You are connected to event: CFI-RPC8

Internet Governance Forum 2016 Enabling inclusive and sustainable growth
Jalisco, Mexico 6 December 2016 DC On Core Internet Values

>> MODERATOR: Good morning, everybody, and welcome to this workshop on the
core Internet values. I gather you've all had to battle with traffic this
morning. It is a big city. I'm glad to see that most of our guests have
made it yet. We're still waiting for one. I would like to introduce you to
the chief Internet evangelist for Google. We have Mr. boughtman, the chair
of the coalition on Internet of things. Meeting in 45 minutes just across
the lobby. And you'll have to leave as well. Time sharing, that's fine.
We're glad you're here. We have Lee spur from the European
telecommunication network operator. The director general, a good term, of
that organization. And PIR board member as well. And PTI board member also.
A lot of acronyms already. PRI, public Internet registry. The name changes.
It's another one. Okay. And we'll be hopefully having another person
joining us as well. The agenda is divided into two parts. The first part
will be discussing the issues paper that has been published on the Internet
Governance Forum website and the second part will be our internal issues.
Anne Frank Lynn has also made it into the room. If you can take a seat.
We'll see. And the second part will be the internal issues of the dynamic
coalition. Without any further adieu the first thing is to adopt the
amendments. Any additions anybody wishes to make to the agenda? No? Okay.
The agenda is adopted as presented and we can -- first thing I wanted to
thank the mag for having provided the dynamic coalitions with their own
space at the IGF and also a session taking place later on this week with
all the dynamic coalitions meeting in the main room and presenting their
work and there will be an opportunity for feedback on the work and for
discussion. We have the moderator in the room who will be moderating that
main session. All eyes will be on you at that point. Let's move on quickly
and let's have a look at the paper itself. I'm not quite sure who is able
to beam this. Hopefully that link will work. Technology is always a
challenge. We have a paper that has been published on the IGF website.
Maybe I can try and -- I was going to take you briefly through the
different component parts of the core values. So really, this dynamic
coalition is looking at the Internet core values which are the more
technical values as opposed to the Dynamic Coalition on Internet rights and
principles looking at the societal aspects of the Internet. There is a
paper you can access from the main IGF website under dynamic coalitions and
the 2016 and the one on core Internet values is -- are you able to beam
this or not? If you're not, you can go directly on the website and that's
fine. The paper is structured on this occasion. Welcome Alejandro, welcome
to make it here. The paper is structured on the previous papers that we
have published in the past that looked at a specific set of core Internet
values. On this occasion we looked at the past 12 months and found out if
there had been any changes in the -- the evolution in the past 12 months.
The first value that we were looking at was that the Internet is a global
medium open to all regardless of geography or nationality. And what we have
seen in the past year is there has been a significant rise in the Internet
being blocked or restribted due to local conflicts, governments are seeing
the Internet as a threat. Many governments are seeing the Internet as a
threat and as soon as there is turmoil, military COUPS, elections or so on.
The next value is the Internet should not be interruptable. We've seen
gains and challenges. We've seen IPB6 growing and being implemented in more
places but there has also been the new HDML5 standard that has been rolled
out and that has required some plug-ins for some browsers. The main
challenge has been the expansion of applications, apps on the net, which
has made it more into walled gardens that aren't the Internet but your own
app and your own world. You have also seen there has been recent
discussions regarding the social networking sites where people preach to
their own world or put themselves in their own parallel worlds and so on.
Interoperability on a technical level still remains something that is
working and in the past 12 months there hasn't been any significant change
to this core value. On the IOT Internet of things site, we have seen that
there is a strong need or there appears to be a strong need for
identification on this. That was the sign-up sheet. I've already signed up.
I'm here. And on the positive side, yes, as we said, the IPB6 has actually
made it more reliable because in the early days it was very loosely meshed
and there were some network black-outs in some parts of the world. The
Internet should remain open as a network of networks. Any service
application or type of data, video, audio, text, etc.  is allowed on the
Internet and the core architecture is based on open standards. There has
been a shift in some cases where open standards have not been adhered to
and we have seen some proper pry tore or heavily regulated part of the
Internet with specific standards being put on there. In the paper we do
speak about some countries where we have some specific concerns.
Decentralized. It is free of any centralized control and, of course, we're
looking at the DNS that is all distributed around the world. 13 root
servers. That is still running very well. And although we have seen all
sorts of denial of service attacks, I'm not aware of any attacks on the DNS
servers that has brought the Internet down. Wait for the second part of the
sentence. That has brought the Internet down. There are attacks all the
time and I can see you are looking at me thinking cybersecurity, no
attacks, what are you talking about? And then the end-to-end principle,
which is one big principle that we've had with application-specific
features residing in the communicating and nodes of the network rather than
the interimmediate year notes such as gate ways that exist to establish the
network. We've spoken about IPB6 connectivity. Before that there was a rise
in carrier grade network addressed translation, CG net that broke the end-
to-end principle. But as we're seeing now, IPB6 rising now and to some
extent -- speaking about the UK. It's being seen as an alternative that
might not be no longer viable due to costs and scalability issues. We might
be going back on the correct track for tend to end part of the net. Users
maintain full control over the type of application and service they want to
share and access. I think that's pretty straight forward. Not much going on
here apart from traffic filtering that you do see in some parts of the
world. And an increased amount of traffic filtering especially for
terrorist sites and criminal websites, etc. Robust and reliable. The
robustness of the Internet is legendary. It was designed to be robust and
it has remained robust. I don't know if -- hopefully it will remain.
Despite everything and the exponential rise in cybersecurity attacks that
we see around the world. I was on a panel I think it was in Geneva and the
rise of attacks is quite surprising. These are the core values that we have
here. At the bottom of our paper, the last paragraph, we mention one thing,
finally there has been a sustained increase -- to launch attacks to impact
on the Internet negatively. You might have heard of the denial of service
attacks that have been performed recently on the DYN and it was not an
issue in the early days of the Internet development, at least I will
probably ask about this but it probably wasn't foreseen you would have
these massive attacks especially with the Internet of things. Times have
changed and the question really that is being put here to the floor to our
panelists and everyone, should there be a new core value that should drive
efforts at standardization and protocol development. I think that's enough
for me speaking. I can turn the floor over to vinton.

>> MODERATOR: Does that work? Apparently it does. I'll argue for a core
value that I'll call freedom from harm. You could also call it safety, I
suppose. And I know -- I want to note ahead of time that Alex will
challenge me on this. Let me start out by observing that when the Internet
was being designed and when it was used in the early stages before
commercialization, most of the people who were using it were geeks who
really didn't have any interest in attacking anyone. They just wanted the
network to work. They wanted to use it to carry out their research. And so
this notion of safety wasn't really very visible at all. But in the ensuing
commercialization and spread of the Internet, particularly to the general
public, it has become a less safe place than it was before. And although
you might say well, shouldn't this be off into the social and behavioral
part of the debate, there are technical issues associated with achieving a
safe Internet and I argue that we should be attentive to that. I'm going to
mention a few hazards that are intended only to demonstrate that there is a
lot of technical challenge here. Malware floats around in the network and
causes a lot of trouble. Detecting it and eliminating it is a technical
challenge. Updates to software, particularly devices like the Internet of
things, which will be discussed in the session later today, making sure
those updates come from a valid source, is also an extremely important
issue. Just general resistance to hacking is important. And to come back to
denyal of service attacks, the most recent attack on the system was
launched by a way of a number of webcams, half a million of them and they
were unresistant to anything. They had pass words to get control over them.
These were known and the hackers made use of that to create a significant
bot net capable -- if you have a half million of those you're talking about
a 500 gigabyte per second attack against the target. Of course, the people
who designed those devices didn't have any idea that they would be abused
in that way. They weren't thinking about that. And that's why we have to
say it's important to think about that. Malfunctioning in general is
another big issue. Software that has bugs, or that didn't take any account
all possible operating situations, could, in fact, be quite hazardous. This
is especially true as we move this Internet of things environment.
Malfunctioning software that manages the stock trading systems, or that
handle your financial services, or for that matter medical analysis.
Misdiagnosis, misreadings and misinterpretation of medical information is
also very hazardous. Identity theft. You can complete the list. I don't
have to take more time on that. I would like to argue that we should have a
principle that should drive the technical community towards addressing
safety as part of its architectural and implementation thinking. And Mr.
Chairman, I don't know how you want to manage this, but having had a
forewarning of Alejandro's attitude about this, I would like to invite him
to respond immediately if this is all right with you. Because the points
that Alejandro, I believe, will make, are quite important to see how this
principle could be abused. So Alejandro, over to you.

>> If you're ready, go ahead. Alejandro.

>> Thank you, chair, I'm ready as well to follow the order you had
announced. Okay, so I will -- Alejandro is speaking. I will give you the
bullet points and then maybe we'll have more of a discussion. I have taken
part in the online discussions of the Dynamic Coalition on Internet values
and also have some face-to-face conversations with Vince, which I very much
appreciate for your patience and tolerance. So the points are as follows,
my points. First, freedom from harm is traditionally one of the most basic
core functions of the State. The social contract. I'm speaking outside my
field because I'm not a political scientist. The social contract at least
since we know of its history has been the bargain between citizens and
state where citizens relinquish something like liberty, money, mobility in
exchange from being protected from harm by the state. So translating this
to Internet scale, without invoking the state overly, without actually
bringing in the state the way that will be damaging is a challenge for this
idea. Let me say I'm not opposing the idea. I'm throwing challenges at it
so that we can have a good landing if it is correct to proceed. Second the
safety and harm and freedom from harm even varies very much culturally and
within each country and certainly from one country to another. Individual
or collective safety and so forth. Third, I see very serious implementation
issues which one would have to work out. I think you have an idea about
them. One thing is to get freedom from harm or safety as one more thing in
the checklist of RFCs and ITF have to fulfill so you have security
considerations. Privacy considerations and now freedom from harm
considerations. And that is only the ITF and as we know Internet of things
and these devices that you mentioned have also very strong other components
that are managed by the radio, spectrum management organizations, GSMA and
so forth who would have to adopt the values. And the loss of regulation and
certifications. One of the options in the U.S. model, to have the UL, the
underwriters laboratories to have a private laboratory that certifies that
things fulfill the standards. How do you take that outside a single
country? Number five is scaling beyond borders. Size, countries, what
happens if you have sdil yons of devices that are made in con country that
doesn't comply at all with this. Even in the country that actually builds a
wall. And number six, big question is there an Internet way to do this?
Domain name system gives us a good example. It was originally a centralized
numbering and naming resource with a minimal centralization but very
tempting for state anchors. They relinquished their function and can the
Internet community build something by itself that fulfills these functions?

>> Before we ask for your responses, let's go to our next speaker.

>> Technical depth isn't as deep. I come from a different point of view,
that's the organization. How do you organize society in a way that supports
a safer -- an Internet with values? And in that what we find is that some
kind of transparency is key. So maybe it could be a core Internet value as
well to ensure this transparency which helps people to understand what's
going on, which helps to understand that yes, the Internet is not as secure
as we would wish but if everybody would live up to best practice, it would
be a lot safer than it is today. And it would also help to make those
organizations that would things to the Internet to a certain level of
responsibility in securing the systems beforehand to at least an adequate
level. So that will be my main point. Obviously the accountability, it is
clear that people who can take responsibility are also seen to take that
and last but not least, this is the stakeholder environment, it would be
great if there is always choice. So even if let's say -- take Google doing
a very responsible job but it would be good that there is choice that keeps
Google sharp, that keeps the big players sharp, that there is always an
alternative combined with transparency and accountability I think we're in
for a great ride with some great motors in change and innovation with the
perspective that, yeah, the best possible perspective of the Internet
values.

>> OLIVIER MJ CREPIN-LEBLOND: Thank you, Martin. Lee.

>> Actually, I'm very much in line with Alejandro in that I believe that
it's quite important to keep the principles -- no one can actually argue
against freedom from harm, but if you get into the cybersecurity, if you
get into the security business, you actually risk end up having standards
or maybe creating more of these wall gardens that we also heard Olivia
talking about. Interoperability is key. If we move into getting more
standardized here, we might create even less -- for me it's a matter of
we're seeing attacks, we're seeing things that are not good. But we should
also be aware that there is work being done now to actually prevent this.
To create systems that will not allow these attacks. And I think -- I know
the domain name business is doing a great job and the Telcos are stepping
into this work as we speak. I think having this openness on this issue is
good and not that having a principle is bad, but it opens up for issues
that I really support what Alejandro is saying, what is the definition of
harm? What is the definition of spam? We were here some years ago talking
about the often issues they should step into and look into and I think it's
dangerous -- it's a dangerous area. Thank you.

>> OLIVIER MJ CREPIN-LEBLOND: Thank you. Before we come back to vicinity we
have Marin Franklin in the room the past chair of the Internet rights
coalition. I wanted her to come down and give us a few of her views on
this.

