOS:  Sure.  I think I laid out what our next steps are with regards to
the June 26th, June 27th report on the pressures of state regulations and
Telecos and related entities as well as the scope of the copper
responsibility.  I want to talk about one of the true lines for the
discussion, which is really tranpairencey.  It is in the necessarily on the
part of companies where there is a lot of transparency work needed around
reporting, but also around human rights.  How much weight they are given?
What influence they have on business decisions?  What methodologies they
use on legal obligations and the scope of responsibility?  Not just
companies, but also states.  I think states and this is in our report that
states is not just required that laws and regulations adopt and implement
it, but also they don't get in the way of transparency by other important
actorring. Finally, Connecting to careen's point on IEEE and ITF, those
organizations that are engaged in Internet Governance, meaningful public
access to the policies as well as to the decision making processees within
these organizations is very critical to actually seeing real human rights
reform. Finally, I want to touch base on the gentleman talking about
sustainable case.  This is where I emphasize that I don't speak on behalf
of the mandate or David.  This is not a fully formed idea, but there's a
strong business case.  We might want to go even further that's way case
come spring social and economic rights to the extinct that seas to the
Internet means seas to basic information about when the water and elect
rigsity is going to be shut down.  Access to information on the Internet
matches to whether you are able to transact money online.  This goes to the
very heart of whetherpeople are guaranteed the right water, the right to
housing, social welfare and trying the obligations are very important
covenants.  I would say they link up between the right of freedom of
expression and to this sweep ever social and economic rights.  It should
something is that we should go forward and expand on.

>> LUCA BELLI:  Patrick, Rebecca.  Yes?  Patrick, please.

>> Patrick:  Yeah.  I wanted to react on the filtering and blocking and
take down of internet contents because it may be of interest to you we have
done a comparative study in Europe ever filtering, blocking and take down.
It is available online and gives a description of the practices and
policies in 47 states on this issue.  Also comparative remarks small sis on
that and that can be quite important.  Also to reiterate what AMOS said.
It is crucial to look at social rights. I think there will be something on
Thursday on that.

>> LUCA BELLI:  Thanks for being fast.  Rebecca, I hope the comments will
be quite fast.

>> Rebecca:wanted to pick up on the gentleman that you were saying about
the business case.  We're seeing a number of particularly the European
Telcos and reporting on these issues in their sustainability reports
because this is sort of in many ways a broader sustainable issue.  And the
companies need to address.  There is also a very interesting development in
Europe with legal requirements for companies to report on what are called
non-financial issues.  Supply chain issues or conflict minerals and all for
companies in the IYCT-- ICT sectors.  Key disclosures on those factors.
You mentionedd global reporting initiative.  They're reporting indicators
on our issues are not very well developed.  So we should all encourage them
to update and I think many of the projects in the room have lots of
material they could draw upon.  But I think what's going to be quite
helpful for the companies is they figure out how to report on the issues
and we provide them on the framework and how to dig close in a meaning.
Way.  The good news is that companies are increasingly seeing this as part
of their business interest.  They're investors withind GNI and the reason
is they're increasingly concerned about the impact on the companies
performance long-term. They're there for not just -- for, you know, ethical
reasons, but also for business reasons.  So, this is increasingly a
business issue and an issue around risk and reputation and so on.  I think
that's a very good development.

>> LUCA BELLI:  Gentleman here.

>> Very fast.  We had very useful discussion, but the reality is -- we have
people in prison as we speak now because of a tweet.  A long list, but we
just name two.  Simply a tweet.  The other issue is governments are trying
to spend a lot of money to buy most sophisticated software to monitor
online citizens.  That's an issue of how to prevent western companies from
doing deals with our government. That is too important for us because
really we have examples, cases and there's no time to go through the cases.
Their issue is also very important.  I just want to see a discussion, maybe
not now, but another opportunity of how you can protect people who are
using the Internet to protect human rights. Is there a way we can give them
some protection to enhance their protection?  We are facing all kinds of
harassment including prison, torture, targeting of our income, everything.
We have published a lot of reports on this.  The community including the
united nation system, how can they protect online in our region and other
regions.  Thank you.

>> LUCA BELLI:  Thank you for bringing us to the reality on the ground.
Can we have a mic there?

>> Okay.  Global Voices.  I wanted to pick up a little bit.  Rebecca, you
talked about investors and I'm curious about the edge of where new start
ups and venture capital a lot of it in the west coast of the U.S.  Where
are groups like the going NI in terms of -- GNI in terms of trying to get
this kind of thinking to them?

>> LUCA BELLI:  One other comment here.

