You are connected to event: CFI-RPC9 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Test test test test test 12/6/16, IGF. >> Global Internet and jurisdiction Conference, advisory group of the global Internet and jurisdiction Conference. Fairly fairly, fairl, fons fons, fons, sous sous, sows, roin roin, Roin, David David, David, hue hue, Hugh, phone phone, foin, moid moid, moid, Pratt Pratt, pralt, quake quake, quake, pink pink, pirchg, won't won't, woint, sun sun, siewnl, fairly fairly, fairl, won't won't, woint, sun sun, siewnl, , siewnl, >> PAUL FEHLINGER: , Paul Fehlinger. >> >> >> ) prejudice hi, Brian, yes, I can hear you.). >> >> >> >> Sounds good. Thank you!. Lierchg lierchg >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thank you! >> >> >> SUNIL ABRAHAM: , unil Abraham,. >> PAUL FEHLINGER: , Paul Fehlinger, Director scientific and Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Executive Director national law university national law university Delhi, Director of global, associate administrator NTIA, U.S. department national cybersecurity coordinator. Indian Prime Minister's office, head of policy development, principal adviser DG connect European Commission, serb. Cerf, carb carb, cosh, vicinity , vicinity >> VINT CERF: , Vint Cerf, organisation for economic Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, institute for technology and society, Center for communications governance, for communications governance, tre for Communications Governance, National Law University,. >> BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: , Benedicto Fonseca Filho, Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Carlos Affonso Pereira De Souza, Institute for Technology and Society Rio. Chinmayi Arun, Centre for Communications Governance National Law University. David Kaye, Special Rapporteur for freedom of expression, Eileen Donahoe, Director of global affairs, D onahoe, Director of global affairs, ector of Global Affairs, Human Rights Watch,. >> FIONA ALEXANDER: , Fiona Alexander, cosh administrator NTIAU.S. Department of Commerce. Coyed coyed, coyed, Sadowsky, >> GULSHAN RAI: , Gulshan Rai, national cybersecurity coordinator JOHN FRANK: Vice President EU Government affairs, Director of cyber innovation and Director of Cyber Innovation and Director of Cyber Innovation and Outreach Directorate. Interpol. Head of policy development Facebook, Megan Richards. Principal adviser DG DG Principal adviser DG Connect, European Commission. Ghana national information technology agency. Head of department information society. Council of Europe, Vice President global policy development, Internet Society, Executive Director Center for Internet and society, Center for Internet and society, or Internet and society, Center for Internet and society, Chief Internet Evangelist. Internet and jurisdiction, cross-border Internet interoperability. Advisory Group of the global Internet and injure jurisdiction. Open Forum. Dine am irk coalition on gender and Internet mic Coalition on Gender and Internet Governance, DC-GIG, dynamic D ynamic Coalition on Gender. Doit, ha Datta, Jac SM Kee, Smita Vanniyar, Liza Garcia,. >> BISHAKHA DATTA: >> Bishakha Datta,. >> I COULD: Jac SM Kee. >> VOIN: Smita Vanniyar. >> SMITA VANNIYAR: JAC SM KEE, JAC SM KEE: ,. >> JAC SM KEE.: , Liza Garcia R. >> >> LIZA GARCIA: Liza Garcia wing Internet Governance, wig Internet Governance, WIGIG, GIGANET, SIG, highway, wolf, goring, highway, coif, member state, hoys, coil, glaze, doi, drake, moil, chap, steek, snide, eek, snide, snide, , snide, snide, ek, snide, ide, snide, nide, snide, snide, s teek, snide, snide, chneider, draidz, Leonid Todorov, Renata Aquino Ribeiro, Keith Drazek, Verisign,. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 12/6/16. Internet and Jurisdiction. Room 9 good morning, everybody, in what is the only room at this year's IGF I was told that has natural daylight. So it's great to see all of you here, and the first day of the IGF. And this is actually the first Open Forum of the global multi- stakeholder policy network internet and jurisdiction we have organized since internet and jurisdiction exists in 2012, every year a session at the IGF to report on progress and reach out to all of the participants who are here, and this year it's the first official Open Forum for those who don't know yet what internet and jurisdiction is to tell you more about the activities and to report especially on the global internet and jurisdiction Conference which took place two weeks ago November 14-16 in Paris, France. To start, so internet and jurisdiction facilitates since 2012 the global policy process that engages the different stakeholder, academia and international organisations in order to dress the tensions related to the cross-border nature of the Internet and national jurisdiction. And internet and jurisdiction has engaged more than 100 key entities from around the world since 2012 and in doing so, it also bridges not only the stakeholder groups, legal rights, digital economy, legal cooperation, psycher security and our work is structured around thematic meetings, regional meetings and global meetings as the Conference that took place two weeks ago. And this mutual dialogue process that internet and jurisdiction is facilitating is supported by the ING observatory which is a group of leading experts from 17 countries and more than 20 top universities around the world that help us to facilitate the process. And our work is structured around three programs and we will in detail present the global internet and jurisdiction where those three programs were reflected in the, data and jurisdiction, content and jurisdiction, and co-mains and jurisdiction. It deals with the overarching question of how can the transnational -- so address abuses. Continent jurisdiction deals with the overarching question how can the global vibability of content be handled give the diversity of local laws and norms, and domains and jurisdiction which is dealing where the question of how can the neutrality of the Internet's technical layer be preserved when national jurisdiction is applied to the Domain Name System. So without further ado, we will start the presentation of the global internet and jurisdiction Conference. >> Thank you, Paul, thanks to all of you for being there early this morning on the first day of the IGF, it's great to see familiar faces and also faces that we don't know which is an important person of this IGF. My name is Bertrand de la Chapelle, and I'm the Executive Director. What I want to describe -- this working. Let me display the slides, what I will do is a rapid summary of the discussions that took place in Paris two weeks ago. Some of you were there, and we want to report briefly on what was the outcome and have a few of