>> Thanks for having me. I think it's a fascinating idea. What we're
talking about here is actually a societal, political issue. It's not a
technical issue. It has technical manifestations and so I take the point.
It has new challenges. So in light of the actual interaction between these
two dynamic coalitions which were once merged to form the Internet rights
and principles coalition. The need to have an Internet values coalition is
clear to implement the technical side of a rights-based understanding of
Internet design, axis and use. That's the basis in which I'm working. So we
have here a desire to address some very pressing social and political
issues. And the trouble is, if we think about it in a purely technical way,
we are misunderstanding the embeddedness of these technologies in the
society. The innovations that have developed over generations that comprise
the Internet we know today. The innovations ahead of us with the Internet
of things. Every designed decision is a social decision, a political
decision. The point about standardization is actually a political choice to
which you put technology to work. The trouble with turning that around and
saying we can come up with a technical solution to what is a societal issue
is to overestimate -- is to overestimate the power of the technical fix-it
in itself and then we run down a road where rights -- where we have a
DIVERGENCE. We can't talk about this issue as a purely technical one is
basically my point. Seeing as many of the values that are part of this
coalition are enshrined in the charter of human rights and principles for
the Internet. Net neutrality. Given freedom from harm is -- where is the
accountability the standard makers and designers? Who are they accountable
to? Who can some con go to for legal remedy? It can't be understood as a
parallel path to the complex issues we're talking about. The rights-based
futures for Internet, design, access and use but I would like to see this
conversation continue within the human rights and principles domain because
I think technologists have some important ideas and you are also a social
being, vin, you have your values, background and emotions. So we can't
separate these two. I'm concerned the technical fix on the table as if it
can be done technically. Thank you.

>> OLIVIER MJ CREPIN-LEBLOND: Thanks very much. Martin has to start sharing
so we'll see you after this. Vin, back tou, you've seen a lot of very
different views now. Seems like there is a lot that you have to say.

>> First of all, I think you should not allow technologists to escape
responsibility for the quality of work they do. The bulk of what happens in
an Internet is a consequence of software. Software is the reason that there
are these risks but the software doesn't work right, malformed, attacked
and so on. Of course you can't solve all of the safety problems by using
technical means. But you cannot and should not argue that you should
therefore ignore technical opportunities to make the system safer. And I
will resist strongly any argument in this forum that says that we should
have nothing to do with freedom from harm or safety on the technical side.
I've said many times, and I will say one more time, there are only three
ways to deal with these problems. One way is to use technical means to
inhibit the harm. It doesn't always work. But sometimes it does. If you
can't do that, then the next thing you do is to detect that there is harm.
And try to do something about it. In the legal world, that's detecting that
a crime has occurred and try to prosecute the party responsible. The third
mechanism is just plain moral percent waition. Don't right bad code because
it's wrong. If there is peer pressure on the programmers to do the best
they can to protect the people who use their software and the equipment
that's animated by it. So I hope that this group will not reject the idea
that we have a technical responsibility to protect against harm even though
there are broader societal tools that are needed in order to protect people
who have been harmed by using the Internet.

>> OLIVIER MJ CREPIN-LEBLOND: Thanks very much. I see quite a few hands. I
would say Marianne needs to run. I'll open the floor after a response from
her and our panelists will continue. Marianne Franklin.

>> Point is taken. By no means to deny the concern here. Not at all. My
plea is that we have this discussion where it is more than a purely
technical discussion. It has to be a legal discussion, a cultural
discussion. Harm as we know can mean certain things when we get into
different cultures. This is not -- please do not misunderstand me. Not to
say reject this conversation out of hand and bring it into other forums so
it is not defined only by technical criteria. Your whole point is not just
a technical issue.

>> OLIVIER MJ CREPIN-LEBLOND: Let's go to the floor for a couple of people.
First Matthew, you have been putting your hand up since half an hour ago.
You have the floor.

>> Matthew sheers with CDT. Thanks. I would actually like to support vin on
this issue with a slight twist. I actually think the interesting -- I
haven't been participating in this dynamic coalition, I apologize for that.
It is fascinating. I'm looking at these core values. The expectation of
freedom from harm, I'm not quite sure that quite captures it. What I would
prefer to see is cause no harm. Not an expectation but a directive, if you
will. And that should be applied to each of the core values. Many of the
issues that vin is raising are captured in the user-centric core value.
That could be expanded to include more of the concerns. What we should be
expecting here is not all of the stakeholders, technical community and
others should not be causing harm to any of these core values. That's a
different way of looking at this, putting a slight twist on it. That way it
can be incorporated and puts more of an action orientation on the core
values as a whole. Thanks.

>> OLIVIER MJ CREPIN-LEBLOND: Tatiana.

>> Thanks a lot. I don't find myself frequently disagreeing with Matthew
but I think I will take a further twist in it. I do believe strongly that
these problems should be solved on the technical side. As a lawyer I'm
wondering when they are talking about responsibility and talking about
accountability of the technical community, creation of the core values and
belief in them is very good. But the problem is that who is going to
enforce these? If I think about like, you know, historically enforcing
different values, core values, whatever, if we want technical community to
create safe software like write safe codes, there were lots of discussions,
for example, about consumer choice. There was a big belief consumers will
choose safer products. It didn't happen. Consumers will choose fancy
products or cheaper products or services. Regulation I would have been
strongly against this. So while I very much believe that it is
responsibility of the technical community, governments and regulators, they
just have no instruments to enforce this. They have no instruments to
control this. But on the other hand if we're talking about responsibility
of the technical community, how to enforce this responsibility. What kind
of mechanisms of self-enforcement there could be? What kind of pressure
there could be. I'm getting lost because I see the core value but I don't
see the real way forward. I would like them to elaborate on this. I'm
interested in this. As a lawyer I don't believe in regulation anymore but I
don't see the mechanisms.

>> OLIVIER MJ CREPIN-LEBLOND: Thank you.

>> I will have to leave in a moment as well to go to the IOT meeting. Let
me try to offer some examples of means by which this problem has been
addressed in other contexts. In the United States, electrical appliances
are checked by something called the underwriters laboratory. They are --
they try very hard not to be influenced by the people who make the
products. They don't take any payments from the people whose products they
evaluate. There is a new kind of underwriters laboratory under development
by a former programmer and Google employee. We can call it a cyber
underwriter's laboratory but use it as a phrase to convey what it does. I'm
not trying to capture or abuse the trademark. But his idea is to evaluate
software that goes with products. Increasingly all products have some
software in there and he has ought madeed the process of analysis. It is a
well-known theoretical truth that no program can figure out whether another
program is not functional, but you can detect some forms of malformation or
possibly malware. So that's a voluntary thing. The people who make the
products can choose to have their products evaluated. I don't recall, maybe
someone else knows whether the underwriter's laboratory is free to evaluate
any product it wants to. I think it is but I'm not absolutely certain. But
we could use that kind of mechanism not to enforce necessarily, but to
entice. And if you are looking for outcomes that differ from the ones you
don't like, the best thing to do is to look for the incentives that drive
the behavior you don't like and figure out if you can change the incentives
to change the behavior. So what I hope is that we will find ways to
persuade the manufacturers of software-bearing products to attend to safety
in their own best interest. So I'll stop there since I have to run away
anyhow. But I thank you very much for letting me participate this morning.

>> OLIVIER MJ CREPIN-LEBLOND: Thanks very much, vin. I think I detected.
Are you suggesting a trust mark?

>> That's what the underwriters laboratory says. We evaluated the product
and we -- here are the results of our tests. We rank ordered them. It is
like the Tesla car that was testing. It broke the testing equipment it was
so strong. But the users get to decide. There is no legal enforcement
there. Maybe that's as close as we can get.

>> OLIVIER MJ CREPIN-LEBLOND: Thanks very much. I understand you have to
run. Alejandro, just before you

>> I think we need to adopt a discussion of this proposal as a work program
and collaborating with other groups, investigating what is already done in
the UL case, what are more global or scalable issues with the boundary
condition that we'll look at all Internet proper multi-stakeholder
solutions as opposed to multi-lateral, which are very tempting.

>> OLIVIER MJ CREPIN-LEBLOND: Thanks very much, Alejandro. Thank you for
joining us, VIN. Did you have any comments on the different points of view
that have been now given around the table?

>> Actually I like the idea of saying don't write bad code. But for me it's
actually the thing of having -- driving the effort towards standardization
that I'm more concerned about. Because that's always a difficult thing and
it is always opening up for making standards that would actually create a
less open Internet. And that's my concern. I think it's a balance between
having safety and still keeping the Internet open and interoperable.

>> OLIVIER MJ CREPIN-LEBLOND: Thanks very much, LIZA for this. I'll come to
you, John, in a second. Who is participating remotely. He has a note. I
would also ask do we have anybody else? No other questions at the moment.
The point is we don't have to start this discussion from the base of
national laws in different countries, the base from where the discussion on
device safety and standards need to be the Internet architecture and
Internet standards. Internet dealt with national law. Safety standards for
devices could be evolved. As the standards evolve we could examine how the
new standards interfere with international laws. That's another angle that
makes it a bit wider. John CLENSON.

>> Thank you, Olivier, I have not been participating in this coalition but
asked to sit in today. I would like to pick up the point that you just read
out a little bit. First of all, it is not reasonable to talk about
standards or not standards. We're already neck deep in standards. If we
didn't have them and they weren't complied with most of the time, there
would be no functioning Internet. That's a very strong statement but it is
also true. I listened to some of the earlier comments and wondered whether
we should just stop development and turn things over to a more public and
legal process. And I don't think people would like the outcome of that. But
I'm not completely positive. In the international standards organization
community and most of its member bodies, distinctions are made between what
are variously called technical standards and safety standards. And the
difference is that in the iso community, standards are voluntary. The
safety standards are different. Safety standards typically get embodied-in-
law somewhere and compliance is not optional. UL can perfectly well certify
or not certify. The question of whether an uncertified product can be sold
is a matter of national law. So if the question is could we write a
technical standard which says thou shalt not write bad code. We tried it
and it hasn't worked very well. Although the social sanctions in the
community for developing bad code have seriously been deteriorated. There
is a case to be made that a lot of the thinking at some points of the
network at some of the code being written was the wrong people die
mentality. That tends to focus the attention. Today we're seeing in a lot
of areas, a lot more stuff which is being pushed out because it is
interesting and exciting and experimental and users will debug it on a
social basis. That's a different kind of approach to things. So this is a
third view between, I think, between the cut Alex is taking and the one
VINT did. I think we need to be careful, but on the other hand saying this
is really a social problem that needs to be dealt with in social and legal
realms is not only probably impractical but has the interesting property of
ignoring a century or two of history in international standardization and
the difference between voluntary standards and laws and the difference
between safety standards and other kinds of things like that and we
probably should look at that stuff carefully rather than try to reinvent it
or pretending it isn't there.

>> OLIVIER MJ CREPIN-LEBLOND: Thank you, John. I do have a question for
you, actually. Would a trust mark like what v*int was talking about the
possible voluntary trust mark be a possible avenue? Users, consumers, don't
have an idea if what they are purchasing has good or bad code?

>> Certainly if you decide to set yourself up as the Internet trust mark
association and start handing out trust marks, nobody could stop you.
Whether they would pay any attention or not is another issue. As many of
you have probably noticed if you look at the decorative junk around the
edge of webpages we already have a number of trust marks. And how much
value they have until and unless somebody decides to embody requirements to
those marks into law, my personal guess bad idea at this stage. But their
value depends on a one by one customer assessment of whether or not that
particular mark is of any use whatsoever or is something that somebody paid
a few dollars for to get a gold stamp on their website which is utterly
meaningless. We've seen both. Now, VINT is talking a different area than
where those things have occurred in terms of website safety and things of
that nature. At least I think he is. But the answer to your question is
we've already seen that and the nature of the network is if somebody wants
to set themselves up as a certifyer, their big problem is not setting
themselves up but to get anybody to take them seriously.

>> OLIVIER MJ CREPIN-LEBLOND: Thank you, John. Tatiana and then Marianne
Franklin.

>> I'm sorry for legal intervention in technical discussions, but a few
points. First of all, I'm very grateful to the person who pointed out that
the safety notion might contradict to the openness of the Internet. And
point to de-centralization. Any trusted trademarks, anybody who will be
evaluating these will create a certain kind of centralization. While we're
talking about technical de-centralization. This will create another central
layer. Whether it contradicts to your core value, first of all. Secondly, I
don't believe that this is going to happen. For one simple reason.
Regulation, legal processes, compliance, I know many people will talk --
not here in this room about cars, about electricity certification, fine.
But when it comes to the Internet, there are infrastructure layers,
services layers, application development layers, you have a myriad of
players. And here de-centralization comes in. In terms of how complicated
this in with legal regulation, we cannot control even simple things like
crime, like digital investigation, like prosecution. There are tough things
which the government is responsible for. There are some new security
obligations which everyone is saying will not be enforceable by governments
and some bodies. When I think about these compliance process with standards
in the de-centralized environment I see two things. It will be under no
control and will be artificial. We say we have standards but what do we do
with those not following them? We're saying oh my god, you are bad, we
don't like you. Okay, you don't have to like me. I'll still develop my
project. The second scenario will be we have a one stop shop that will
delay any development. Any things going to the market. It will be a
bottleneck for innovation. I'm sorry for using buzz words but still
innovation would be harmed in my opinion and then, you know, any one stop
shop creates room for abuse. It's a power. Who will they be accountable to?
Who is like watching the watchers? So sorry, a bit of law intervention but
I have more questions than answers.

>> OLIVIER MJ CREPIN-LEBLOND: Thank you, just a quick response from John?
No, okay. Juan Fernandez.