>> Edmond from internet Society Hong Kong.  ICANN and Iparticular F, we
have seen how it is displayed and who gets displayed for who.  It might be
interesting in looking at the digital rights and I'm not sure whether
that's included, but the transparencies.  In effect, that should call for
some concern on human rights impact.  The other thing, the other comment I
am to make is the internet shutdown.  Internet shut down, governments are
thinking about it ands next time it comes around, if you.  To stop a
protest, it might stop more than that.  You get into issues for life
dependencies and other issues.  So internet shut down is not as simple as
trying to shut down a popular protest or something.  So, it is those two
comments.

>> LUCA BELLI:  The other gentleman there.

>> Yeah.  Talking from the view of the common users, in my opinion, the
first easy task is teach the users about how internet is hurt them.
Normally the people think that the human right is only a violent act.  In
the comfort of our chairs for a nice keyboard, it is difficult to see the
potential damage.  The companies obviously must be ethical, but if not, the
users must be ready to prepare themselves.  Activists and government should
give a great government.  But in attention for a report to users, they can
stop the mistakes.  Nations should have defender users to help with those
problems. They will teach the users and the other users. Thanks.

>> LUCA BELLI:  Highlight the important of educating and empowering users.
The lady there and then the gentleman there.  We'll take just the last
three.  Very fast comments.  The gentleman there.

>> Yes.  My name is Paul.  I am with Tillia companies in Sweden.  As Peter
said here, there's a lot of work ongoing and we do not always succeed. Some
steps we have taken is in the area of transparency where we publish
statistics on number of requests, statistics on major events.  We have
published human rights impact investment that the BSR has conducted.  We
also transparent on direct access laws in our markets.  Whatwanted to say
is the discussion on investors it is mainly the investors that are
interested in the transpairencey work.  They're all superior companies that
are interested and have not yet started to publish transparency reports.

>> LUCA BELLI:  Thanks.

>> I wanted to get a comment from the panel on the announcement that was
made last night on the removal of terrorists, extreme content.  It might be
too late in the panel, but I think this is the most obvious human rights
impact announcement that we got there tech companies in a long time.  So it
raises many issues to criteria to redress.  It would be good to hear.

>> LUCA BELLI:  Now we are closing the panel.  On Friday, we had the
responsibility with regard to platform will be one of the key issues
debated.

>> We have to look after the role of state, national states in defending
human rights.  We have a defensive stance when regarding to states.  The
states may play an important role in defending human rights and legislation
that established guarantees to users and to the companies in countries.
So, part of our impression in Facebook is because we had established they
were not liable for third-party content.  They couldn't be sued for that.
So when we say this is -- that's because we have civil rights act on
internet and that's because we have some legislation of defense.  We are
fighting them in the country in Brazil to defend the good legislation
against the bad legislation.  I think we should do some best practices for
national states that want to defend human rights.  Two very quick comments.
One, freedom of expression should be taken as a broader perspective in
order to include access to information and to discuss diverse in terms of
things.  And second cultural identity. When an indigenous person has to
wear as a white man to appear on the Internet, we are finding a digital
side to a part of our population.  For us, it is so important and imagatic
this idea of -- emblematic of this idea.  We should consider the regards of
cultural identity and taking that as a freedom of expression issue.  Thank
you.

>> LUCA BELLI:  Final remark to conclude.

>> Thanks.  I agree that VC and private equities are shielded from a lot of
transparency requirements and public disclosures.  They do want to respect
human rights.  It is up to us to tell them how to do that and how to design
their platforms to be more transparent and open.  But yeah.  As far as
getting to those VCs, I think established Silicon Valley companies and
their leadership need to reach out or perhaps create their own equity pools
that are used to support retrospective companies.  The question on
shutdowns is very well taken.  Unfortunately, we have already passed that
third degree that lives are being lost due to government shutdowns.  Great
important neigh -- they found a woman who was pregnant was unage to contact
her doctor and lost her child.  That is one anecdote we have to assume is
repeated elsewhere.  So lives are being lost.  On all of us, every shut
down we see to digital rights, companies need to be transparent about the
orders they're receiving.  Your legal teams are under the privacy policy
teams.  Your business operations and development teams and your legal team
needs to push back against governments and talk more directly to regulators
in shutdowns.

>> Quickly in response to Brett's question.  The new practice that the
companies announced is that they're going to share information about
images, extremists images and create what's called a hash so they can
automatically detect these things.  My understanding is there would be a
human review before anything gets taken down.  My understanding is all they
haven't actually developed the system yet.  So there's an opportunity here,
I think, in a number of ways.  One is that we collectively need to push for
maximum transparency and accountability that the system is developed.
There needs to be some independent review of what images get into the
system and how the human review process is taking place.  Human review,
decision make be -- so I think there's an opportunity to work with the
companies and really push for maximum transpairencey.  I am sympathetic to
the fact that companies have been under enormous pressure to do something.
So given that they have done this, this is their response to the pressure.
Let's help them figure out how to do it in the most rights respecting,
responsible and accountable way possible.