the people who were there also present their take away and what they felt the Conference achieved. Can we have the slides. I'll just anticipate on the first slide because it's fundamentally to explain that there were about 200 different participants, senior level from the different stakeholder groups that Paul has mentioned. The stakeholder groups are basically states, major Internet companies, technical operators, international organisations, Civil Society and academia, and the participants in the, and the participants in the Conference came from over 40 countries. What is important is that they belong also to different policy spaces as Paul mentioned and one of the objectives is to avoid the discussions that take place too much in two sigh lows and for those of you in large companies or even in Governments you know that even the sigh lows exist inside your own organisations between the different industries and the different sectors. The important element is that I think one of the main messages that was put forward is that it puts the question of jurisdiction on the Internet squarely and really firmly on the Internet Governance agenda. And as a matter of fact, it was a follow-up and a continuation of what the NETmundial declaration highlight in 2014 regarding need to address the question of jurisdiction. And one of the big objectives is to make people be aware of the importance of this topic, which is basically how do national laws apply on a network that is fundamentally cross-border, which raises a certain number of questions. We have tried to -- I'm sure is will come now. We have tried to gather in Paris a combination of actors who come from those different stakeholder groups and we, I think, have manage the to reach a certain balance in the participation as you will see from the screen and the pie chart. What is important, I think, and people who were there will be able to confirm that it was the case, there was a very strong message, and the very strong message is about the importance of the topic and the urgency. So these are the pictures from the Conference. So that was the first time there was a meeting dedicated specifically to this question of jurisdiction. A few of the participants you can see on the pie chart here the distribution between Government, companies, technical operators, Civil Society, academia and international organisations. It's never perfect, but it's an effort to really have a representation. The structure was two days over three days. The afternoon on day one and the morning on day three were so called stltd plenary. There were no panels in order to facilitate the interaction between different actors. The first was taking stock of the situation and what is the steak of the jurisdictional challenges on the Internet, and the last day, of course, was about moving forward and reporting on the discussions. The second day was structured around the three parallel work streams that Paul has already mentioned. Content and jurisdiction and domains and jurisdiction with one plenary session in the middle on the theme the future of territoriality. Territoriality is the key criteria for determining jurisdiction and in many cases it raises a large number of questions because there are many groups for a certain jurisdiction on the basis of territoriality, which leads to conflict of laws or the mullet you placety of -- multiplicity of applicable laws. The strong mess ac was about the urgency to address this issue, that includes the importance of this challenge, the fact that it reaches, touches upon several policy comengses. An important factor is the dimensions. The fact that the different stakeholders cannot solve this on their own and if there is uncoordinated actions or inaction, there will be very high costs in Human Rights protection, in the growth of the digital economy, and even in security. And the consequence or the natural logical consequence of this is that there is a need for cooperation and a need in particular for spaces for the different actors to be around the same table. The message was clearly issued by some of the opening speakers of the Conference. I cannot unfortunately quote everybody here, but there are two quotes from Carl Built the former Swedish Prime Minister regarding the challenge that this topic represents for the future of the digital age in general, and also from the Deputy Director General, Secretary General of the OECD regarding the need for transnational cooperation, and what we have labeled procedural interoperability. We have a large number of actors who are developing their own norms, and one of the key challenges is to develop the equivalent of technical interoperability among the legal systems. So without repeating, these are the three questions that were addressed in each of the work streams. It was a smaller group, it allowed people to work together during the full day, and the methodology that was followed during this second day is as follows. One of the most important things in those topics is to have a common framing. If people don't agree on what is the problem, and how to frame it in a way that is their common problem and not the problem that they have with each other because you know that it's very easy to basically stay I have a problem with you, you are not doing what you need to do, be it a governmental talking to a company, company talking to Government, or society talking to podge of them. The first step is to turn this into common formulation. Once you have this, it's important to know who is already working on this. So identifying and mapping the existing approaches and what people are actually already doing is the second step. Then you get an examination of what are the operational challenges that we are all facing when we try to do those approaches? And this leads to identifying, and that was the structure of the day, a certain number of areas for cooperation. So I will quickly go through those four elements to report on what was discussed. So the first thing is on the common framing, on that jurisdiction the key issue is what are the procedural rules to have frameworks regarding cross-border access to user data when you do criminal investigations? The mutual legal assistance treaty system has limits. It's not completely obsolete, but it has limits, and there are efforts to change this, and to provide new mechanisms for content and jurisdiction there is an increasing number of cross-border requests that are being sent to private companies by public authorities or other actors to request the removal and the non-accessibility to certain types of content because they are deemed illegal. The problem being that what is legal in one country may be illegal in another. And in the case of domain names, people in this room are familiar with this space