>> I'm sorry I have not participated in this coalition on a regular basis.
This particular issue of the safety of the software and devices that are
connected to the Internet. I think that all the answers that I have heard
have value in itself because I think there is not one unique solution to
all this problem. Because not only from the problems of the safety measures
itself, but also from the potential harm. I am thinking about medical
devices and medical software. Now that artificial intelligence is even
being used for diagnosis, it is a line of work in my country is being
developed very intensively and so the government has a high degree of
regulation of this kind of software along the lines of medical equipment
itself. You know, medical equipment passes very stringent regulations. I
put this example. It is not the same to regulate these kind of devices like
software games. Maybe software games have to be regulated from another
dimension. Ethical of the contents. But it is not the same. So I think that
this have to be a multi-layered approached and I also believe that industry
have to have strong self-regulation measures. It is in the own interest of
industry as she said in order not to delay the roll-out of products. To
create a system of self-regulation that increases the trust of the user in
this. So I think that everything can be done simultaneously. The trade
stamps of safety is very useful because it creates from the end user, the
concept of buy-in or purchasing things that have already that certificate
in a way. But while I say that, it cannot be an over arching system, and
also that the responsibilities are different. Some government really have
to have some responsibility in some of them that relate to public safety.
For instance, in some countries now they are thinking even to privatize
fire departments and use the Internet way of connecting some sort of Uber
fire department. You can imagine the government has to have some
connections and some responsibility on that and medical, as I told you, and
maybe some other ones. There are some others in which government doesn't
need to be directly involved but the industry that should be interested to
be self-regulating themselves. Thank you.

>> OLIVIER MJ CREPIN-LEBLOND: Thank you very much, Juan. Marianne Franklin,
you've been very patient.

>> You asked me, I just want to just respond, if I may, to John Clinton if
he is able to -- no one is ignoring 100 or 200 years of history. Quite a
opposite if I may make that note. We're confusing our terms. We're talking
here about standards in a number of ways. First operating standards as we
talked about like the international standards community. Operating
standards.  Simply the universally applied standard. There is another
standard in the room here. The standard of quality. If something is good or
bad by whatever measurement. If it works or does than work. These are two
distinct understandings of standards. They're getting confused or talk
through the distinction more. We're talking about safety. We don't want our
electric jugs exploding on us. We don't want our cars driving us into
trees. This is safety in a very technical means that we do rely on quality
standards so that these things work without killing us. We know the Tesla
car case. When we move to the Internet of things. Our refrigerator that
registers our likes and dislikes online. We're in a whole new realm. For me
the problem from safety switches from something does not explode to a more
ethical societal legal point about safety. Where all the different
morality. What is protection of harm when you talk about children? I think
a good working example is toys. The understanding of the toys that are
being developed which are linked more and more with software applications
in them and the need for some regulation of those toys technically but also
this brings in the kind of trickier bit about who decides what is good for
not for which child and at which age under what terms? We have to be clear
our terms of reference. Safety and standards have several applications. I
agree with Tatiana's point about this is not just a technical matter that
you can apply a technical standard to from a central point of mission
control. At some point standard makers also need to be accountable to rule
of law. But there is also sometimes very bad law so I'm back to where I
began. It's sometimes just about other things than what we think.

>> OLIVIER MJ CREPIN-LEBLOND: Thank you, Marianne. We have Joni McPhee
remotely. I don't know how the system works for him to speak. It's a
gentleman with a beard. Not a her. Thanks, Jolie.

>> Jolie McPhee from New York, hopefully. While we work out the technical
difficulties maybe we can open the floor for more questions.

>> Can you hear me?

>> OLIVIER MJ CREPIN-LEBLOND: Go ahead.

>> That's good. I'm trying to get my mic working. I was just wanting to
talk to Tatiana concerned about regulation. Think I there is a difference
here. We're talking about core values. And you know if we look at a good
example of core values like the ten commandments. You shall not covet your
neighbor's ass or whatever. We don't need regulations for that. It is
basically something -- a sort of common level of agreement like don't write
bad code. I would further say the basis of the Internet is essentially
voluntary. We agree to use protocols because we all use them. That's how
things work. So I'm not sure the values are the same as standards. I think
it's a different thing. I don't think -- you know, we are precluded from
enumerating values by the fact they can't be made into regulations or laws.
Thank you.

>> OLIVIER MJ CREPIN-LEBLOND: Thanks for that contribution. We have a lady
on the back of the -- there is a flying mic somewhere. There is one coming
to you. If you could please introduce yourself.

>> If we don't have translation I'm from he  Ecuador and I was hearing you
about the freedom of harm and software and we have some kind of problems in
our government with contracting of hacking team so we want to know where do
you stand in those kinds of software? The software that I use to invade our
privacy, software that are designed to put like -- malware that can infect
our computers. That kind of software, where do you stand? Because these
companies -- there are a lot of companies in the world that design these
kind of software and they are -- I have heard that even Mexico they have
some kind of contacts with hacking team in our country. They do exploits,
they do a lot of things. So I think that we have a very interesting point
of freedom of harm. Maybe an analysis about that kind of software. Thank
you.

>> OLIVIER MJ CREPIN-LEBLOND: Thank you for this. Are there any people in
the software industry that can speak about software, malware, odd ware?
Getting more information, info ware, whatever you call it. Ransom ware now
these days. I see John, perhaps you have much knowledge on some of these
issues?

>> I've got some knowledge but I don't know what I have to add. The
difficulty here is in areas we have been talking about. And I appreciate
Jolie's earlier comments about the difference between values and
requirements. I think as a broad community, and it is not the technical
community doing nasty things, it's the much broader community the
marketplace and the technical community looping and it rating and creating
circumstances which then make us unhappy. If there is pressure for time to
market immediately before things are finished, whether that's an automobile
or a piece of software, expectations of high quality become unrealistic. So
I am less optimistic than v*int sometimes is about technical solutions but
there is a complex thing here, by drawing a clear line between what a
technology and what is market forces and legal environments and the
difference between things which are voluntary and things which are strongly
encouraged and things which are required, we end up in a kind of
fantasyland discussion. So yes, I could talk about some of those specific
issues but I don't think it's worth the time. I will do so if you disagree.

>> OLIVIER MJ CREPIN-LEBLOND: Thanks for this, John.

>> I take the opportunity of this question to raise another issue. First,
directly to this question. The use of intentional misuse of the Internet to
cause harm either by criminal groups, either by governments, we're talking
about cyber war. We're talking about this. As you know, it has been
discussed very heatedly in a group of governmental experts in the first
commission of United Nations, the GGE. You know it is going on. I think
that this topic is linked very deeply with Internet governance and the
topic of these core values and the dynamic coalition. One of the core
values that maybe it's -- it's spirit covers the rest but maybe it should
be said explicitly is that when Internet was created, they wanted it to be
public good. The Internet was for education, information, whatever. Now
they have many commercial things, that's okay. But it has to be someplace
written that Internet should not be used to cause intentional harm or even
to promote -- I hope that someday in a place like Internet Governance Forum
somebody can proclaim that Internet should be a place of peace. That it
should not be used for cyber war. That is a tendency. You have this cyber
teams in this and all those things. I think that maybe, as I told you, this
group United Nations is working on that. But besides that we need to have
an ethical attitude, the user here and the stakeholder community of IGF to
try to foster an ethical attitude of trying to -- not to enforce, because
then I will get into the legal thing, but to really -- I don't know how to
say it in English. In Spanish -- ( (Speaking Spanish) )

>> To have a bad eye on the people doing wrong things.

>> As everybody behaves here with some codes. You go to bathroom for doing
something, you don't do that in the open. Maybe we should try to foster
that same thing of ethics in Internet so people do not -- I can tell you
one story. One story. Just a little story to say the value of ethics. There
was -- our country was accused once, we have a biotechnology industry. That
it has capacity to create -- biology weapons. And the answer to that is not
that they have the capacity or not. That is the technician has the ethical
values that never use medical science for harm. I think that the best way
to confirm these things is from the ethical dimension. I think that this
coalition should have to focus a little bit more in the ethical dimension
for keeping all these values.

>> OLIVIER MJ CREPIN-LEBLOND: Thanks for this, Juan. We have Alejandro and
time is going by.

>> A motion to go onto the next point of our agenda. But proposing a way
forward to close this part of the -- not the close this issue. I think it
has been opened, but to close this part of the session and let me just--

>> Just to close it I would just like to thank you for inviting me. I would
like to also put a motion if I may, if that's possible, that exactly this
point about ethics. That we look forward to creating a working relationship
between this dynamic coalition, restoring the working relationship between
this dynamic coalition and the Internet rights and principles coalition.
Because the ethical things we have in common are very clear. We need to
start meeting together. So let's make that -- I would like to suggest and
put it in the IEP coalition meeting tomorrow where we'll talk about
intention aous of the Internet -- this has been a fascinating conversation.
Thanks for having me.

>> OLIVIER MJ CREPIN-LEBLOND: Thank you very much for coming, Marianne.
We're also in discussions with the coalition on Internet of things as well
since, of course, this is one of the target reasons why we're in the--

>> I'm curious with the microphone before you leave. So I think that as you
mentioned and several other speakers did. This is not only a technical
issue. Solutions cannot be only technical and solutions cannot be non-
technical, either. It has to have -- this is one of these fields where we
really have to bring our minds and hearts together. And have a discussion
that also looks at segmented solutions. Parts of the problems that you can
solve and parts not solved. The bridge of ethics. The dynamic coalitions
program and self-definition it is very important to be very restrained, to
concentrate more on the technical design principle than on the higher layer
rights and values, which are much less well-defined. More universally
variable and so forth. Without trying to dry a hard line between these
things, but to be aware that sometimes we may be over stepping into the
field where you have the right expertise and creates a much more
collaborative work and program. That would be my main response to all these
replies. And I would move that we not right now, but that we put these
discussion points into the mailing list, make a small publication of a
summary of what has been spoken about. We have not reached any conclusions,
but have had to at least one go through the reasoning, and then look at
creating a work program for the coalition itself.

>> OLIVIER MJ CREPIN-LEBLOND: Thank you, Alejandro and indeed it seems that
we have our work cut out for the next year. I don't think that we were
thinking we would actually get consensus here but certainly it is a good
place to plant a seed and I'm really glad to see things growing and
certainly improved cooperation between dynamic coalitions. Now the next
part of our agenda is actually going to be quite more internal to the
coalition itself. It is about how we're going the plan our work forward and
what kind of leadership structure we wish to put together. We have about 15
minutes or so, 10 minutes or so because the room is being taken up by
another group after us. The main question really at the moment we've run
into a year and year basis, we have done some ad hoc work during the year
but it is with all of the dynamic coalitions, actually, it is time to ramp
up more, have more people involved and not only just have a top-down
structure but a bottom-up structure with perhaps a committee or steering
committee. It is very much in the air at the moment. And this is where I
thought we would have a great discussion on this and see whether there are
any proposals and anyone that would be interested in taking part in leading
this coalition as a group. So I don't know how we want to start this. I was
going to ask Alejandro if you had specific views on this and how we could
move forward. Certainly on the work that we have to do, I think that the
discussion we've had today is already a work thing so we probably don't
need to look at the different work that we have to do. I would move that
next year we would continue also monitoring the different core values that
we were looking at this year and see if there has been any significant
change as well and indeed the world is moving very fast so there have even
been some changes since we wrote that document and we will be asked to
actually amend the document before it gets published. That's probably one
of the first things that we'll have to follow. I see Michael here going
okay, if I can help. I hope, on this.

>> My name is Michael ogee. I kind of want to start out with more exploring
what is the purpose of our DC to then hopefully build on how we're going to
go about the implementation? I really liked what Jolie said about values
are not standards. I understand Tatiana's point of view and enforcement.
You just said something about basically almost being like we have these
standards and then main -- using it as a framework going forward to kind of
gauge almost like a clearinghouse of how are these standards actually --
these values, rather, how are they being implemented across the Internet
and ecosystem by various parties, by various stakeholders, etc., and how
are they -- are they -- for instance, is openness being eroded or being
expanded? So I think that -- I don't know if that's necessarily something
we would want to do as a DC but just something that popped into my mind as
kind of being -- basically trying to hold the Internet accountable to these
values. Hold it accountable at least in terms of our reporting.

>> OLIVIER MJ CREPIN-LEBLOND: Thank you, Michael. You have used that word
accountable. Holding the Internet accountable. I'm not sure how you can do
that. We'll get you to deal with the accountability part and you can
probably start a working group on this. But that certainly you've touched
on a number of points here. We really do have our work cut out on that. On
the topic of leadership, I have been the chair of this coalition for the
past two years. We have had different chairs every year. I don't think that
I want to remain Chair forever but I'm ready to continue for another year
if people are happy with. But I would really like to see a steering group,
some more people involved in the leadership and being able to steer the
work and certainly take responsibilities within the coalition because we
seem to have such a huge set of topics that are open in front of us at the
moment and being able to actually follow the different threads would
certainly put less work on a very few individuals that we have that are
very active in the coalition. Alejandro, did you have any points to make on
this?