>> Just a couple comments.  I see Ellery left, but I did want to respond to
her question about started ups and venture capitalists and how we can get
smaller companies thinking about this.  The user comes before anything else
and so we have invited start ups to come and talk with our company and
other GNaircraft companies about how they can think about implementing
human rights.  So when they're looking at an acquisition, they have good
practices from the outset before they reach a point that it becomes very
expensive and it might be later the company has developed in a negative
way.  On Brett's question, I want to say that Yahoo has not signed on to
that agreement.  We have policies prohibiting terrorist content on the
platforms and we work to try to address that very important issue.  But at
this stage, we haven't signed on.

>> Just a very quick final comment.  We have heard several concerns here
and I would like to add another one.  What would be the role of these terms
and service and these private contracts in the world of Internet of things
and smaller cities.  What about interactions between public and private
entities.  We have the use of private platforms to offer public service, et
cetera.  So there are a lot of interesting things.  I think the question
remains what do we do with this data and information we have here?  I guess
we have several ways beyond.  We haven't seen much litigation in Brazil
regarding terms of service.  But there are interesting initiatives arising.
We know there are some initiatives in Europe also.  Maybe that can be a way
we have a specific legislation that we didn't analyze in the first phase of
the project.  We have a possibility to look at how these terms interact
with local legislation and also the gaps that are existing.  The gaps still
exist when we talk about data progression, protection of -- data
protection, protection of freedom of expression.  That's my final comment.

>> So the mandates sends regular communications about violation of freedom
of expression.  One of the e merging areas is on legislation.  And
legislative proposals to issue our concerns and to give a human rights
analysis of these proposals that are published help immediately.  So the
extent you are aware of proposals and make sure they're more human rights
oriented, please come and see me.  I will be happy to speak with you.

>> LUCA BELLI:  Thank you for the feedback, comment, discussion.  We have
some copies of the report on terms of human rights here.  If you don't
manage to have a copy because they are limited in number, we will also
distribute them on platform responsibility on Friday.  You can download it
online.  We will share it on creative comments, licenses starting from next
week.  So if you want to have some copies, come here orderly.

>> Another announcement.  My colleague Alana has Spanish language materials
for anybody who is interested. WS14:  Asia and the Next Billion:
Challenges in Digital Inclusion Room 7

				     >> SATISH BABU:  So, ladies and
gentlemen, we'll be starting in a few seconds.  Apologies for the five-
minute delay so far.  So let's get started.  My name is Satish BABU.  I am
a volunteer which is part of the ICANN large community.  Welcome to this
workshop.  The outset I would like to very briefly go over the objectives
of this workshop and the format that we will be adopting.  We hope to be
having some more participants that we hope will be trickling in as we move
forward. This workshop is titled Asia and the next billion.  Challenges in
the digital inclusion.  Now, most of us here are not from the Asia Pacific
and some of us are.  Working from the islands, it is a full form alone.  We
are very much conscious of the fact that Asia Pacific is a very diverse
region.  It is a a geographically large poppual region.  And the population
of the Internet users who are presently -- the present count indicates.
This also means the next billion will join the Internet and will also be in
the majority from this region.  For instance, India has about 400 million
users, most likely over 400 million.  At about 30% or less.  So India
itself will do 90% and then you will talk about 1 billion from India
itself.  And combining with China, we certainly are going to be about 60%
of the next billion.  Now, that is where the route root of this workshop
arises from.  We would like to see some of the challenges as we go forward
to the inclusion of this new billion coming in, or the majority is from
Asia Pacific.  Now, the part in the diversity and this is, there are also
other challenges which things like the fact that these users who are coming
in now are poor people in the majority who are new to computers.  Their
mobile phone is the first computer they will ever use or they are using.
So there is this question of the new digital device.  The digital device is
all about access.  The new digital device is perhaps not good access
because everybody will have some kind of access.  It is one of the
meaningful and views of the Internet in doing whatever people want to do
with it.  This meaningful access is presently kind of condition by the
digital divides of say bank wet. Some people have privileged and others are
challenged, other computing devices or languages. There are things we will
talk about.  So these challenges is at the heart of this workshop.  Plus,
also some mitigating factors like a lot of views in the country and they
adopt this.  And education is coming up, the prices are Connectivity access
is dropping.  Some of the positives, perhaps.  So this workshop is to
discuss the challenges of these kinds in the context of Asia Pacific.  And
the format of this workshop, which I will be introducing right now is as
follows.  Ordinarily I was going to talk to us about the four categories,
14 that we are willing to fight.  This is a breakout group session.  We
have a limitation in terms of the number of groups that can be accommodated
here, but we have to live with that and see how we can organize ourselves.
We started an intetoronto, which is what I'm doing and then an introduction
to the topics.  Rinalia -- we will not be introducing anybody in person.
So Rinalia will be talking us to about the full categories of topics and
then we have a 30-minute breakout discussion followed by -- we will
identify chairs for the groups and they'll be making a presentation of the
summary of these discussions.  And that will be followed by about 25
minutes of open discussions. We will be calling up on a few people
specifically during these open discussions and the rest can be open to the
floor.  Finally closing, it will be three to four minutes and the total
time expected will be 90-minutes for the workshop. With that, we are kind
of slightly delayed.  So I will now request Rinalia to take over the
introduction of the teams.