which is usually less covered know that the registries and registrars receive increasing requests as well to take down a domain because the content or the activity on the site is supposed to be illegal in one or several countries. The problem being that if you remove a domain name or suspend a domain name, it has a global impact and it is probably disproportionate as a solution if the legality of the behavior is only appropriate in one country. So we provided as Secretariat an input paper with an effort at common framing of those issues, and this led to a second segment, second session that allowed for a for a certain number of actors to present what they are doing. I will not mention them, mention them all. We can read it while I'm speaking. One of the objectives is is that people are not necessarily sufficiently aware of what is going on in other spaces that they don't belong to and don't participate. There is work going on in initiatives, for instance, on data among Civil Society, academia and companies in the U.S. There are initiatives led by the Department of Justice in the U.S. regarding the potential bilateral agreement between the U.S. and the U.K. But there is also work done by the Council of Europe in the context of the cybercrime Convention. There is work done by the European Commission as well, and what we discovered in the preparatory work for this Conference is that actually people were not necessarily fully aware of what was happening in the other spaces. And in order to have policy, it is important to allow those actors to just hear about what is being done and what can be organized in coordination and cooperation. Content and jurisdiction is the same there is European unit, crab yil of Europe, UNESCO, but there are also society issues like Ranking Digital Rights, global network initiative. And in the case of domains, there is a tension of sorts around the question of whether this should be handled by, within the context of ICANN, which means that it's potential expansion of mandate of ICANN but there is also an initiative within the domain name association called the healthy domain initiative. So there was a second session entirely dedicated to explaining what people are doing so that there is a common awareness. Then there was a longer section dedicated to what are the operational challenges? Here again I will not detail them, but what is at stake is that there are a large number of what we label manageable chunks. When you have a very big issue, the only way to address it is actually to structure the discussion around a certain number of smaller issues that are sometimes Inc. dependent -- independent, sometimes connected and that can go to issues such as how do you identify who is actually sending the requests? The question of authentication of a requester. What are the formats for the submission of those transborder requests because in many cases they are just provided under all shapes and forms without any agreement on what a good request should contain, which means that usually there is a back and forth to get additional information. This loses time and there is not enough procedural guarantees on how this should work. So you can see here a certain number of the questions that were addressed in each of the work streams. Without belaboring on it, the purpose was not to get an agreement on each of them because a certain number of them are relatively complex. For instance, the question of what are the criteria that determine jurisdiction when you have a cross-border request for access to user data is a very difficult and sensitive one. But there was an interesting series of discussions in that regard, and in the case of domains and jurisdictions to pick another example, there is a growing role of what is called note fewers or -- note fewers or trust in notety fewers and what are the transparency mechanisms regarding how the notety fewers should work -- notifiers should work. Which leads to the next question which was to try to identify at the end of the second day a certain number of concrete operational cooperation agreements that the actors were agreeing should be brought forward or allow them to work together. And we did in each of the work streams, we asked people to fill after the discussion a survey on what were the topics that they felt were most important for a corporation. And the outcome, I will give a slightly more detailed account immediately afterward, but the main message is that there were four elements that were across work streams considered as being something that people need to work together on. One seems very strange, but it is to develop shared vernacular. Vernacular is a sophisticated word. It is basically what is the terminology that people use? How can we make sure that when we talk with one another, we understand the same thing behind the same words? Because in some cases we are in discussions that people use a word and when you dig deeper you understand that they don't understand at all the same thing. So working on the same person sack lar is important. The second thing is the importance of places and spaces where people can actually talk together. And in this regard, I think there was a widespread recognition that internet and jurisdiction as a policy network is a space and it is important to allow those activities to continue. Finally there were two other topics, one is transparency, and you know that there is a growing trend towards transparency reporting done by companies on the number of requests that they are receiving be it for access of user data or content technology. What was striking was there was a clear message, I think, regarding the need to have a better or a more harmonized structure for those transparency reports so that they can be better comparison between the different elements and the different information that were provided by that. And another message in this notion of transparency is that so far the information is mostly provided by the companies who receive the requests and that there would be a real interest, however, complex this is, to have Governments themselves providing an equivalent amount of information on the request that they are sending. And the final element is there are many practices that have been implemented by the company when they handle those requests on the space is of their terms of service or on the basis of -- there are a certain number of practices that have been developed by the countries themselves and how they shape the request that they are sending, and there is a clear desire that was expressed across the work streams to have a better documentation and formalization of those practices to develop policy standards and best practices that people can replicate. In particular because at the moment, most of those practices