>> Very briefly. Alejandro speaking. First I think that we need to -- I
mean, if we don't get the message from this session that we really have to
work every month of the year and not only two spikes of work, one before
preparing the report and upon before the meeting. If we don't get that
message, it doesn't exist. We aren't able to take it. Second, I think we
have to be open to the participation of every member and every -- everyone
who wants to come in and contribute to the work. We need to put some work
into -- in the work program. We need to put some work into the constraint
definition of principles verses the much broader definitions of values.
Doesn't mean closed doors again but just to make sure we work with
something that's within mission. Very much -- I would say anecdotally one
of the reasons this dynamic coalition was created was maybe some of the
discourse about rights, obligations, state intervention and so forth were
actually going to tear the Internet apart bringing in specifications that
couldn't be fulfilled or make borders to go against design. What makes the
Internet the Internet and what things make it not Internet if you take them
away? And that in this case with freedom from harm. We have a very good
guideline for one year discussion. We have to do some research how W3C and
many other organizations manage these things. There are codes of conduct.
There are ethics codes that are prevalent and national engineering bodies
and many other organizations. That's a research program. And going to the
internal governments issue. I think that we need to spell out a very
lightweight but very clear and objective management structure, leadership
structure. Have to define roles. Some of them may be permanent or may be
let's say not subject to term limits or time constraints. Others should
ensure rotation at least as a principle. Maybe you have to hold an election
and you don't have candidates and you have a good person already, then you
stay with them. But we will need some larger openness. The functioning.
Coalition itself hasn't been transparent enough. Things should be put
forward to the membership and taken from the membership's views and far
beyond the base consultation. I think that as you have mentioned already, a
steering committee would be very important. We can have a seed steering
committee started in the coming weeks. We should make sure we do things on
the email and online lists immediately because there are very few of us
right now here. But we must make sure we have a seed steering committee
that will set up some rules that are not strict bylaws, clear rules of
procedure and hold an election and live with its results. And the steering
committee, one final point, we probably would be inclined to invite some
people who are not directly involved in the day-to-day that can be sort of
a higher moral guidance making sure that things are equitable and fair. And
then move to a more internal steering committee as we get the work done.

>> OLIVIER MJ CREPIN-LEBLOND: Thank you, Alejandro. Please, go ahead.

>> I have to agree with Alejandro, this DC, what I mentioned before was
just general. This have to be concentrated in practical ways of
implementing these values through the technical protocols and all that that
form the Internet. When this was created, all those general things have to
be really put down into how to measure that. And in this sense, maybe I
could suggest for the organization of the work to proceed to the IGF to put
in stages. I think one stage we should try to identify one of these values.
Maybe the barriers, the challenges to put a face of identifying. Then face
of research, which of the challenge are being addressed, as I mentioned,
elsewhere. And so to create the liaison with the other place, not to try to
reinvent the wheel. When safety was mentioned, I remember I work in
automation many years. And in the ISO standards. There is a lot of safety
standards for that so we could build on that. I suggest this stage of
identifying barriers, then do research and then to concentrate on those
that are not sold between the collective, as he said. The stakeholder
intelligence and then prepare some document with some months before the
next IGF and to discuss.

>> OLIVIER MJ CREPIN-LEBLOND: Thank you for this. Indeed, the presence of
the dynamic coalition and -- on the rights and principles and also the
Internet of things has established those bridges, which is a good thing
forward. We do have someone remotely. Sorry to have made them wait so long.

>> No problem. I have a comment from SIVA that says standards are
voluntary, yes, but if there is a new situation where it becomes necessary
to think of a class of standards that need to be more widely adopted, the
standards process could think of ways of introducing a new class of
standards that require wider commitment.

>> OLIVIER MJ CREPIN-LEBLOND: Thank you for this. That was on the previous
section. Alejandro, you were going to respond. I wanted to give maybe the
last word to John before we have to break up pretty soon. John.

>> I just wanted to strongly suggest that this necessarily operates at the
boundary between the technical and social, however you describe that, that
you make a serious effort to get enough technical involvement in here to be
sure the proposals being made work in today's Internet reality or some
future Internet reality.

>> OLIVIER MJ CREPIN-LEBLOND: Thanks for this, John. Alejandro.

>> Alejandro. I think we need to elaborate and really work for a while in
good understanding of what the standards are. What are standards, what are
recommendations for conduct and standards that can be tested objectively
where things are creating a new type of standards that become mandatory.
That is called laws and they are only enforceable within each country. We
have to look -- get a good understanding and get a grip on things. Thank
you.

>> OLIVIER MJ CREPIN-LEBLOND: Thanks for this, Alejandro. We do have a
sign-up sheet which has been going around. I think I can see it at the end
of the table over there. We do have emails of people that have come in. I
hope we've captured all the emails. There were a lot of people that came
into the room at some point. Of course, we need more active volunteers. So
that's really my last thing before we have to close. Get moving on this.
There is a lot to do. Certainly coming up with the work products that we
have our work cut out. Thanks to all of you for having joined us and the
people who joined us remotely and for our remote participation operator and
everyone helping to make it happen. We will close. Have a very good IGF,
goodbye.

Internet Governance Forum 2016 Enabling Inclusive and Sustainable Growth
Jalisco, Mexico 6 December 2016 Workshop Name: OF39: ISOC

>> SEBASTIAN BELLAGAMBA: My name is Sebastian Bellagamba. I'm the director
for Latin America and Caribbean. We have plenty of familiar faces around.
Thank you for coming. Plenty of youth people. Young people around. So that
I like. We are going to have a minor presentation, a small presentation for
starting, Sally Wentworth on my right, she is the Vice President of Global
Policy Development of the Internet Society and ray  -- Raul Echeberria and
Karen Rose will be presenting on new work that we developed this year on
future Internet scenarios. After that we will try to set up a workshop and
work on several issues that are raised by our Internet scenarios so we can
collect your thoughts and opinions from that. With that said, I will turn
to Sally now to start the presentation. Thank you very much for coming.

>> There we go, good morning, everyone. And I think our slides are coming
in a minute, okay. All right. So my job here is to introduce you a little
bit to the Internet Society, and then to hand it over to my colleagues to
run us through a thought exercise on the future of the Internet because, as
we all well know, the Internet is constantly evolving and constantly
changing and it is important for us as a community to think through what
the future looks like. What kind of future we want, and then what we need
to do as a community to help shape that future. So are our slides ready?
No. Okay. I'm just going to wing it. Just by way of troin duck shun to the
Internet Society. We were founded in 1992 by some of the fathers of the
Internet and founded to be a voice for the Internet. We were founded to be
an advocate for the growth of the Internet worldwide, ultimately for the
empoweringment and betterment of people. So we at the Internet Society
believe fundamentally the Internet should be a place of opportunity and it
should be a medium that strengthens communities, that ties people together,
and that ultimately strengthens and contributes to humanity around the
world. So it is not technology for technology's sake. It is technology for
people. I will try one more time and then I am going to give up. All right.
We had slides at one point. They're very pretty. So from the Internet
Society's perspective since 1992 we have really grown and evolved as the
Internet as grown and evolved. We began very focused on how do we expand
the technology around the world, right? How do we build the capacity of
individuals and leaders in countries to build the technology, to innovate
on the technology, and ultimately to grow that technology in their
countries? And we have maintained that focus. That is a key aspect of the
Internet Society's work and we have added to that dimensions related to
public policy, related to community building, and related to the global
Internet governance discussions that you are all having here today and this
week. Our work is divided into a number of key areas that I'll talk about.
But the most important thing for all of you is that the Internet Society is
fund mentally a community. It is a community that believes in the Internet
and we want all of you to be part of our community. So it is again not just
about bits and bytes and wires and spectrum. It is really about people. And
the way we do that at the Internet Society and the way we're organized to
that end is through a network of chapters. We have about 136 chapters
around the world in many of your communities. We hope all of your
communities someday. Those chapters are a network of volunteers that
believe in the Internet, that want to build it in their communities, and
that want to be part of a global community that cares about the global
Internet. And the work of these chapters is diverse. It is as diverse as
the community itself. Some of our chapters are very focused on building the
technology. I know that the Japanese chapter, for example, is very focused
on IPB6 employment and focused on the Internet of Things. The chapter in
Washington, D.C. is very interested in policy matters related to Internet
governance and related to security and privacy. So our chapters around the
world do a lot of different things. And that's the beauty of the Internet,
right? They tackle issues related to challenges in their local environment.
The Internet Society global is here to be a voice for that at the global
level. To be an outlet, to be an advocate for the growth of the Internet
worldwide. And we try to harness the power of those chapters in order to be
a voice in forums like the Internet Governance Forum. In technology venues
like the Internet technology task force, in ICANN and the United Nations,
OECD and around the world. Wherever the Internet is being discussed,
debated, built, developed, we hope the Internet Society is there. So I
think I have Raul here now as my partner in crime. Come up here. So I think
maybe I'll turn to  Raul to talk about our priorities for 2017, the areas
we plan to focus on for the next year and beyond so that you get a sense of
the kind of work that we're trying to do with the global and regional and
local levels so that you can think through how you might interact with us
and how you might join into our work. And Sebastian and Karen are our time
keepers. You want to tell us? Five minutes. Over to you, Raul.

>> Good morning, everybody. I think we are in the morning yet, right? It is
very nice to see this room fully packed. We have a small room but the thing
is that people -- the good thing is we see this group together. It is nice.
Sally already said many things so I will add some few things in five
minutes. But we have as one of the things that I think that we have
achieved in the last few years we have integrated the work we do on the
ground and the work we have always done on the ground. The work for which
the Internet Society is very recognized and the capacity really developing
infrastructure. We have connected this work with the policy work and with
the community building work that we do. So it is fully integrated. In fact,
this is the reason, because we have only two priorities, two main
priorities for 2017 that our access and trust. Is because we have all the
work of the organization integrated under those priorities. And I think
this is what makes the Internet Society organization is this integration,
is that we have a consistency between the things that we do when we support
or we are directly involved with in projects like the wellness for
community, connecting remote villages, with the work that we do in the U.N.
when we go to the debates, participate in the debates about sustainable
goals or any other things. And this is what makes our organization unique
is the integration. We always say that the Internet Society work in the
intersection between technology, policy and community. And this is -- has
never been as true as it is now. I think this is in one way, is an
advantage of our organization that we have. On the other hand, it is a huge
responsibility because we have to feed the expectations that we are
creating. And our strategy on development has been for a long time based on
four pillars. And we see -- we can see in this meetings, in this ITF we can
see clearly the work we're doing under the pillars. One of the pillars is
developing of infrastructure. You know all the work that we do with
exchange points, forums, issue and best practices for operation of the
networks and the work that we are doing now in the last few years in the
wireless community. Together with other organizations in partnership,
partnerships are always very important for us. In partnership with other
organizations we have convened yesterday a very good meeting and other
activities this week with all the people working on those community things
and really it is very important. At this moment we have supported at least
40 something projects for connecting different locations in different parts
of the world. Some in partnership with our chapters. Like in the case of
the chapter in South Africa or the Mexican chapter, or the Venezuela
chapter and Columbia, trying to get a chapter and want to be involved and
we launch our project next year in Georgia, the country, of course. And
this is -- Our second pillar is the community building project. This is the
work that you can see here. IGF ambassadors, the youth program. This is an
incredible work and really I are not speak very much about that because I
saw your heads and I think that you already know about that work. The third
pillar is capacity building. This is something that is a training in
different aspects. We are training people on technical things and policy
things. Engaging the people in their Internet goal and discussions in a
meaningful way. Giving them tools to participate. So we have those training
activities all across the -- all the spectrum on different topics that we
cover. And the fourth one is bringing the expertise that we have from this
work on the ground to the policy debate. And so this is very clear, this is
what we are doing here is -- and there are -- the Internet Society has been
directly or indirectly in partnership with others or just by ourselves, we
are participating in this support of the attendance of 200 people here in
this IGF. It's an incredible number. This is exactly that. We're bringing
the people from our community to participate in a meaningful way in the
policy debates. Not only here. We hope also it has an impact at the local
level. So I will not speak very much. I will only say that what already
Sally mentioned about the importance of our chapters. And in this year and
we will continue doing that in the next years, we are working very much in
providing tools for the chapters. Because the chapters are very important
because this is the way -- we have 90 something people organization but we
have an impact usually as a much bigger organization because of our
organization and members, our individual members, the people that are part
of our community that are always around the Internet Society and our
chapters. Because it is -- they are very important in advancing our mission
in different places. So we have much more than 90 people working for the
Internet Society. The board has been very supportive in that direction not
only supportive but also pushing for that direction for providing more
tools to the chapters where we have launched many programs like beyond the
net, by the way, today is being launched a beautiful brochure that you can
see later about the impact of the beyond the Internet program that you will
love, I am sure. I hope that all of you feel like myself, very proud of the
work that all of us together are doing on that. But also supports for
funding, the administration, the needs of the chapters and also Sally and
Karen have been working very much in providing avenues for the chapters and
all our members to participate more actively in providing in the
development of policy statements, policy papers. All those briefs that we
are launching all the time. So I hope really this is a very -- I'm very
enthusiastic with that. It is not only just achieving -- oh, yes, we are
achieving the mandate of giving of the opportunity to the people to
participate. No, this is we're getting opportunities for really receiving
the benefit for your experience, your knowledge, and so all together can
really put this organization in the best place for the benefit of the
worldwide community. So I know that I spoke more than five minutes, but you
know what everybody say, who has the mic has the power. (Laughter)

>> I'll introduce Karen Rose and she will lead us through this thought
process of the future of the Internet.