>> Rinalia:  Thank you, Satish.  It is a pleasure to be here and to be with
you to discuss this very important topic for the Asia Pacific region.  I am
Rinalia Abdul Rahim and Satish has asked me to help him with the
discussions of the topic. I will start with the micro level of the
beginning.  There is 7.4 billion people in the world today and 46% have
access to the Internet.  The rest do not.  So more than half do not have
access to the internet at all.  The organizations that study Connectivity
at the global level profile the feel who don't typically have access who
are disconnected.  And these are people who are typically female, the
elderly, they are less educated, they belong in lower income groups and
they live in rural areas.  As we talked about next billion coming primarily
from the Asia Pacific region, I don't think it's likely that the profile
will be very much away from that which has been discussed and there may be
some additions.  I think by and large, it is generally on target.  In the
Asia Pacific region, there is is a lot of excitement and dynamism about it.
Whenever you travel, you can see networks being promeetd, cellular mobile
phones and young people are very eager to get connected and do social
media.  Satish mentioned that it is expected that the majority of the next
billion of new users will come from large countries in east Asia and south
Asia and we can expect that some of the new users will come from small
communities from island nations as well provided that networks are provided
as well.  There are still gaps and that's why we are here today to discuss
because I think that addressing those gaps will be helpful to supplement
the efforts underway.  I think there needs to be a lot more support for
community action to insure acutable inclusion.  The Asia Pacific region as
you know is extremely diverse and this presents a very special challenge in
enabling digital inclusion itself.  There is the diversity of terrain.
There is some very difficult ones ranging from deserts to mountains.  In
India, there is 22 languages with 200 dialects alone.  In other countries,
there are others probably not as many, but that's just an indication of
what the challenges are.  And there are also large rural populations that
make them very hard to reach.  And well are also special challenges of
reaching out to marginalized communities that have indigenous communities
as well as people with disabilities and problems of providing equal access
to education. There are social issues and gender issues. Paramount concern
where access is poor and inadequate infrastructure and this concern is
actually across the board in every country that I've encountered in the
region itself.  No matter the broadband or cellular networks.  People who
study Connectivity, they always zone in on the trinity that result in lack
of access.  Affordable, digital literacy and local content or services.
And they don't often talk about infrastructure in the same breath in terms
of these topics and I think it is really quite important because without
adequate infrastructure, none of the others would matter and you wouldn't
be able to reach anyone anyway.  So there are many elements to address to
support digital inclusion of the next billion.  With many tracks to address
the problem itself, policy coherent for impact becomes really, really
important.  I think that's one of the topics that the breakout groups will
discuss.  In addition to infrastructure and economic issues, which I think
will touch on affordability, and the other track is social issues,
technological issues and then the policy coherent that I talked about
before.  I won't take up too much of our time because we start a little bit
late anyway and I look forward to the discussion across the four themes
where the participants of this workshop will share experiences from your
own country from the region and then angle proposes strategies to propose
digital inclusion in the Asia Pacific region.  Thank you.

>> SATISH BABU:  Thank you very much, runnialia. We will now go to the
breakout discussion groups for 30, 35 minutes.  We have identified four
chairs who will guide the discussions and also some findings back in the
group here.  We have all the infrastructure and economics issues.  We have
Pen  Pen Hwa Ang who is here.  You have to decide where you want to sit
because we are -- yeah.  Maybe here. Group 1 is here.  Group 2 is social
issues. issues.  Anja? And policy issues, noel, are you here?  Are there
any volunteers for sharing the policy track? So please feel free to repeat.
We have the infrastructure and economics.  Pen Hwa Ang will be coordinating
that.  Participation issues and policy is going to be Rajesh and is going
to be somebody on that side.  Please break out and go into the groups. 35
minutes is the time that you have. (breakout groups for 35 minutes)

>> SATISH BABU:  We have five minutes more okay. Let us start with the
presentations of the group chairs.  We have four machines per group chair
for presentations -- four minutes for group chairs per presentation.  Any
remaining comments from group members can be raised at the open
discussions. Per so we move now to group A, the inpractice structure
economic issues.  Pen Hwa Ang.