have been developed by large companies or large countries, and there is an issue of scalability, how to empower the smaller companies or the smaller countries to adopt the best practices that they don't necessarily have the financial resources to develop themselves. So those four elements were across all work streams and the more detailed outcome of the survey highlighted the few specific issues in each of the three work streams. And so, for instance, in data and jurisdiction, there was almost a surprising intense discussion on the question of notification of the users. Once again, there was no agreement on how this should be done. It was mostly an element or a way to highlight that this is an important element of due process across borders and that there needs to be a better understanding of how and when should the user notify or not of the request or access to user data that's being done on their account. The other element in data and jurisdiction was as I said before the question of criteria for jurisdiction, and in particular, whether beyond the criteria that are used today regarding the location of the company or the location of the server and people who follow the Microsoft case know how important at the moment this discussion is. There was a discussion on whether there should be other criteria related to where the crime was committed, for instance, or the nationality or the location of the user whose data is being requested. So that's for data and jurisdiction. On content and jurisdiction, there were two elements that were added to the four areas for cooperation I mentioned earlier. One was to engage the judiciary in the discussions of internet and jurisdiction and in those discussions in general because at the moment these are actors that are completely outside of most of the discussions and they are very important players. And the other element was how to handle redress, remediation, and potential alternative dispute resolution. And finally on domains and jurisdiction, domain specific message was to pay a lot of attention to how those notifiers and trust in notifiers are involved in the process. Notifiers are basically actors who screen activity and report to the registries and registrars about the alleged legality of a behavior or a content on a website and ask for the domain to be taken down. It can be on illegal pharmacies, it can be on fishing, farming, bot net activities. It can be on copyright infringement or child abuse images and so on. Those notifiers are considerably developed in the last few years and there is a whole question of how are they accredited? How under they recognized? So without going into more detail, this provided a sort of roadmap for further activity and further work, and as far as Internet and jurisdiction as a policy network is concerned, this work in the coming months and years is going to be structured around the three pillars basically. One is to continue to connect the different actors, facilitate collaboration to promote the notion of policy coherence, to avoid decisions that are taken in an incohesive manner make actually the problem harder to solve. And this meeting at the IGF is an example of the desire to do an outreach and we can outreach to actors not involved in the project so far in other regions, in other groups and the different conferences that we participate in is an opportunity for presenting the work and engaging new actors. The second element as Paul mentioned regarding the observatory is that there is no good policy without sufficient facts although I know that it is an element that is not so frequent in the international space at the moment, and in this regard, monitoring and documenting jurisdictional trends as we do in the retrospect database is an important element and there are now more than a thousand cases of jurisdictional attention that have been documented since 2012. And 2017 will be, we will see a strong emphasis on the production and commissioning of research papers or ING papers on specific issues with the help and partnership with the members of the ING. And last but not least all of this is the no just about talking and the goal is to facilitate and catalyze as much as possible convergence of views an the development of policy standards and common agreements, mutual information and commitment if you want between the different actors (Call them) so if they can agree if actor A is doing this, then actor B will agree to do that, and actor C will be able to monitor. There is a need for coordination and for discussion for the distribution of responsibility which is one of the most difficult things to achieve. So connecting, informing and advancing of facilitating and catalyzing cooperation is the way we are going to structure the work in the coming year. I would be remiss not to give a nod to the different actors who have facilitated while contributing to the funding pool of the internet and jurisdiction process since 2012, made this possible. And you can see here the diversified group of actors from companies, technical operators, Governments that helped fund the internet and jurisdiction process and you can understand that in the coming months and years -- growing the resources of this activity will be absolutely meaningful if we want to achieve the goals we are all aiming for. So with that, I will just thank you and encourage you to maybe give us for those of you who are not following our activities already or regularly, give us your cards when you get out so that you can receive the retrospect newsletter and we are extremely happy to have this great attendance. The balance is that some of you have to stand, but there is still light, so it's compensation. And with that, I will give the floor back to Paul and also to a few of our former participants in the Conference share some of their take aways. Thank you. >> PAUL FEHLINGER : Thank you very much. Just to finish on the presentation of the Conference itself. We released the Secretariat summary that you can find on internet and jurisdiction.net on the website and on the Conference website so everybody can go on the website. We now want to take the opportunity of hearing from the people who were at the Conference what their main take away was because it's very important the messages and discussions and the notion of the areas of cooperation how we can advance the work together to address those issues that those messages are heard at the IGF. And here in the room there are a number of members of the Advisory Group of the global internet and jurisdiction Conference, and I would like to start giving them the floor so that they can tell us what their person take aways were from the Conference, and then I would like to encourage afterward people who were at the Conference to share their take