>> It's so wonderful to see so many people here. This is great. I hope you
are going to enjoy a little workshop that we want to do with all of you. It
will be a little bit of a challenge with the size of the group but I know
everybody is a good sport and is going to participate. What I would like to
do is talk to you a little bit about set things up and talk to you about a
project that we started earlier this year looking at the future of the
Internet and looking at future Internet scenarios. Thinking about different
ways the Internet could evolve in the future. Why should we look at the
future, right? We know really that the future of the Internet is uncertain.
As much as we've come to rely on it today and understand it today, the way
that the Internet is today may not be like this in the future. Potentially
for better, potentially for worse and more challenges. We know there are
many forces of change currently right now that are going to impact the
future of the Internet. Technical forces of change, policy forces of
change, economic forces, social forces, even environmental forces. Things
are are happening now that will impact the future of the Internet. The
purpose of our project is to start thinking about what may be in store, and
what may be at risk for the Internet in the future. And how these forces of
change could impact the Internet for users globally. We're also trying to
address today's key issues more effectively and understanding a little more
of the future landscape. And it's really been a collaborative project
drawing on input from all across our community. I know some of you here
have participated in some of our surveys. We're trying to really take all
the energy and knowledge from our community and trying and think a little
bit further about the future.  We've kind of focused to protect to 7 to 10
years time. So we're not thinking so far out that we know how far and how
quickly technology changes. What I would really like to do is to start
getting people to think about how different the world can change in 10
years' time. And I'll give you a few examples here of assumptions that were
made about technology in various different ways. What people thought, and
what really happened. So the first example I have here is from William
ORTON who was the head of the western union. Western union telegraph,
right? In 1876 he said this: he said, the telephone has too many
shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. Right?
That was in 1876. In less than 10 years' time, in 1886, we had telephone
wires sprawling across the landscape of New York City. We had telephone
wires from a beautiful telephone tower scrolling across the landscape of
cities in Europe and Latin America and around the world. So he believed it,
an expert, but think about the change that happened in less than 10 years.
Going down here Philip Franklin, who was the CEO of the white star line
that owned the Titanic, which was built with some of the best engineering
possible at the time said we're perfectly satisfied that the Titanic is
unsinkable. He said this in 1912. What happened? April that year the
Titanic sank, surprising everybody, right? So even the thoughts about the
best engineer possible, right? What are we not thinking of in the future?
And what are vulnerabilities that could happen? Albert Einstein, I love
this. We think of him as one of the big leaders. In 1932, he said there is
not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable.
And what happened less than 10 years' time? In 1942, we had the first
nuclear reactor. Okay, similarly, with computers, right? Ken Olson, the
head of digital equipment corporation in 1977 said there is no reason
anybody would want a computer in their home. What happened? Less than 10
years later, in the United States and emerging in Europe and elsewhere we
had this boom in home computing, right? So this just goes to show when we
try and think about the future, we have to be prepared to think about
things that might be unexpected. We need to challenge our own assumptions
about what we know today, and projecting them onto the future.  All right,
so in terms of the proper sect so far and our future Internet scenario
work. We've gone through and have collected a lot of information from our
community. So we've conducted over 115 expert interviews from around the
world. We had two surveys which had over 1500 responses from our community,
including our members and chapters and others. From this we collected about
200. We distilled it down. I want to say Grayson with the youth fellowship
was an intern on this project and talk to him about how fun it was trying
to get the information down into something we could analyze. We had over
200 trends and uncertainties we identified on the community. Forces of
change on the Internet. We boiled it down into nine high impact plans and
issues. We'll preview it with you. We just put it out yesterday and we have
these cards. Later after this session we would really like your input as to
which of the drivers of change you think will most impact the future. We're
going to have four narratives under development about what the future
Internet might look like. Different mutations in seven years' time. Just to
go through the challenges and uncertainties identified by our community. I
have to say in looking through the data, there is a lot of people with a
lot of hope for the future of the Internet. But overwhelmingly our
community really believes this is the time of uncertainty. That there is a
number of challenges being brought to bear on the Internet today that will
impact the future. A lot of people don't know in which direction these are
going to play out. Some of those issues which we have on our website and
after this session or when you go home we would love to get your input on,
we've distilled them into nine areas. First of all, is the increasing role
of government. By and large most people think the role of government is
going to increase in the future in one way or another. But the real
question for the future is in what way, right? Are governments going to
interact with the Internet in a way that enables its growth or restricts
it? What about things like surveillance? How are governments going the
react to cybersecurity issues? So the increasing role of government has
come up as a big question as to which way that will play out. Artificial
intelligence and machine learning came up a lot from our community. There
is a lot of real importance here. Will people be able to understand and
have transparency in the decisions that artificial intelligence and machine
learning is making in relation to our Internet experience? Will we know
what kind of information and content we're being served up? Will we know
how objects connected to the Internet are behaving in a world where there
is artificial intelligence and machine learning making these decisions for
us? What ising to be the role of the human going forward if more of these
decisions enabled by the Internet and machine learning are being made
automatically? The future of the marketplace. Consolidation, big platforms
rising. Whether we'll have commercial fragmentation on the Internet. The
potential for innovation in the future, right? Is it going to grow, is it
going to be smaller in 10 years' time? Those were raised. Challenges to
media and culture. Very briefly we know when we've seen what has been going
on in terms of how people socially interact and with the media. A lot of
concerns about what happens to the role of journalism and unbiased
information. Social media, right? Things like fake news that we have today.
How are those going to be projected out into the Internet of the future?
Could I get the slides back up, please? Thank you. Cyber attacks and
cybercrime. Not only about the growth of potential cybercrime and how we'll
react to them on a technical and governmental level, but also what
governments may do in response to cybercrime. What people may do in
response to cybercrime and cyber attacks. Will people withdraw from the
Internet? The evolution of networks and standards about how the
fundamentals of the Internet itself will change. Changes due to things like
IOT. The future of personal freedom and rights. And lastly, the issue of
new and evolving digital divides, which is what we want to talk about more
in depth today. I'll just say that in terms of the cards and the website
that's on the back, there is a longer summary, relatively short but a more
explanatory summary of some of the debates and tensions raised by our
community about these issues that we want to use to look is into other
scenarios and want your input into what are the most important and have the
most impact on the future of the Internet. For the workshop portion of our
session. Next slide, please, oh sorry, thank you. So we talked about these
nine big issues that came up. Well, given the theme of the IGF this year,
we really want to talk about one of them here and get some discussion
going. Which is about new and emerging digital divides. One thing that's
come up from the feedback and information is that it's possible, right, if
we project out 5, 7, 10 years' time, maybe we've been really successful in
getting everybody online, right? Many of us around here are working to make
that happen. So if we potentially assume in a world that we've been
successful 80% of the people have Internet access, maybe 100% have the
ability to have access but are not on. If we assume we've been successful,
what does the digital divide look like potentially in 5, 7, 10 years' time.
The real observations from our communities the digital divide may
fundamentally transform into an issue not just about who has access and who
doesn't, which is the way we think about it today largely, to even if you
have access, can you he can tably participate in the Internet? Do you have
the same opportunity to participate in the Internet as others? Some factors
that have been raised by our community for growing gaps are things like the
rich and poor even in the same country if we project out 7 to 10 years'
time. If you have access only through slow technology versus somebody in
the same country that has access through high speed broadband. What is the
digital divide and the difference in the ability to meaningfully
participate in the Internet look like? So divides between countries,
divides within countries, divides between gender. All of these issues have
come up. At the same time, you know, and on sort of a more economic level,
concerns that developed countries may continue to accelerate their
innovation, their use of technology more quickly than developing regions
can actually catch up. So will we see greater digital divides in the future
about the ability to meaningfully participate and benefit from the Internet
or will we see the divides lessening in the future? So -- okay. So this is
what we want to try and do. We have a really big group so we're improvising
in our number of groups here. We want to have an interactive discussion
with people in this room about some of these questions, because we would
really like your input and your feedback. So what we're going to do is
separate into kind of five small groups. We'll basically have people turn
their chairs and I'll go and try to point out the groups. But what we would
really like to do is see if we can have this discussion on three questions,
each group will have a question. So why don't we have group one over here.
So what we want to do is be in the mindset that we're 10 years out in the
future. We have 80%, 90%, 100% Internet access. What is the nature of the
digital divide going to look like? We'll have group one, if you can turn
your chairs over here. Just around in a circle. We'll look at question one.
Group two, if we can kind of turn your chairs around over here. Group three
kind of around this corner over here. We have a big group four. Who -- you
want to take group four? Stand up group four over here and group five over
here.

>> Can we get the slides up? Slides.

>> We need the slides, please.

>> So what's our question?Any one of thes

>> Any one of these. (Small group discussions)

>> We need everybody to start wrapping up. Get your big ideas and get back
to your seats so we can wrap this session up. Michael -- Mike? You heard
me. We're wrapping. Okay. Okay, everyone. If you could come back to your
seats. There are lots of good ideas.

>> Just tell them to put their good ideas on the survey.

>> Okay, let's get going. We have 10 minutes before we have to get out of
this room. Everybody take a seat. I'm Mike Nelson with the DC chapter of
ISOC. One of our favorite things to do in our chapter is something called a
slam where we get great ideas from people and then we share them with each
other and then we rank those ideas so we can focus on the ones that
everybody really loves. So we're going the try to do something really
unusual. We've all been in meetings where there are break-out sessions,
right? What do you do after you have your break-out sessions? Somebody
stands up and says this is what we talked about and it is always a very
boring summary because they try to do something that covers everything is
little bit. We aren't going to do that. What I'm going to do is get two
good ideas from each group, you will have 30 seconds -- 30 seconds to
summarize your good idea, and a good idea has three things. It has the
problem you are trying to fix, the person who is going to fix it, and the
benefit that you will get from doing it. So 30 seconds to do that. And then
we'll vote -- all of you will have a chance to vote. You all get two votes.
There are 10 proposals, two votes. After each proposal I'll ask for the
vote. Those of you who want to say I love that idea, put your hand up. But
you only get to put your hand up twice. And then after that -- practice
after me, everybody say the word, oh boy. One, two, three, oh boy. So we'll
do a test to see if you think it's going to be a really hard idea. So there
is a prize for the hardest, most controversial idea as well. Okay. As an
example, I gave this example to my group. My crazy idea, the problem in
some countries you have two few people providing Internet access and they
charge too much. So in some countries you are paying five times more than
the Internet than somebody in the next country next door. And people don't
know how badly they are being treated. So I'm going to find an Internet
billionaire who will develop an app that lets me in 30 seconds report how
fast my Internet connection is, how much I pay and how many choices I have.
And the result will be a global map showing where the Internet is good and
where the Internet is bad. And that will get people mad. Okay. So I just
need volunteers and, of course, if you go early, people will have more
votes to give you. You don't want to be the last person. People may have
already used their -- who will give me a 30-second summary? I know there
are three really good ones over here from our group. Okay. Okay. Here we
go.You have to step up.

>> I think one of the problems is people don't know how to work with
Internet. They don't know how to make it work. We need to have a digital
education with digital education in local context. We can develop it and
develop this knowledge and even reduce the gender gap or even age gap but
we can use this education we need to government and private sector work
together through developmental the subjects in schools, in different --
even -- I don't know, to develop more multi-lingual content on the
Internet. We needed indication.

>> That was 36 seconds. How many people vote for that? Hands up. One, two,
three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 --
21. Put that up on our chart. Okay, next. Are you okay?

>> Okay. Well, the problem should we start with? Well, one problem was
people do not use Internet because they think they do not achieve or
identify the value added to their use. The solution we posted was bring
attention on the services, government and services. For example, access to
general government services but this access should be user friendly and
there are other necessities that can be sold by the use of Internet.

>> Quick vote. Okay, who wants to use one of their votes for this and
support this proposal. Hands up. , one, two, three, four, five. Okay. Six.
Seven, eight, okay. Eight. Very good. Who is next. Are you next?

>> I'm bringing the remote contribution so the problem is we're still
leapfrogging and we could use more of the cell phones with no wire line and
in order to achieve meaningful participation we need to bring the right kit
which involves knowledge, hardware and software

>> Who was that from? Jolie McPhee New York chapter. How many like that
idea? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, -- 14. From an
engineer the suggestion that we get the right equipment. I know there is
one here.

>> Thanks for that. Speaking about the value proposition and the idea if
you want people to come online, it needs to be a bottom-up process. People
want to get online in the first place. Understand local needs, understand
why people want to be connected, and understand why even if they have
access to the Internet it doesn't just come down to cost, it comes down to
having access to content in a language you understand. Having access to
government services that you need. Having some benefit from the Internet.

>> Very good, 29 seconds. Two hands. That is allowed. You can use all your
votes on one proposal. I should have explained that. One, two, three, four,
five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23 -- 40, 41, 42 -- 45, whoa! (Applause)

>> Am I supposed to vote on mine? I didn't see anybody put their hand up.
(Laughter) (Laughter) I will be the last. Do you have a proposal? Okay.
Good.

>> So to give people meaningful access it's about they want -- you need to
make sure that they trust what they will have access to. So for youth even
if they don't yet have access, give them an understanding of the basic
mechanisms of the Internet. You need to understand what the IP space is,
names, servers, only in that way will they understand what trust means and
then they will be primed and ready to have meaningful access.

>> Thank you. Very short and quick. Okay. So the vote. Who likes the idea
of enhancing trust. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine,
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 -- 20, 21. I never ignore Niko. Okay, next
proposal.

>> Our group was talking about how the digital divide is growing and it is
under the assumption that access technology will grow enough that devices
will be the problem with the digital divide. When we talk about growing IOT
trends, the greater gaps between brain and technology, we think that this
is going to become a problem of which countries have the most advanced
technology. For that reason we've come up with the idea on the spot to
incentivize local education and not waiting for one country to provide them
with better technology.

>> Perfect, 31 seconds. What's the vote? How many votes for that one? One,
two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 -- 27. Excellent. Okay. We have one here?

>> Problem is even though in 10 years we have all Internet access the
digital divide will remain. The person who will solve it is all the
stakeholders.

>> Within that the stakeholders need to work with the governments to make
sure that connection for the Internet for the people and can use the
Internet and to have the skills to participate and receive education to
receive the skill to receive the Internet equal.

>> You got five extra seconds because you did a duet. The vote on that.
One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16, 17, 18. 18, okay. 19. Okay. One last proposal.

>> Hi. I think we need to recognize individuals and organizations who are
providing and respected Internet access at a much lower cost they have
today. An X price for Internet access.