>> Pen Hwa Ang:  This is a very small group because the -- may face was
there and also because the group issues will be resolved soon enough.
Currently the cause of falling there is however a gap between urban and
rural steel.  There is one of the issues that the core population would
face. Countries with physical difficulties and excess, mountaines areas of
the Pacific islands and some Ilasts would have issues with connectivity.
But the cost is falling and eventually, this problem will go away.  There
is some issue, however, with roaming and traveling.  If you have money to
travel, then it isn't an issue.  Well is moving from physical excess to
content excess meaning language and the kind of content that will be
available because of the language.  Finally we talked a little bit about
free basics and how what we call zero rating.  Some movement and different
countries and different responses, but a whole issue about Connectivity
costs are falling.  So on that note, that's my presentation.

>> SATISH BABU:  We now move to Anja for the social issues.

>> Anja Kovacs:  Thank you, Satish.  We have a fairly long list and we
immediately ended up putting on the table I think two very big issues that
aren't sufficiently addressed in these conversations in international
meetings.  The first one being education.  The fact that large sections of
our population still don't have education especially for lower classes.
We're talking about Georgeeral literacy.  The second was poverty.  It was
pointed out that in our region, there's a very high region. So there's a
small segment of extremely rich people and other areas of poor people.
They're out of reach because it is simply too expensive.  Education and
policy are two really big issues we continue to grapple with.  And then
further on to more nuance social barriers perhaps.  First of all, people
with disabilities are often still hidden away.  Their needs report
sufficiently addressed.  We don't see enough responsive design, et cetera,
not even in government websites or educational websites.  For many people,
feature phones are the omit ones that are affordable, but Smartphones and
especially the Android Eco system that actually has some accessibility
features built in.  So this really should be expanded.  There are many
issues around content also.  The fact that IDNs might not work at the top
level domain, but for example, e-mail is still often a lack of
interoperability and is this still a barrier.  There is so much content
that remains in English is not of local dialect.  We also talked about the
challenge of the big monopolies that actually in terms of the platform we
use to access the Internet, there is a narrowing down. It's not really
unlikely that in a way that also narrows the kind of content we seas.  So
we all use Google and Facebook and they buy up local start ups that are
developed.  We discussed the range of patree jackal issues that restrict
women in particular to access the internet.  We also talked about a fact
that sometimes even though our discourses around those issues might be well
intended, they might end up strengthening that.  For example, the way
online harassment and safety and that women themselves have to take, it
ends up being this what are you wearing.  Also enforcing in which women
become responsible for this behavior and socially are active online.  We
talked about the challenges of communicating the benefits of the Internet
to people who have never explored that Eco system themselves there is too
much focus on the tool rather than the impact.  On the other hand, there is
also a risk especially with certain populations to really emphasize
instrumental use of the Internet.  What we often see is true entertainment
and too exploring for joy.  People learn how it works.  And the two points
there is eye policy dimension to social barriers.  An example that was
given is what is the point of accessing the lateddest or buying the latest
designs.  For older users, they might find a way to plug in to make it
possible.  Those bans can be an exploration.  There was a geo spacial build
introduced as a draft that would make localization of apps almost
impossible. And for disabled communities in the country, that was a really
big issue.  Location based apps have been crucial to increasing independent
and how they are able to move around.  If the bill had a common act, that
would have been a real hung for them.  We also discuss the fact that there
have been so much emphasis on using technology to streamlike and harms of
digital exclusion which report taken into account for people who don't have
readily access to technology and who need to travel to actually be able to
then access those services or in remote populations, for example, in
Juaneta.  They have community remote and what would they suggest for them
to start using the Internet.  That would make sense to those communities
and local context.  Thank you to everybody in the group.

>> SATISH BABU:  We move now to the third group which is technology issues.
We have KS Park.

>> KS Park:  (low voice) all right.  Thanks to the presence of a gentleman
from Afghanistan.  We ended up using Afghanistan as a case study for your
discussion.  To state the conclusion first, there are several technologies
that are available that can relatively quickly Connect people in the rural
areas, which is the challenge for that country, but we need some policy
solution to push the networks into implementing those solutions.  So for
our mountaines areas, we realize that while is a better idea than building
things door to door.  Then we talked about using TTY space for which patent
has been already made available into a public domain, at least for long
haul connections.  And then you can build a smaller Wi-Fi area after making
the long haul connections to the TTY space.  And also universal access
service fund can be used to purchase or subsidize purchase of terminal
devices once the long haul connections are set up.  So that's -- we didn't
have time to talk about other technologies, but that was one customized
technological solution that we thought of for Afghanistan.  And then we
talked about how fee basics has actually been encrazed by the Afghanistan
government and has been popular among the people. But that itself can not
be a solution because Facebook not just a problem of fake news being
exchanged over Facebook, but because the general problem that we should not
depend on Facebook as the surrogate for the Internet.  And another problem
depending on zero rating to expand access is that even to implement zero
rating, you need to have a physical access.  We need to have, you know,
physical set ups.  That in itself is something that should be done before
we talk about zero rating.  So we talked about how to achieve that and of
course we talked about how the network providers are not -- although even
when they are in competition with one another, they don't compete to go
into rural areas where the profit margins do not testify the operating
cost.  So we try to make comparison to the federal -- the U.S. federal mail
system.  The postal service who are forced to go into rural areas to
deliver mail even losing money and we can talk about government mandate for
forcing networks to go into rural areas and back them up with subsidies in
case the operating cost are not justified by the revenues coming in.  So
again, going back to, you know, the conclusion that I stated earlier,
technologies are there.  It's just providing right incentives and policies
for the net workers to implement them.