aways with the wider IGF community. I would like to apply a methodology that we applied in the stakeholder sessions at the IGF, we were limiting at the global internet and jurisdiction Conference, we were limiting all interventions to three minutes, so please stick to the time limits so that we have as many comments as possible. So I hope I don't oversee anybody. So I will start on my left side with members of the advisory committee of the Conference. I would like to give the floor to Patrick Penninckx from the Council of Europe. >> PATRICK PENNINCKX: The council of Europe is not financially sponsor the internet and jurisdiction. We nevertheless are extremely supportive of the issue. We were not at the Conference ourselves, one of our colleagues was there and he is extremely disappointed that he cannot -- (Audio difficulties). There are high level of exchanges amongst stakeholders and that is extremely important because what you mentioned about the silos, that is exactly what we find that as we work across the sigh lows and that is something very important even for intergovernmental organisations. We try to do that in our different fields all of the time and (?) can say something more about what we do with business, for example. We have started a partnership with these companies in order to reflect the items global multi-stakeholder approach is crucial and that is nurtured and built possible and that is extremely important. We also have quite a bit of newcomers. What is important there, what you mentioned (?) Clare case of terminology is extremely important.. (Audio technical difficulties). (Please adjust microphone volume). There I think we have a strong position on that. And it sometimes needs to go the flow. It is even more important (?) increasing transparency just to mention our latest because transparency does not only concern companies. It also concerns Governments. And our latest recommendation on Internet freedom specifically specifies that and asks Governments to report on their policies. It's just as important as (?). So best practices obviously (?) go into any of the details you would like us to share. >> PAUL FEHLINGER: We forgot to mention one important aspect of the Conference is that that it had institution of six organises which as OECZ, European Commission, Council of Europe, Slovak presidency of the Council of European Union and ICANN. Ire would like to give the floor now to maybe Fiona Alexander because the Budapest Convention Conference which was very unfortunate as was at IGF that was taking place at the same time. I would like to give the floor to Michelle who is here from Microsoft. >> (Audio technical difficulties). We decided to take all of the copyright and IP related issues out of the scope for the purpose of the discussion because even though they represent the highest number, the highest volume, they don't actually get to some of the more thorny problems related to terrorist content, hate speech, et cetera. Just to point out that for Microsoft, we operate at 123 countries. We have well over 100 data centres, we have over one billion customers. There is due process attached to it for any issues relating to takedowns, whether it's data access requests, cross-border, cross jurisdictional access report, content take counsels or domain take downs there needs to be a process. One of the things that came up in the content was the vernacular, whether we could create a common vocabulary and even though that wouldn't be necessarily universally aagreed all the way. It was agreed at the Conference that it would be better to take the effort to try to create one for the purposes of being precise in our own deliberations and discussions. I think that was universally felt. There is also a proposal to develop or work on the idea of process standards or behavioral standards. One example analogous to this is what's been done in the international standards organisation, ISO to create Cloud privacy related standards which essentially are behavioral standards that Governments have basically bought into related to how data is managed within the Cloud ecosystem. Something similar could be done in the Internet and jurisdiction universe in terms of creating a set of process standards that start from the point at which a request for data access or content takedown or domain takedown originates through to the end conclusion without necessarily in the definition of this kind of activity making the determination exactly who has specific jurisdiction, but the process of doing this work would actually lead to discussions in terms of how you could resolve those thorny issues across the landscape. I think overall my own personal observation about the Conference was that it was a very lively and frank exchange of views that was moving towards execution rather than further talking and I will stop talking. >> PAUL FEHLINGER: Thank you very much. So if I tip on the next side and the next member was Matt Perrault who was on the Advisory Group for Facebook. >> MATT PERRAULT: Thanks, Paul, you say my last name better than I do. I thought I would use my three minutes to speak on the nature of surgecy in these conversations. As I was thinking about the nature of urgency there are two sides to it. The first is what we currently face now that is putting pressure on our companies, on our Civil Society organisations on con cummers. One of the things we have studies is the rise in blocking globally. So we have increasingly seen blocks of Internet websites, so just Facebook, just what's app blocks of the Internet entirely, blocks of certain classes of services such as VOIP services throughout countries in the Middle East. We worked closely with brookings on the quantitative impact after blocking and found that there were more than 80 blocks in a one year period between 2015 and 2016 and the blocks had an aggregate cost of $2.4 billion. The source of many of those blocks are the types of issues that the internet and jurisdiction project are working on, content issues, data issues, so it's important that we resolve those so that we can minimize the impact that they have. I think the other side of the coin, the other side of the urgency coin is opportunities that we missed. So when I look back on the last six months I have am thinking a lot right now given the changing political landscape on things we might have done that we didn't do. And one of the things that come to mind is the U.S., U.K. that ber trained alluded to in his remarks which was not a perfect proposal. There are lots of different ways it could be strengthened but in my time at Facebook I have not seen a proposal from a Government that tried as aggressively as I think this one did to recommend con vile the competing objectives between law enforcement organisations seeking