>> That's a 10 second proposal that sounds really good. It gets my vote.
One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15,
16, 17. Okay. So we had -- because you were so brief we have time for one
more.

>> All right. Last but not least. So we need to get more people online but
they are not going online because someone is telling them Internet is not
safe for them. Especially the younger ones. So we need to deal with this.
All stakeholders need to go together but mostly civil society. We need to
educate our parents to be enough educated on Internets and digital world
and involve the government to start discussion of programs and put them in
the curriculum so that's in every single school. Young people are educated
on safety and that's how we will make sure so many people are going online.

>> Okay. Excellent. Tell the mothers and the fathers the Internet is not
always bad. Votes. How many votes? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven,
eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 -- 22,
okay. My proposal was to be a global map of where the Internet was working
and where it wasn't so people got mad. Using cell phones. A vote on my
first proposal for those of you who have a vote left. One, two, three,
four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11 -- you didn't vote. (Laughter)
What was it? 11. Okay. 11. Now we have to do the oh boy vote real fast. Do
we have time for that? No? It's all up there. Okay. So we aren't going to
do the oh boy thing. Okay. Do we have five minutes? Four minutes? Okay.
Let's go down the list from the bottom to top. Okay. So teaching parents
not to be scared of the Internet. One, two, three.

>> Oh boy.

>> Not too bad. Recognizing organizations that make big advances in
Internet access. Giving an award to somebody who has made a break through.
One, two, three.

>> Oh boy.

>> That's a little harder, okay. The louder the oh boy, that's kind of like
oh boy, that's going to be hard. We're trying to judge. We want to focus --
we want to pay attention to what is going to be hard and where we need some
work. Greater multi-stakeholder work with government. That was the proposal
over here. You get a prize for being hard. Okay, one, two, three.

>> Oh boy.

>> A heard a lot of sarcasm in that one, too. Extra points for sarcasm.
Incentivize local technology development so the technology is more useful.
One, two, three.

>> Oh boy.

>> That wasn't too hard. Have youth understand basic aspects of the
Internet so they can trust it. So they have meaningful access. One, two,
three.

>> Oh boy.

>> That one is an easy one, I see. Better understanding of local needs so
that people can understand how to get online and get governments to get
more excited. That was our most popular one. That got 45 -- that was no
government, that was another one. This one got 45 votes. This is the big
proposal. How hard is it going to be? One, two, three.

>> Oh, boy.

>> Moderately hard. Okay. This was the one from remote from New York. Make
sure we get the right equipment to the right people so that access is easy.
One, two, three.

>> Oh, boy.

>> You have faith in the engineers, good. Another one was the government
services, that was a way to entice people online. One, two, three.

>> Oh boy.

>> Okay. Faith in the bureaucrats, too. Bring attention to -- then the --
we have to do an assessment of why people aren't online. A marketing survey
kind of help understand what the barriers are that are keeping people
offline. Your proposal, right? One, two, three.

>> Oh boy.

>> Hire a consultant and it's done. Last one was the one my proposal which
was the idea of doing a global map of Internet access, one, two, three.

>> Oh boy.

>> I think we have a tie. (Laughter) Anyway, you guys have been a great
audience. We should have had two hours. We would have had three times as
many ideas. Thank you for being here. (Applause)

>> Thank you, everybody, for participating. And we are going to take the
information and the discussions that we had here and consider it as part of
the next phase of our work. Again, if you haven't gotten one of these cards
with the website on here, we would really love if you could go online and
review the nine areas that have come through our consultation and let us
know which ones you think are going to be most important to the future of
the Internet. Pick up a card on the way out and thank you very much for
your participation. (Applause) (Session ended at 11:52 A.M. CT) Internet
Governance Forum 2016 Enabling Inclusive and Sustainable Growth Jalisco,
Mexico 6 December 2016 OF15: IEEE

>> Good afternoon. It's a pleasure to see everyone in this room. We have a
very interesting that is about to start. The session is entitled, advancing
solutions for Internet inclusion. What does it really mean? How can we
advance those solutions? There are three dimensions in which we work. It is
a connectivity as a physical layer or technology that enables us to be
connected and the framework that allows us to be connected. A lot of people
in this world still don't have Internet connectivity. We hope to solve this
problem. The problem is not just technical but it is an interaction of
policy in the space of Internet connectivity in general with issues of
privacy and security. As you probably know, a lot of issues today that are
being involved and work in progress stem from the fact that policymakers
often make policies as a reaction to the new technologies development and
they development implementation and solutions what policy implications may
be created or what policy it may be stepping on. It is a disconnect between
the camp of technologists and policymakers and the third dimension is
technology is in most cases a global, spans the globes, bits and bytes
don't know the boundaries, electrons flow through any wire or space we can
give them. Policies are localized, not only on the level of countries but
smaller than countries. An example, I live in New Jersey in the United
States and I learned that New Jersey has a special law that governs
information availability on ODB connector of car. Why I don't know.
Apparently there is a law that exists in New Jersey. What we're trying to
do in Internet Initiative. Connectivity among people and among camps,
policymakers and technology developers, connectivity among various regions.
That's a brief introduction of what is session will be about. I come from
private sector, technologist and I worked in I.T. space and Internet as an
enabling platform and that is a key to us. I'm Oleg log any November.
Business is much more difficult to develop than technology. You can put
together an implementation but find a marketplace for it is a most
challenging task you can imagine. And policy enables or disables technology
proliferation in most cases. I started paying attention to that type of
issues and found a very interesting place called Internet initiatives that
I have been sharing for the last three years that focuses on those three
dimensions and helps us all to come together. I happen to chair IEEE
standard focused on standards paying attention to privacy and security
issues and I'm very pleased that together with the panel we have here today
we'll be able to dive into this multi-dimensional task of trying to
discover what solutions we can bring to humanity to essentially proliferate
the Internet that we can use to our own benefit. I with like to go through
a brief round of introductions around the table and after that we'll start
seeing what we have done in this initiative and we have done a lot. We
actually put a lot of discussions that exist today in local environments on
the global stage. And becoming connected does not really mean only becoming
connected through the means of technology. Becoming connected also means
connecting in our own efforts and doing something together. That's why we
have gone around the world and created a number of events where we brought
technologies and policymakers together, created vibrant conversations which
you will hear about today and so those conversations will expose the issues
that need to be solved to the global stage. If you go to our portal that is
available today online you will start learning about wonderful pieces of
information that you can find but it is also visionary pieces of writings
that people involved in this initiative have created. It is a tremendous
creativity that can be harnessed here and put to work so we can actually
create connectivity in all three dimensions. Chris, start and we'll go
around the table.

>> Good afternoon, I'm Christopher, the executive director of the IEEE --
society. That's my day job. I serve as a technical lead to the IEEE
Internet Initiative. My job in that capacity is to bring to bear the
members of the IEEE societies, 40 of them each with a different technical
focus. I bring that to bear on the Internet Initiative so we have all these
various technical disciplines represented by the IEEE. Almost all of them
touch Internet policy and governance at this point. So all those
technologists that we represent and those groups can help inform policy and
conversely can also be informed by policy so that as they are doing their
work as technologists they understand the policy implications of the things
they develop. As you will hear with all the other panelists there is a
great diversity of technical expertise we bring to this. That's really what
we do at IEEE. We try to bring all technologists together in a forum where
we can advance tech  -- technology of the benefit of humanity. I'll pass it
to my next presenters.

>> Thank you.

>> MIN JIANG: I'm Min Jiang. I am an associate professor at communication
studies at UNC Charlotte and a researcher with the Center for Global
Communication Studies at Penn. In addition to that, I'm doing work in the
space mostly writing and researching in the space of Chinese Internet. Very
interested in Chinese Internet technologies and policies and that's why I
think I was invited to become part of this initiative. And so I'm also a
member of research community. We gather every year for a conference called
the Chinese Internet research conference talking about anything from
technology topics to policy topics and so on and so forth and involved in
multiple societies. Interested around this topic of Chinese Internet.

>> LIMOR SHMERLING MAGAZANIK: I am Limor Shmerling. I'm a regulator of
technology from the Israeli privacy protection authority. I have been in
this business for the last nine years or so. I've spent a few years at the
Israeli hi-tech industry before that and my main interest in this
initiative is realize in order to create regulation that actually is
implemented and is actually followed, it takes more than just enforcing at
the local level. So my first interaction -- or interest in this IEEE
initiative is the fact that I can bring my powers to create policy and to
frame policy to the industry, to engineers and to learn from them what may
work and what is reasonable and what we should be doing instead of just
sitting in my own ministry and thinking of ideas that may not be even
feasible. The second interest I have here is the fact that I could have
been doing this at the Israeli institution for standards, but the fact is
that we have here a global issue. It is not enough that at the local level
in Israel I may introduce privacy protection into local standards. I think
the job is to come together with international groups and try to influence
standards internationally. This way we may have influence over the whole
global environment. So I really appreciate the invite and look forward to
our discussions.

>> Thank you very much. Juan.

>> JUAN GONZALEZ: Hello, everyone. Thank for giving me the opportunity to
talk to you today. I would like to ask IEEE for organizing the panel and to
the host country for the amazing hospitality. My name is Juan Gonzalez, I'm
with the U.S. Department of homeland security and I'm the senior strategist
and director for cybersecurity standards for Homeland Security. I lead the
development of standards for international organizations, for the U.S.
government, especially the Department of Homeland Security and we work
together to build the best practices and build capacity and provide those
areas, share those areas around the world with the stakeholder community.
So we engage domestically with the private sector and the public sector to
be able to share the expertise that we develop internally. But we also take
the opportunity with these forums to be able to provide the information
that we gather and share the expertise at the local level and what we do in
terms of cybersecurity and securing devices, specifically within the IOT
area. I will expand more on that later. Thank you.

>> Thank you, Juan. Ening.

>> NING KONG: I am Ning Kong and I work for China information center. This
information in charge of the CCRT registry. So my job is follow on the
Internet protocols and ICANN policies and name systems and I.P. address and
I'm very happy to be a panelist to discuss with you guys today. And another
point when I was a Ph.D. candidate my research was focused on the Internet
of things. I tried to make clear what kind of new change of the the
Internet of things to the named system and whether it was suitable protocol
for the future Internet of Things and I think I can share some
understanding to the panel today.

>> Osama.

>> OSAMA MANZAR: I'm Osama Manzar. We're an organization who work in the
remotest part of the country to provide connectivity and digital linkages
in India. Thank you for getting us on this panel. This is interesting
connecting the unconnected. That's what we live for and live day in and day
out. I would like to highlight three points in the introduction before we
get into the detail. The two aspects of connecting the unconnected. The
unconnected people are always subjects to policies and technologies that
they do not understand and they do not know and always being talked about
without really becoming part of the discourse. In any kind of discourse
really all over the world. And the second part is how connectivity itself
is creating a digital exclusion and we need to talk about it. Various
policies are taking us online and everything is going online without really
provided access to the people who really need it. And subject to the online
exclusion. So these are the two or three points that we would like to talk
and if you want to have fun, we can also talk about net neutrality,
Facebook and other things, how they couldn't do well in India and things
like that, yeah. Digital Empowerment Foundation. My Osama Manzar is my
handle.

>> Thank you very much for the great introduction. We have a very diverse
group of people presenting pretty much a lot of places around the world.
The discussion today will be very interesting. As I mentioned in the
beginning. We started from the concept of evidence that bring local
conversations to the global stage and that is very key because issues we're
dealing with a very unique regardless of where you are. And people have a
lot of interest in solving them in the local stage. What is very
interesting is when you start drawing parallels and learn from expertise
that has been developed in one place and can be shared with another place,
you discover that there are more commonalities than differences and we can
draw from each other's expertise and collaboration help overall progress to
accelerate immensely. What I would like to do through the next phase of our
discussion to go around the room and explore a little bit personal
takeaways from each one of our panelists, from each event that took place,
as an example, in Washington, D.C. and San Jose in U.S. or Tel Aviv in
Israel and what was done in India, and what we have done in China as an
example. Draw the parallels among the discussions and ideas and thoughts
and problems and solutions that can potentially be brought to the table
that we can share and benefit from. Chris, maybe you can start. Dimensions
are connectist as enabling component to drive elimination of the digital
exclusion and allowing everybody to connect to the Internet. We've done it
events under IEEE to think of practical solutions the move it forward.

>> One of the most important things we've done with the Internet
Initiative. When we got into it we realized an integral part of Internet
governance ensuring there people there to be governed and take advantage of
the Internet. Connectivity Rose to the top. Working with the U.S. state
department. The White House Office of technology. World bank and other
groups. We launched and took part in a global connect initiative with U.S.
secretary John Kerry. And really what came out of global connect was the
sort of global issue of -- that you mentioned earlier, Osama, the digital
divide growing and how we need to eradicate that. Global connect seeks to
do that and we've convened first in Washington, D.C. It was really a
wonderful event that brought together people from all over the world to
talk about not just the issues and the challenges of connecting the
unconnected but actual get to action. We tried to have a bias toward
action. That was really something that is critical in an initiative like
this. And so one of the things that I think came out of this that was so
important and if you want to learn more about it you can meet the students
who are making this happen on the ground. We met with a group of students
who were IEEE members at our chapters in Tunisia. A great example of Oleg's
point of local people doing global issues. We had students working at their
local chapter at their university in Tunisia realizing the importance of
connecting the unconnected in the rural areas of Tunisia and they set out
to do it. A group of a couple students working with the IEEE and we really
helped them coalesce a group of folks nationally to fund and give them the
support they need to make this connection happen. They've already got two
schools online now. Their goal is ambitious. To get all the high schools
done by 2020. This is a massive effort run by a couple of college students.
All undergrads. I think this really to me is at the heart of what IEEE
does. It showcases many different things. One our global reach. We have as
many members in Asia as we do in the United States. We have members in
South America, Africa, Europe, all over the world. We have thousands of
chapters all over the world. We represent all different technical
disciplines. All these things are coming together through this effort in
Tunisia to connect all the schools to the Internet. We'll learn things
there that we can replicate. There are lessons learned and we can use it
across all these other projects and that's what global connect is to me and
what the value of the Internet Initiative is and would encourage everybody
here to go to the IEEE booth in the hall. Meet with the Tunisia students,
how they got it started. What they're doing and happy to talk about
connectivity projects around the world. We have a lot of resources. We have
400,000 members in IEEE. Volunteer army. You couldn't ask for more experts
in any field that deals with electrical engineering. I think that's a great
example of why we're here today. With that I'll save the rest for later and
I'll pass it along.