>> SATISH BABU:  Thank you, KS.  We are moving to the last group.  Rajesh
made the policies and situations.

>> Rajesh:  We have the next billion challenges in what I feel.  Not me,
but my group member Arjun and Siena.  For the main reason of these
proliferation of the internet into any I will say undeveloped or in
developing countries is not another thing that has technical things and
they are there, but the policies are the main issue. Friendly policies are
not there.  I can see just now into this even that the interest of policy
towards policy is very low.  That's why we are discussing the policy.  And
that's the major issue that we are not so participated into the policy
discussion.  Few of the bureaucrats of every government makes the policy
into their own third forces and that feel is what we are thinking right for
that community. First of all, all those bureaucrats are not a technical
person.  They are the administrative person.  Soon the problem, technology
and the policy will go together.  Technology advances the fastest speed.  I
would like bullet train light speed and policy remains over there where the
policy has been drafted.  They don't want to spend more on the policy this
way.  They use the very basic of cut copy and paste policy.  The best
example in India is going on.  We are coming over the new licenses.  The
first page of the license is as per the things we have to legalize on the
Internet and expand the horizon of broadband, but then the second to last
page where the policies are coming, they are just taking the earlier policy
they drafted.  And that's the basic problem.  Secondly, they are --ure
governments announce we are the multi-stakeholder, but never when the
policies have been drafted the bottom approach or the bottom of the pyramid
approach has been taken.  You can see a definition which we use in every
speech of the multi-stakeholder and we take the bottom-up approach for
every policy.  For the very small, small thing, this blocking section 69C,
if I'm right, section 69 -- 69?  69A is very easily referred for blocking
off any website whether it is connected or not connected.  The same with
the John doe order. Anybody who is not Connected with that content or
taking a John Doe order and taking every ISP order into a task. What we in
the group decided is when we are talking that the internet is having no
boundaries, then at least the basic policy for all over the economies
should be the common.  Okay.  The defenses have four or five countries and
mail is the issue of not having the basic policy because they are thinking
otherwise.  But still some of the policies are there, which is friendly
toes user.  Should we adopt all the economies in the equal objective?  But
at the same time, every economy has got the difference of cultural and
social responsibility. They can think of that also while making the policy
for the users.  So the billion we are talking, next billion should come
from all over the world, not from the Asia Pacific.  Right now we're
talking the Asian Pacific.  These are the things the policy should be for
the users benefit.  This was also discussed.  And the multi-stakeholder
approach should be adopted and the government should there for the
government, not for the businessmen.  Salt sat thank you very much,ra jeer.
So we have heard from --ra jeer:  So we have heard from all the groups.
The first is from Napal.  We have an intervention and line level.

>> (inaudible) (low voice) it is around 28 nillion penetration rate.  It is
70.2% where we are struggling the concept of Internet Governance and multi-
stakeholder.  There is is a huge lack of capacity building and
communication of IG process not just in political leadership, but even in
ICT policymaker.  Multi-stakeholder where open is transparency lacks.  Open
standards are now visibly used for convenience of government where they
want to stake with regularity approach in the name of public policy.
Internet is cost here with no quality of service and control mechanism.
Monopoly rule with jam Telecom can make government get (inaudible)
monopoly.  4G has been introduced, but it seems nobody is interesting as
3G.  It is very expensive and struggling.  People first trade with politics
and systems and they're pouring their anger on social media where political
leaders are there and it is creating things in society.  We have to focus
and we don't have the other.  I'm sorry.

>> (low voice)

>> Yeah.  We don't have the next.  So I just cut it where we have to focus.
That's from Shreedeep from Nepal.

>> SATISH BABU:  Rajesh, would you like to paycheck a --

>> Rajesh:  I have things into my policy group discussion.  I feel that
especially in India Apart from the general electricity, computer and
electricity is very much required.  Another thing what we require for
bridging the digital divide between urban is the hand holding into the
rural area where the people who are generally electric, but we can meet
them computer electric by friendly -- introducing the friendly application
so they should be able to use the internet in a better way.  Government is
already doing a lot of things and investing into the entersection for 2,000
villages that are going it be connected through the optical fiber.  And at
the same time, they're trying to make affordable prices where they can use.
One very I will say -- I will not say successful, but one step has taken by
our government of the demonittization.  We have an economy cashless.  If
this cashless economy has been adopted by the rural people, then
automatically we will feel in penetration into our country will increase
the multi-folds because then all this cash test will be on t internet only.
Introduce this cash test.  This will be a great success and next year when
we will meet again in IGF, I can refer to you.