to get access to cases that were from their point of view legitimate in investigating crimes. And on the other hand trying to introduce Human Rights standards that would govern when companies might be able to respond to those requests. Again, if might be the case that that was not a perfect proposal but it was, I think, a rare one and as we look forward in the changing political landscape we might look back at the moment and say we should have taken advantage of the opportunity while we had it. So how do we move forward in light of this urgency? And I think that there are a few different components, but the main thing that I am oak cussed on, I think, is thinking of ways we can be more collaborative. I'm not pointing a finger at all. I think this is something I have been thinking a lot about the work that we can do to be more collaborative, working with different partners to combat issues where we have a shared perspective and the issues that the internet and jurisdiction project is focused on are those types of issues. The first element to working more collaboratively I think is trust. Again, that's not me pointing the finger. That's, there are lots of things Facebook has done to erode trust in working with different partners. I personally in our company, I think, are doing thinking about ways we can build trust. The second, I think, is dialogue and transparency. The Internet and gurs project is gobbing cussed on those two things. It's important we continue to make progress and look for opportunities to have that dialogue and to have it in a transparent ways. The third thing, and this is a focus for me, is trying to focus as moch as possible much as possible on concrete outcomes. I said to Bertrand, I meant it in a kind way, the era of productive dialogue is over. And we need to emerge from these conversations with a different goal in mind than just having productive conversation. I think we need to focus on the exact policy mechanisms we can use to make progress in these areas. Thanks. >> PAUL FEHLINGER: Thank you very much. The next member of the Advisory Group that is here is Eileen Donahoe. >> EILEEN DONAHOE: Thanks. I would pick up right there on the topic of urgency. But slightly different dimension to it. I feel like at the Conference there was definitely a shared sense of urgery, but I think we didn't adequately address the fact that in the outside world outside of this community there is a completely inadequate sense of urgency about what are the consequences of assertion of jurisdiction not just extra territorially, but when you are asserting jurisdiction domestically and having extra territorial evenings which seems to be -- effects which seems to be happeningy many ways. There are many actors doing this in the name of protecting their citizens on some dimension or another, but it's still having a deleterious effect on two big things that we all care about a lot, one is the effective unity of the Internet as a platform for free expression and the exercise of Human Rights and all kinds of other good. And then the other things that sort of a little subterranean but is also happening like a sub text of this territorial assertion of jurisdiction is that we are unintentionally in some cases under mining the concept of universality itself. And the universality that was the basis of the universal Human Rights framework. And I think those are the two big things that are at stake. And I'm just going to mention one last thing. I think we have got to be motivating people around the world that those things are really at stake, the Internet itself as a global platform and the universality of Human Rights. One thing that we did do very practically at this Conference and it falls in the, I think it falls in the best practices area, we started to articulate this idea that for Governments that are intending to protect the Human Rights of their own citizens, but by so asserting their jurisdiction, they are having an extra territorial effect on citizens in other places. They have to look at the consequences of that as experienced and articulated by the people in those other places. So the idea being that if you are protecting your citizens' privacy, let's say, but people in other countries experience it as under mining the right to freedom of expression, be more humble about your assertion of jurisdiction and perhaps keep it within your boundaries, and use the concept of do no harm, at least do no harm as it relates to the enjoyment of Human Rights of people outside of your jurisdiction. We just started to get our hands around a movement in that direction. So I will leave it there. >> PAUL FEHLINGER: Thank you very much. I see that unfortunately some members of the Advisory Group of the Conference already left. Benedito, the Brazilian Ambassador had to leave already and I think Arun from India, she also had to leave. Since we have 13 minutes left. I may ask you to please be brief so that the maximum number of people can talk. I would like to continue because Patrick mentioned with Alexander Zigar if you could give us an update on the Conference that took place in Strauss burg. >> I fully agree with what the gentleman from Facebook said that we need to come to some conclusions.. I'm dealing with cybercrime, electronic evidence from criminal justice perspective and in 1995, it's 21 years ago, there was a report of the Council of Europe on procedural law issues regarding cybercrime and evidence that underlined urgency of the matter of securing evidence that may be in other jure dictions. That was in 1995 (Fiona Alexander) and now we still have productive dialogue on this. The Cybercrime Conversation Committee is full of prosecutors, law enforcement, that sort of people that realize that very little cybercrime is actually reported to police, and of what is reported less than 1% ends up in court. So if you look in the reality, very little is actually ever investigated, prosecuted and adjust indicated and we can have doubts about the rule of law in cyberspace. So, therefore, in 2011 the committee established a group on transport or access to data, which went through a number of recommendations. It's direct access to data not now via providers or any other intermediateys, that produce the report with some recommendations, the problem is that the recommendations were presented about the time the revelations came into the media so the issue of transport of data was not feasible anymore. But the committee outlined at that time there would be a jungle of different solutions and that's what you have in reality. Everybody, Governments try to do their job to protect society against crime. Prosecutors try to investigate. Law enforcement try to investigate. They all find their own unilateral solutions. That's the problem. We, therefore, established