>> OLEG LOGVINOV: You participated in the events where we brought experts
and technology together. What is your take away in our discussion?

>> The point about connectivity and I'll say a few words first about the
Chinese contacts and move on to talk a little bit about the point of
technology and policy. So historically China actually connected to the
Internet in 1995. In about 20 years, China has propelled itself into a
global economic powerhouse as well as a technological powerhouse. So
technology -- economy-wise 500 million Chinese people have been lifted out
of poverty, right? And give people the country the base for technological
development. It's also home to a lot of Internet companies, all these now
recognized as global powerhouse. And today China has roughly 700 million
Chinese Internet users and over one billion people having mobile phone
access. So this is sort of the context for Chinese Internet connectivity.
Next I will speak about sort of the recent policies and debates that I
think are important for us to think about, larger issues of connectivity
and Internet of Things that frameed our discussion earlier. I will speak
about the three aspects. First aspect is sort of the idea we've -- Internet
globally and China-wise has come a long way. But I think we have also seen
some shifts about how we think about the Internet and what it is meant to
be. 20 or 30 years ago I think -- China has this particular phrase. We call
ourselves citizens of the internet. It's a separation that Chinese people
hold for themselves and for generations to come what Internet means to
them. And I think in the past 20 or 30 years we've come a long way but
recently there are different frame works for thinking about the Internet
and what it means to China and Chinese people. There are two phases. One is
Internet sovereignty and the other is information sovereignty. These are
ways of thinking about the Internet that have been framed by the state for
sure for thinking about what the Internet should be. And of course
sovereignty emphasizes control over data, control over its people as well.
So these have different connotations and can be read quite differently. And
second, I would highlight the fact that there is a centrality of policy-
making power with regard to the Internet. We used to joke that China there
were so many different ministries and entities making policy about the
Internet, having too many cooks in the kitchen, right? We probably have
this problem everywhere else. In recent years there is a trend of
centrality or centralization of policy-making power related to the Internet
in China. Third, I will say a few words about privacy and security. Since
this seems to be the theme that we wanted to tackle. One of the things that
concerns me a little bit as I do research on Chinese Internet, there is a
very profound lack of concern for privacy. For instance, if you browse
through the kinds of meetings in China on Internet of things. There is a
glaring absence of the word privacy. It is not something, I guess, we
research and we talk a lot about, but I think this is a sort of very
visible gap of discourse and conversations. And in addition to that, I
think a big initiative that has been rolled out recently in China is of
interest to many people on issues of privacy and security. That is the
system called social credit system. They might be given a credit based on
the credibility and elements of online activities being taken into
consideration for this credit score. So I will leave it right there and so
perhaps have more opportunities later for discussion but this is the sort
of current landscape of Chinese Internet.

>> OLEG LOGVINOV: Thank you, Lynn. Limor you have a unique perspective in
terms of similarities you discovered and unique elements of privacy-related
issues.

>> LIMOR SHMERLING MAGAZANIK: I would really like to share with you the
experience and start by saying that we started looking at biometric access
control systems and databases at that event. For me it was a good
opportunity to share my experience in the past if you years as a regulator,
since we had an Israeli project to deal with the identification, the smart
identification in Israel and there were various elements of privacy
involved of decisions that needed to be made in the technological part of
the project that had to do exactly with the point of bringing together the
people who are doing the I.T., who are doing the design and making the
decisions and us, the legal people, the privacy people, and decisions made
during that project are decisions that decide whether we would have less
privacy or more privacy. At that event we also had a participant from India
who shared with us his experience from a similar project that was going on
in India at the same time, and we finished by having a very practical list
of recommendations for engineers, for designers, for the people in the
industry, how to incorporate privacy in that type of project. For today I
actually did a similar experiment on the topic of IOTs that I would like to
share with you through a simple examples, several simple examples. One of
the principles in privacy protection is transparency, how you communicate
to the end users and consumers what is being done with their data and
information. If we're looking at IOTs, they're meant to be very small, low
in power consumption, low in computing power, we -- in order to introduce
privacy protection and in order to create some form of notice to consumers
who use their interface, this is something if it's not done from the start,
there is no way to communicate with this device in order to make it
available to let consumers know what is being done with their data. Another
important thing is purpose limitation, data that is collected from
individuals can only be used to the purposes that they agreed to, to the
purposes that were told from the start. Now, if the defaults of IOTs are
transmitting all informational data back to the processors, or they're
collecting all data that was created during the process, we have a
conflict. How do we limit the purposes to which the data is being used?
This is something that for me as a policymaker and as a regulator who dozen
forcement, I was responsible for enforcement department for the last eight
years, this is something very difficult to come and enforce and sanction
companies for doing that when they say but by design this device, this
product, this chip cannot do what you are asking me to do. So this is very
important and crucial, I think, to start and talking from the start,
privacy by design is meant to be part of the process where we bring
together the people who make the design, the people who make the policy,
and we try to think about how to actually implement policy inside the
product. Another example I can give you the opt in and opt out decisions.
In my type of regulation, it is very important whether the consumer or the
person opt in or opt out. Again, without a user interface, without
something to be able to interact with the devices, with the IOTs, you don't
even have the chance to decide how you do that. I can tell you about a
recent case that was settled with the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission. My
colleagues in the U.S. They charged a company that deploys sensors in
stores and shopping centers, etc., not even the shop itself, not even
target or whatever, Macy's, it was the company that was deploying the
sensors and they were hidden in a way that people did not know that
information about them is collected inside the store and also from
passersby outside the store. And they were charged with -- by the FTC and
they settled the case and they have changed their practices. So these are
all instances where I think that if we address these issues beforehand, we
can make better solutions. Just last example for you to think about for the
rest of the discussion, security, a big part of privacy is security. It
also correlates with cybersecurity requirements and it is very important
for privacy if we look at the CCTV camera recorders. They may have
passwords and administrators that cannot be changed. Even if you want to
make the product safer and not be part of botnet attacks, how do you change
passwords if you don't have it built into the system from the first place?
So I think these are just a few short examples of things that may be better
for all of us as a society. Things that reneed to address right now in
order to create the infrastructure for better privacy protection.

>> OLEG LOGVINOV: Those are excellent points, Limor, what you said makes a
great starting point for you to talk about. The Department of Homeland
Security participated in two of our events in the United States and brought
a fantastic contribution talking about a system level, big picture approach
to security and privacy by design. I hope you can reflect on that. Gonzalez
within the United States and Department of Homeland Security we have a lot
of work to do domestically and with other departments and agencies to
develop the right policy to be able to adapt with the newest trends of
technology such as IOT. We encourage a thriving and vibrant marketplace for
our initiatives in a multi-stakeholder environment with all the work that
we do to share best practices and the development of standard for solution.
We have systems of security and reliable capacity for the building and
private security and to develop those solutions that are shared for -- be
able to give us the capabilities that we need to go on with our lives. We
also work to increase community and consumer awareness and the
understanding of security challenges that we have to be able to build those
common solutions. So picking up on the last point in the previous forums
within IEEE, we're constantly looking for promoting that multi-stakeholder
environment and within the Department of Homeland Security we work with
other private sector entities, other stakeholders, departments and agent
east to development cyber defense, a very broad initiative within the
department and some of the other departments and agencies to be able to
develop the right architectures and concepts to help owners to detect and
defend cybersecurity systems and be able to adapt to the cyber threat in a
relevant time to be able to detect and protect at a machine speed. So we
developed different products and services that help us within those areas.
Specifically some of the foundational activities that we do are automation
to enable automated since making decision making response to providing
realtime network defense within our enterprises. We also look into
information sharing to enable that rapid share of indicators and analytics
and effective responses between enterprises. We also -- one of the other
foundational activities our ability to have integration across diverse
products and services which is stepping back from the proprietary solutions
and building products and services that can interoperate and build inner
connectivity for sharing that trust and privacy that we need for getting
more into the areas that we all care about. So we do a lot of activities
that are within the standards work and at the intraenterprise level we do
what is called develop message fabric to provide a foundation for
supporting secure and reliable data exchanges for interoperability of those
products within IOTs is a huge area that we are looking to how we connect
those devices and how we secure those devices, how we embed the necessary
mechanisms and security practices to be able for us to interoperate with
that level of trust. Security, supporting common data models for command
and control,  simplify engines for more standardized network management
platform. We see the initiative as a key aspect of what we are doing within
the future and how do we create that multi-stakeholder level of trust and
engagement at the domestic level, but also looking into the future on how
we expand to forums like this for the international engagement. The
Department of Homeland Security recently released on November 15th, 2016,
the strategic principles for secure IOT, a document that's freely available
through the DHS website if you look into it. It lays out some principles.
The first one is to incorporate security at the design phase for those IOTE
licenses and advance security updates in management, the third one is to
build on proven security practices. The fourth is prioritize security
measures according to potential impact. Number five is promote transparency
across IOT and number six is connect carefully and deliberately. Within
those strategic principles we have four lines of effort. The first one is
coordinate across for all departments and agencies to engage with IOT
stakeholders in other communities, domestically and internationally. Build
awareness of risk association with IOT stakeholders. Advance initiatives
for developing IOT security and develop to the international standards
development for IOT to help us get into domestically into the areas that we
care about for security and privacy.

>> OLEG LOGVINOV: Thank you very much. A great contribution and I think
what's actually very interesting to note, a lot of things you just said
resonate very well with what Limor said before. Especially in the areas of
transparency when we talk about consumers' rights. It is very interesting
to see even at this table we're finding similarities and synergies and that
bridges very well to the discussion I would like you to touch up on. There
has been a tremendous support from the very first event in San Jose,
California, now almost three years ago. I would love to hear your
perspective -- thank you for that. I would like to hear your perspective,
what you found almost like in a cross section of similarities and
differences among those events and especially differences among countries.
Ooh

>> NING KONG: The first task is try to make our root system be stable. So
we have set up more than 30DNS node and we developed ourselves a device to
try to identify what kind of query. But we do think that is still not
enough because D Dos is very hard to solve so I think maybe it is a big
challenge for us how can we make some cooperated ways across the nations,
across the institutions, and we can share our resources to anti-D Dos
attack and try to make our Internet infrastructure be stable and make
people to safely connect to the Internet structure. Not only because of the
D Dos attack but the future Internet of things. I think for the future
Internet of Things I think naming queries could be much harder than
nowadays for the Internet, so I think maybe we can try to improve such kind
of infrastructures. Another thing is try to attract more connections from
the non-English speakers. So we support the internationalization domain
names. The Chinese domain name and email address internationalization email
account. Such local friendly identifier can attract more connection from
the non-English speaker. Another point because -- the forum and the Beijing
forum and we identify some common discussion is about the data privacy. So
I think it is an interesting point that not only for the Internet now but
also for the Internet of Things and how can we make sure that the data
processed and stored, all of the process can protect the privacy. And it's
-- I think nowadays is not standard ways. And the users do not know if he
buy a service or if he buy an IOT devices, what kind of privacy protection
level is. So maybe in the future IEEE and other international organizations
should think about to make some international standards to standardize the
privacy, protection level and make some third party organization to
evaluate which level of each device, of each hardware, of each software.
Maybe can put some signs on the devices or hard wears and just like
nowadays the electronic devices can have the signs about the energy cost,
so for the future maybe -- the end users what kind of levels they can
protect on the devices and it depends on the end users whether they want to
use this kind of IOT devices. And another big challenge is I think the new
technology can challenge the privacy protection. The data analytics. A lot
of new technology can identify the peoples from the anonymous datas, even
anonymous data. So in the future maybe we should need to figure out what
kind of ways can anti-identify the anonymous data. I think that associate
big challenge.

>> OLEG LOGVINOV: Maybe that could be one of the points today. Let's try to
define a standard. If the panel agrees, why don't we make that as a follow-
up action item and try to bork together to implement it. Makes perfect
sense. That's a great contribution. Last but not lease, Osama. We had
tremendous events in India. But I think the most fascinating what I heard
from you today was your opening statement about India as it is today. So I
would welcome your discussion here.