>> SATISH BABU:  We have Arjun for a three minute presentation.

>> Arjun:  I think what I want to cover here has already been said.  But
just being from a country, being from India which is represents a
significant chunk, I wanted to make a few quick observations. So in end
whether or not -- so in India, we have 81% of people who are mobile
subscribers and if you consider thislong with the fact that it is a strong
preference than fixed line connections.  It should be the case that way lot
of people are connected to the Internet.  The situation we see on the
ground is lifting.  We have people connected to the internet and who are
able to ride the benefits of the internet.  If you move to some of the
remote likes and if you move to some of the regions that are not close to
rural areas, Connectivity almost always drops off and it's very, very
difficult to use the Internet services in these areas.  That is also the
fact that we have a lot of languages and diversity in India in terms of
culture.  Localizing contained for easy consumption by people from these
teachings would be another fact to consider with inclusion. All of these
are points that are already list -Z in the session description.  So all of
these would glimpse at hart areas we need to be looking at. Social
education and back wardness and electricity is something that needs to be
looked at.  We do have certain initiatives that are trying to bridge this
gap.  It is actively trying to make more people literate in terms of
technology and how to use the internet and this needs to be carried on
with.  Then there is also a clear lack of coherence in terms of policy and
we do have some orders in policy that ask for the formualation for IP that
is very visibility empowered, which is knowledge economy.  We do have
certain policies coming from certain regulators which don't always go with
this vision and this causes a certain amount of discrepancies in terms of
how the policies are implemented across these sectors.  So looking at
creating consistency across the policies on inclusions would be a very good
place to be looking at as well.  So yeah.  I think that's -- thank you.

>> SATISH BABU:  Thank you very much.  And for the final three-minute
presentation I have gunella aft brink.

>> Gunela Astbrink:  I thought rather than talking about a number of
different disability issues in the Asia Pacific region I would give a
little bit of a report back from a session yesterday, the Internet society
leadership exchange. There were a lot of different conversations as in
breakout groups about many different topics and I facilitated one on
accessibility for people with disabilities.  And there was young people
that paged from Brazil, Canada, Kenya, Armenia and myself from Australia.
It covered most of the regions of the world except for Europe.  And really
there are so many common issues across developed and developing countries
when it comes to accessibility for people with disabilities.  So, we
already heard from Anja about education and the need for education to break
down cultural barriers, for example, with people with disabilities.  I
won't go into too much of that.  But we also need to think about education
from a number aspect.  And that is IT university and college courses that
really there are very few courses that cover anything about accessibility,
and developing accessible software and so forth.  So it makes developers
come out.  They really have not heard about where the accessibility and the
W3C with government content guidelines even though more and more governance
now stipulating that government should be access age.  So there's a real
mismatch there and something needs to occur there.  In Australia, we do
have an online course that has students is from across the world because it
is quite unique.  On a practical level, countries developing countries, for
example, might have telecenters.  And first telecenters would be in know
ideal place for people with disabilities.  But the buildings need to be
accessible.  If a person in a wheelchair can't get in, there's not much
point.  So it is a matter of thinking about steps, putting in ramps if
necessary.  Coming back to accessibility, it is often a fundamental for
accessing information for anyone for people with disabilities, of course.
And it goes beyond having guidelines, but looking at the actual
implementation and monitoring so that when websites that might initially be
accessible are updated, they're going to continue being accessible. So, an
interesting example is from BANAWATU.  I have done some research and as an
outcome of that, the government launched a right to information where
accessibility guidelines are totally based on W3C guidelines, but they have
relevant advice on planning for accessibility and they have developers in
the government consulting with stakeholders and actively encouraging
feedback and acting on their feedback.  The early days launched in
September, but it may help in a small country of BANAWATU.  And then
looking at another country in the region, Australia, where there has just
recently been a directtect adaption of European standard on accessibility
criteria in ICT public procurement. So that's how governments buy ICT
equipment.  And governments as we know are very, very large purchases of
ICT.  If they can influence the market, that will increase accessibility
and products overall.  So Australia has been the first country outside the
U.S. and Europe to adopt this and maybe countries like India can do that in
the future too. Yes.  Thank you.

>> SATISH BABU:  Thanks very much, gunella. Before I open up, we have
Sharon here.

>> I am from Egypt.  I wanted to passe message. I attended a similar
message in Africa.  The digital divide that we talk about here is acute
there as it is in Asia.  The digital divide is worse as a part. It is a
division.  They have the same problem as they do in Asia in terms of
education, skills, language, access.  Access is very important in coastal
devices, electricity and energy, applications and all these things.  They
are the same issues everywhere and the digital divide is splitting the
world big time between those that can and those that cannot.  I think the
solution has to be found for resolving this.  So I wanted to pass the
comment that it is very similar also in Africa. Thank you.