another group, the Cloud evidence group that produced its final report two months ago, and that report was discussed by the cybercrime committee three weeks ago with very specific proposals. One of them is let's focus on data that is needed most often but is less sensitive to other data. Let's focus on subscriber information because that's what law enforcement needs in 80, 90% of the cases. I will stop in a few seconds. But I also didn't stick to the three minutes, by the way. There is a workshop tomorrow at 12:00, high noon, workshop 87 with Chris teianna, and so on, but there are specific proposals on the table of how to interpret existing commissions of the Budapest Convention to give a little basis for the type of requests that law enforcement sends to Facebook, Google, Microsoft and so on, thousand and sand thousands of requests are sent without a clear basis raising many rule of law problems. We try to create a legal basis for that. There are a number of other solutions but for that you have to wait until tomorrow lunch time. >> PAUL FEHLINGER: Thank you very much. >> Just one point to pick on what Alexander was saying, one of the important evolutions is that access to user data doesn't concern exclusively cybercrime anymore, but also access to information in normal criminal investigations where information that is held by service providers is useful for the investigation of normal crime that are not only cyber crime and this is a big development that makes it even more important to discuss this. >> PAUL FEHLINGER: Before we open up for questions, one last representative of a member of the Advisory Group is here which is Leonardo who is here for Cerf from Google. >> Sorry you guys couldn't get Vint Cerf so you are stuck with me. I think that what Google is experiencing around the world and other companies touched on this is we are concerned with the race to the bottom that did result from all of these uni lateral initiatives in a sense. We have seen blocking injunctions in Brazil, for example,, we have seen legal legislation trying to be applied to the fact that any services just available there even though it was never targeted to a specific country or region actually fall into the jurisdiction as well. So the major concern that we have, and that's why we praise this kind of initiative of the Internet and jurisdiction group is essentially the fact that if these common standards are not developed soon rather than later, basically we will still be facing these legal issues, these general issues of this race to the bottom that was raised. So that's really concerning for everybody, anybody that's really interested in doing all of these scenarios of investigating crimes, no matter which stakeholder group you represent should really be focused on trying to get global solutions around unilateral approaches. Thank you. >> PAUL FEHLINGER: Thank you, Marcel. I have seen a few people raising their hands, so. I have arian, Dorgen. Priority to the urgency of scheduling. Revika. It's okay. It's flexible. >> AUDIENCE: Thank you, Bertrand. One thing I want to compliment you for an excellent meeting in Paris. Just a few comments to pick up on what was already said, one has to do with the importance that attendees at the Conference stressed on transparency and accountability, that we need to have as we have this cross-border system, you know, of requests of actions to restrict content and hand over user information, the accountability of this is vital. And so transparency is a very important part of that. The Ranking Digital Rights project which I lead in our indicators that we use to evaluate companies have come up with a bunch of things that we believe based on consultations with experts and companies over many years are best practices in terms of what companies should be disclosing, what they should be reporting on. So I'm going to be leaving a thing here about our project, and you can go on the website and see what our indicators are, but that might serve as a good starting point for thinking about what the best practices around disclosure by companies ought to be. One thing that we found in our research is that many companies are hindered in their ability to be transparent by law and regulation of Governments that are preventing them from reporting data, you know, even about content requests or even sometimes reporting data about copyright takedown or defamation take down, reporting not individual cases but data, or there is legal ambiguity about what they can disclose and I think that Governments that are members of the open Government part 234ERship, Governments that are members of the Freedom Online Coalition have no excuse but to bring their laws into alignment with maximizing companies' ability to be transparent on these matters, and then secondly, of course, as many have raised we need Government transparency and particularly those Governments that are part of the Open Government Partnership. I would argue that being open and reporting on requests that are being made for user data and content takedown and blocking and shutdowns of all kinds, should be a vital component of being committed to open Government, because otherwise that affects people's ability to access all kinds of other information that is needed for openness and accountability of any governance system. Two other really quick things, there was discussion about grievance and remedy, and this is an area that is very under developed, and I think this group can work on and I know I'm getting a signal. And the other is systems for monitoring and evaluating and benchmarking how both companies and Governments are doing on these things I think is really important for bringing greater accountability to the system. >> PAUL FEHLINGER: Thank you, Rebecca. I'm sorry for the time constraint. I have Michael Nelson, Arian and Chris painter. >> MICHAEL NELSON: Thank you very much. I'm going to keep this to two minutes because I have to leave at 10:00. I was very glad to be part of this meeting. I'm Mike Nelson, I'm in charge of global public policy for CloudFlare which is an Internet security firm. I'm also a professional Internet Conference attender. And this was a very good meeting. Mostly because there was a huge amount of time for us to talk amongst ourselves over cocktails and the like and in the sessions themselves we had a lot of breakouts, a lot of good discussion. The thing I wanted to highlight was one of the important recommendations that came out of the content and jurisdiction group. It was listed as best practices for dealing with transnational issues. It was actually best practices and worst practices, and it's very important that we highlight the really bad things that are happening. A model for this is something that Steve Delebianco to