>> OSAMA MANZAR: Thank you very much. It is interesting, because you, you
know, we are 1.3 billion and always a center of attraction for consumer
goods and for selling products, including technology. And technology is a
great part of -- digital inclusion. Digital without technology is nowhere.
I would like to make some background, since we're talking under the
framework of connecting the unconnected. We are a country of 1.3 billion
and give a lot of example of how connected. We're is tech highest most
connected country and the second highest in social media. These are great
numbers. Something like everybody thinks India speaks English. Only 5% of
India speaks English. That is enough for the world to count them as one of
the highest English speaking country. Similarly in connectivity as well, we
are only 400 million people connected and second highest but we have 800 to
900 million people not connected and also one of the most unconnected
countries. And we have great examples of how digital inclusion. I would
like to share three examples. We have 400 to 500 million people-paying 250
rubies. 250 times the cost that you and me pay in town. It is a serious
digital exclusion example. Life of unconnected people only because of
policy and technology. Because policy says that you have to be online.
Therefore all the government documents are online and therefore a poor
person cannot have it without having a print-out and they have to go 5 or
10 kilometers and you can't go to work for the day. It all costs 250 Rupey
and we pay less than 1 in towns. That's a side of policy and technology
both and the reason I'm mentioning it. We talked about biometric. About
India example. We all have national identities and so we are a part of it.
So when you go to get your ration, since you are entitled for a ration for
the month, they ask you to put your finger on die metric and there are
about 500 million people in India who are daily wage workers whose finger
do not match to biometric machine and you do not get your wages or ration
for the month. It is a digital exclusion and why it is interesting is a
piece of biometric machine is a piece of technology which become part of
the policy we make which became a part of exclusion it has created to the
people who have no choice. So it is something like policy is technology and
technology is policy, you know? And people suffer in between policies and
technologies. Because all the policies are made by the government to serve
the people. But all the technologies are made by the private sector to sell
them as a consumer. So there is a huge interest differentiation in both.
And so this is -- and the masses suffer and the rest of the world, which is
half the rest of the world which is suffering because of being not
connected is not actually the only one serve not being connected but
another 70 or 80% of people connected are suffering because of being
connected. Connectivity is something that is still a piece of technology,
still a piece of policy but still -- hasn't become a consumer good. It
hasn't become a mass consumable product without understanding the
technology and without understanding the policy. That's the challenge that
we need to understand extremely well. And I will give you last example
which actually makes all three. We work in remote areas and we started
trying to license the spectrum and wireless mess technology to connect the
poorest of the poor. Telcos don't go to remote areas because it doesn't
solve their purpose. We started trying to technology and very successful in
terms of connecting the people at a very low cost using wireless technology
and unlicensed spectrum. The fact is I cannot serve the people without
having a license in a larger scale. I can have a few communities and a few
examples but cannot do it at a larger scale. So one of the things that
organization like IEEE or the people who sit on the policy, it is very
important to see how last mile connectivity is not just a subject of Telcos
or large spec trums but also a subject of microenterprises and also a
subject of civil society where the civil society and microenterprises get a
license to connect to the people. It is like a product, you know? So I get
connectivity and I further distribute it and manage in my community. It is
not available on a massive scale. That's very, very important to see that
how technology and policy merge together to think from the perspective's of
people and social enterprise perspective rather than only large scale
enterprise perspective.

>> OLEG LOGVINOV: Those are great insights and well, we have only a few
minutes left towards the end of our session so I would like to suggest if
there are any questions from participants here in the audience if you would
like to ask a question, you are welcome to do so. Please.

>> I'm Mike Nelson and work for cloud flair, a web security firm based in
San Francisco and I do global public policy. In China we don't operate but
we have a partnership with buy due. They operate our equipment and
datacenters with the same service we use. So we're very interested in how
we can work with China and how we can understand the new Chinese
cybersecurity regulations. One of the problems we see around the world, not
just in China, also in India, also in the United States, is that regulation
gets written and it can be interpreted in five different ways. I would ask
our two China experts if they have any advice on how to interpret Chinese
regulations and any sources of insight we can get on what those laws really
mean. There is both a new law on domain names and registration and another
one on cybersecurity and what companies need to do to operate in the
Chinese market. And if you want to talk about Indian tech policy that would
also be useful.

>> MIN JIANG: To a language extent without a lot of consultation. There are
a lot of questions being raised at the moment. To be honest, it's very hard
to read the minds of Chinese policymakers. I guess one of the most direct
way is to ask them to clarify exactly what is meant. And I think there have
been many iterations of drafts and translations already. And the details
are always -- what's difficult is the details and how it is implemented. I
think how it's drafted is one thing and how it's implemented and
interpreted is quite another. You can talk about this high level abstract
concepts but when it comes to implementation I think it creates more
problems, I think. So I think the law is drafted often in a way that is
abstract and how it is interpreted and implemented is really where the
rubber hits the road.

>> NING KONG: Hello, Mike, I'm very sorry that I'm not the policy people
and focus on the technology issues. So I am not very familiar with these
kind of new regulations. But if you want -- if you like, I can try to make
sure some kind of specific question for you, because I am the Chinese -- I
can understand the language and I can ask my colleague or other friends to
make sure what kind of is really meaning of it. If you like, we can
contact. Thanks.

>> I would very much appreciate that. Anything from India how to make use
of telecom regulation?

>> It has to look for people, you know, to regulate things. But one of the
things that recently came out of TRAI. The regulator of India, they floated
a recommendation paper on public WiFi system and gave wireless and
unlicensed spectrum as one of the examples, this is how you can connect
people. And they took a lot of interest from civil society and others and
looks like the government is interested in reaching out to the people and
making it open to the people in the line of community radio, community
radio license in India is open to civil society organization. They can seek
a community radio license and broadcast 10 kilometer radius with a 50 watt
transmitter. Similar philosophy to connectivity in terms of the Internet
and broadband, there is a possibility it can happen at a larger scale.

>> I had the privilege of working on interest net policy in the Clinton
White House. Two simple rules. First, do no harm, the second was, when in
doubt, allow as many options as possible. Unfortunately the Congress had a
different rule which was write vague laws that result in lawsuits that last
for four or five years. The good news, though, with that system is that
even though it relies on lots of lawyers spending lots of money on billable
hours you do finally get a clear, single interpretation of what the law
means. I think that's what's missing in China. We just have no way to force
development of solution. Of a clear implementation.

>> OLEG LOGVINOV: Maybe there is a path. What you just said gave me an
idea. Maybe there is a place or an effort that can be cross-country effort
and driven by all of us here at the table which essentially would focus on
best practices. So we can come together and bring the expertise from all of
the relevant countries and try to figure out. Technology is global and you
want to leverage the economy of scale which the products you build and
that's normal and benefits everybody around the world. Maybe it's one of
the actionable items to take out of this discussion is an exploratory
discussion of creation of this multi-country multi-stakeholder activity
where we can bring experts in both sides, technology and policy, and see if
we can create best practices for implementation.

>> I think I'm getting the lawyers talking to the engineers is what's
really going to be important. You only answered half the problem. This
morning in the Internet and jurisdiction panel at 9:00, they discussed the
idea of a best practices database and a worst practices database. There is
an example of this from a group called net choice. If you do a Google
search for I awful and I awesome you'll get lists of laws in the United
States developed at the state level that were either really good or really
bad. And just highlighting how law is colliding -- bad law is colliding
with technology and holding back some of these great new technologies would
be something that IEEE could be and be a powerful thing.

>> OLEG LOGVINOV: I invite your participation. Let's take it off line and I
think that actually would be something very interesting for everybody.

>> The engineers are the ones who run into the problems directly.

>> To add to the discussion. We actually have a practice of doing
consultations before every piece of policy is rolled out. And we strongly
would like the public to participate. I have to say that in practice we get
many complaints of our policies being not attached to the real world and
less comments on actual policies and legislation that has to do with
technology that we're working on. So to be sure, you have to put your money
where your mouth is, I'm sorry to be blunt. Because we're craving input and
we're getting very little.

>> I wasn't complaining about Israel. You have some very good technologists
in your policy process.

>> That is at the heart of the Internet initiative. Be the forum for
attorneys and meet to technologists with the cross pollination and
information sharing.

>> Good afternoon, my name is Karen Khat, I worked with article 19, human
rights. I wanted to touch a little bit on China's domain for -- focusing
how to bring together people to make the Internet more inclusive. Something
that has been very worrying and recently a joint statement by several civil
society organizations has gone out is the fact that in this specific draft
which very much limits freedom of expression online, there has been
cooperation between -- an the ITF. In certain cases corporate actors are
implementing national laws in a way that essentially violates human rights.
And so I would be interested to hear to what extent this is something that
factors into this discussion because it seems to be something we haven't
really touched upon.

>> OLEG LOGVINOV: Anybody would like to comment?

>> More of a clarifying question. You noted vair sign is a corporation
actor and the ITF. I don't know of the ITF doing anything with the Chinese
government on this and as the executive director I probably would have
heard about it. Clarify what you mean.

>> I am not one the working on the ITF section. The people who are working
on it have verified it. Maybe discuss offline. We have run this by the ITF.
They're aware of this statement being out there.

>> I'm on the IEB and I don't think I've gotten the message. Let's talk off
line and maybe you're not accidentally talking about the advertising board,
a different IAB.

>> OLEG LOGVINOV: I think this question more belongs to an offline
discussion it sounds like. Any other questions from the audience here? I
think we're running a little over time. Yes. How much time do we have?
Okay. Fantastic. We can stay until tomorrow morning, right?

>> Until we get very hungry.

>> OLEG LOGVINOV: Another five minutes and we can go. Any other questions
from the audience? If not, I would like to ask one finishing question. So
we talked about a lot of great opportunities here. We talked about two
initiatives that we can probably launch as a result of the discussion of
this panel. Just a very quick maybe 10 second snapshot, we started this
initiative three years ago almost. We brought multiple occasions
technologists and policy developers together in discussions like this one.
We discovered a lot of issues. From your personal perspective. The greatest
benefit you see from those discussions so far. Anybody would like to start?

>> I'll start. From the IEEE we spend most of our time dealing with
engineers in their society. Internet initiative bridges in other people and
other discussions we won't be a part of. For me that's what it's all about.
When I am at a conference like  IGF for me to talk to non-engineers. This
is broadening for us. It's an opportunity for us to get other folks
involved in what we're doing and help inform the engineering initiatives
that we have going on within the IEEE.

>> OLEG LOGVINOV: It is about connecting the unconnected.

>> Yeah, in many, many ways, well said.

>> It's an opportunity for me to get connected to engineers and talk about,
you know, ideas and values in a way I think that also are important to
them, right? This is real exciting to me. The other aspect is connecting
sort of the missing dots and unconnected people. I think people make things
happen and I have to do my work and also get to know people who have shared
interest and shared goals, yeah. So this is a very helpful for IEEE to be
in this space to connect a lot of us.

>> LIMOR SHMERLING MAGAZANIK: For me also it is a great experience to be
talking to non-lawyers. Lawyers have a really bad reputation. And being one
I can tell jokes about them. But moreover, the thing is I was attending a
privacy conferences and privacy workshops for quite a few years and it felt
like we are preaching to the choir and we are all convinced that privacy is
not dead and we are talking to ourselves. I actually figured out this past
summer in Tel Aviv when I bought Oleg and the group I realized it is much
more challenge to speak to people not convinced the privacy is still alive.
To the people trying to implement our policies and for me it is a great
experience to get these insights, to get other viewpoints, to talk to
people from different disciplines and different ideology defaults and
that's for me the main attraction.

>> OLEG LOGVINOV: Thank you. Juan.

>> JUAN GONZALEZ: I would say interoperability and integration for
information sharing. For us to be able to look into what best practices
there are out there. To commonly face the challenges that we see every day
within the cybersecurity areas. I think that's very important.

>> OLEG LOGVINOV: Great. Thank you, NING?

>> NING KONG: I think it's very hard to communicate with policy people and
technology people, and these two sides maybe have a totally different
ideology and language so it is a tough task for us but I think it really
makes sense if the policymakers do not understand the technology, the
policy cannot be easily implemented. And if the technology guys do not
understand the policy, maybe they will create some kind of useless
technology. It really makes sense and I hope the IEEE forum can keep on
doing this great platform for these kind of two guys to communicate
together further. Thanks.

>> OLEG LOGVINOV: Thank you. And Osama?

>> OSAMA MANZAR: Yeah, you know, IEEE can do it. That's the reason I'm
trying to tell this. And just to add what he said that we don't understand
the language of policymakers and technical people. I would like to just say
one sentence we are looking at the whole world being connected, okay? But
are we really looking at who will manage that connectivity? That's seen as
a technical assignment or a technical job. Can we think of creating
barefoot Internet net engineers all over the world and IEEE takes the
responsibility to demystify technology as a household understanding of how
you can run your own WiFi, Internet rather than running around my Internet
is down and I can't do anything. We already think it is a technical issue.
It is not a plumbing issue in my bathroom. It is not my kitchen issue where
I can cook and make omelet, you know, or something like that. So can I
screw tight or can we play around with technology to the level where it
becomes a household understanding of management of technology. And
demystify technology and policy for a simple person who is using it.
Because if you are using it, we should know how to use it and should know
how to manage it. As simple as that and then be able to participate in the
discourse of whether it is good for me or not good for me. Thank you.

>> OLEG LOGVINOV: It's education. One closing question very quick.

>> Have you turned to the remote moderator to find if anybody has asked
questions online or whether there is any interest in tweets?

>> OLEG LOGVINOV: We have nothing. That brings us to the end of our
session. I with like to thank or panelists, exceptional job, thank you. You
brought fantastic insights and the depth of the discussion was really
exciting. And we have two actionable items as a result of it which we'll
try to take forward and stay tuned. We'll essentially public something to
everybody interested. If you're interested, let us know in participation
and we'll get you involved. Thank you very much, great job, look forward to
future discussions. (Applause) (Session ended at 1:15 PM CT) Copyright ©
2016 Show/Hide Header