>> SATISH BABU:  Thanks.

>> Just a small comment.  I've been working in the field of ICT for
development since 1998 and when I look back during the years when we had
WISES 2003 to 2005 when we talked about digital divide, I'm surprised the
issues hospital really evolved.  We have new things coming up, zero rating
is something new.  We have IDNs that didn't exist before, but the
challenges are surprisingly similar and I personally am really shocked by
it.  And something definitely needs to be done.  Hopefully something
concrete can come out of this session, Satish. [Laughter]

>> SATISH BABU:  Thanks, Rinalia.

>> I wanted to respond to Rajesh's point about the demonittization move in
India and the attempt to shift society to a cashless economy.  I actually
personally find that exercise quite worrying and the reason is because of
the harms of digital exclusion that we were talking about earlier, right?
We ordered large parts of Indian rural economy function a lot on bartering.
If they don't function on bartering, they function on the basis of cash.
If the infrastructure is not in placing, if people don't have the resources
to access these devices, I think it is quite a dangerous argument to show
people what the government has done and basically force them to make a
shift that they are in no way ready for it.  It's clear that people will
have to kind of shape up even if I look -- I live in DELHI. I still do most
of my grocery shopping and they all shifted to online payment systems as
well because they had to.  I really don't think -- for them, this might
have been feasible.  For people in rural area, they might be forced to make
the shift and they might adapt.  In that process, there will be enormous
costs to be paid by them as well.  What are they doing in the mean time?
So I really think this is not the way to go about.  I am quite worried
about the long-term implications especially far more rural economies of
that exercise.  I am not saying it is negative by definition, but this
should have been planned differently and it is sad to see it didn't happen.

>> I am working with the digital foundation in India.  I would also like to
implicate on the policies which we have been talking about India policies
positive on a note side.  Also the right to list the question of what does
an implementation of such policies like the example which we have been
given.  National policies which is trying to Connect 2,000 villages.
However, they have been connected on this search.  67% of the devices are
not working or either not -- just hanging over in the name of the devices
that are there.  So effective implementation of such policies are yet to be
measured as well.  And what disclose that is happening in the British and
west (inaudible) has moved out as well.

>> SATISH BABU:  Thanks so much for that point. Leo please.

>> Leo:  In answers to concerns, well, I have a very bad prediction for
you.  The things will be worsening simply because governments become --
whether in the United States or croasia Pacific or there will be more
attempts like -- I would agree with Anja more attempts as Russian
communists once again to bring everyone into the future with the iron fist
-- they're bringing the next billion online and I think that the role of
local CCLDs as focal points or expertise and sound policy shaping is pretty
much under estimated.  I would say that that might be in the focus of our
attention at least -- I mean for years to come.  Especially when it comes
to small countries, they are probably the only ones who are not
participating enough and in the first week of general public interest.
Thank you.

>> SATISH BABU:  Thank you for that very dire prediction. [Laughter] So we
are out of time actually, we started 5 minutes late.  I have two minutes
before we close. Are there any final comments from anyone?

>> I do think -- I think we also set ourselves for failure because the
things we use aren't right. So like a lot of figures, they are about
connections even though they are quoted as being about individuals having
connections.  So the actual number of people who have a SIM card on
multiple ones is already much lower.  I think that's a challenge that
governments especially in the developing part of Asia Pacific, everybody
wants to beast about the number of people that have access the kind of
Connectivity they have.  The next billion is not having the same Internet
access as we have.  And if they have full easy is on a smart phone, I think
then we can already be happy.  In India, the most reliable counts of
regular internet user is somebody who has access at least once in the past
month.  That's a very, very minimum metric, right?  And I think that's
another thing.  It doesn't come out in the conversations, but actually when
we are talking about the people that have growing access, it is a
completely different type of access and we need to be more ambitious.  To
do that, we have to be honest.  Rinalia has pointed out, we haven't been
doing enough even if we are doing our best.

>> SATISH BABU:  Thank you, Anja.  With that -- one last comment.  Can you
come over here?

>> from Hong Kong University.  I'm a researcher in Internet Governance.  I
remember recently there's a woman in terms of Internet governance.  It is a
constitution.  People talk about how come we make all these discussions,
policy fighting.  So therefore at the United States, you hear nations and
announce this kind of internet rise and the principles.  So, what we're
talking about and making the discussions come legally into the national law
of even the united nations charter.  Do you think this is a way to move
forward or just in Facebook in a non-term so this man (inaudible)
questions.  Thank you.  Thank you very much.  It is really late for us.  I
would like to thank all the participants and all the speakers about
physically present here and remote for having organized this session.  The
report will be up on the IGF site shortly.  Thanks again. Copyright © 2016
Show/Hide Header