your right is doing. They call is I awesome and I awful. And it's a compilation of really bad things that state Governments in the U.S. are doing. The great thing about highlighting what worst practices is it gives a signal to people who might be inclined to copy those worst practices. More importantly for you, it's controversial. You will get a lot more attention which is the biggest problem with this whole project. You are not getting the attention you deserve. So get out there and start pointing fingers at people who are doing stupid stuff! And not just Governments. I'm talking here about advocacy groups, I'm talking about companies, call people out. And make sure that we don't go down the wrong path. The other thing that I wanted to highlight was this was a very good Conference because every so often when people started just admiring the problem, somebody would come back and say, no, what are we going to do about it. And then somebody would stand up and say, well, the Government needs to do this, and then somebody would say we are not the Government, and we would start talking about what the people in the room could do. So that's another reason I'm very excited about this project and why I was glad to be there. Thank you. >> PAUL FEHLINGER: Thank you. Arian, and then Chris, Daphne and Steve, and I think we will have to close the line unfortunately. So Arian. >> Thank you. And I will try to keep my comments under two minutes as well. So I will just echo the others in thanking Bertrand and Paul for this initiative. Obviously going into this Conference I realized the issue and issues were very complex and I think I came away with a view that they are 100 times more complex.. I think this Conference really demonstrated the value of, well, A, that these are really complex issues and that starting to unpack and understand them and floor approaches to deal with them really requires multi-stakeholder innovation. You know, getting beyond sort of individual institutions or perspectives to start of look at the collective opportunity. And I think there are areas where, you know, they were identified coming out of the Conference where I think concrete and sort of practical, you know, work may be possible looking at things like shared vernacular, language and ways to improve transparency. I think that how we approach the sort of constellation of issues is important as the final result, and so these types of initiatives that are inclusive, that are bottom up, that meaningfully engage the diversity of perspectives whether technical community or Civil Society or private sector, academia is obviously important, and openness to approaches being made from innovative approaches from the bottom up. So I will stop there. Thank you. >> PAUL FEHLINGER: Thank you and Aryan Dogen is from the Canadian industry. It used to be industry can made. >> It's now innovation science and economic development Canada. >> PAUL FEHLINGER: So we have to be very, very conscious of leaving the room in literally a few minutes to Chris, Daphne and Steven. >> >> CHRISTOPHER WOO: I'm Chris Painter from the State Department of the U.S. can which is still called the State Department of the U.S., and I want to say a couple of things, we have been dealing with these issues that el ex ander said for a lot of years you mentioned how this is not just cybercrime. That's been true many years, we have looked at within the G8 group, the crime group I used to Chair this was literally 15 years ago and we made progress and what we are focused on is trying to look at things we can do nationally like beefing our ability to this and giving more resources to it but what we can do creatively in the U.K., U.S. draft agreement and proposed legislation with that. And as you said and this is a key thing for us, we want to make that, we want to balance different interests. We want to make sure that law enforcement access is easier, but we want to uphold certain principles and we had a very strong Government delegation at your Conference, Larry strike ling who is in the back there, David Bidcower deputy assistant attorney gem in the criminal division and the Justice Department and me and we care deeply about this issue. That's why we have been looking at these creative solutions. One thing worth noting about the U.S./U.K. draft and the proposed legislation was that was an experiment that we think could really help in a big way and it's something that we could make more generally available to other countries, however, to do that, those other countries have to meet standards too. So it might help raise the boat everywhere. But I would agree with respect to your Conference, I think what I felt most valuable was you had the right people at the table. You brought the right stakeholder both from Government, Civil Society, industry and academia and that was valuable in getting the concrete solutions. I don't think this will get solved overnight certainly, but we can look at different creative solutions as we go forward. >> PAUL FEHLINGER: Thank you, Chris, Daphne. >> Yes, Daphne Keller stand Ford Center for Internet Society, formerly Google. I will echo the thanks for the Conference, it was remarkable and one remarkable thing about it was the difference between the three tracks in terms of who was in the room and paying attention. I think that the conversation Chris just described, the conversation about cross-border access to user data for law enforcement is at a pretty advanced state. Governments know they care about it. They are sending representatives into this conversation. They have positions, there are proposals on the table. At the other end of the spectrum was the DNS takedown conversation where there was a great sense of chaos and crisis and nobody knowing what to do precisely because there hadn't been this sort of long conversation to grow proposals and for people to firm up their positions. In the middle was the content takedown session, my session, and there I think there are beginning to be Government actors in the room paying attention. We had Government representatives in the room for that session more so than I have seen in any previous discussion of this topic. But not that many and while they are experienced in some details of it, they aren't as accustomed to the larger picture that's been developed in these Forums. So I think I will echo Eileen's point about the urgency and I will urge those of you who speak for Governments or can speak to Governments, particularly outside of the United States and Europe, to pay attention. To have trade ministries, justice ministries, culture ministries, everybody who is affected by the deletion of online content based on another country's law pay attention and be involved. Thank you. >> PAUL FEHLINGER: Okay. So thanks, Steve, for helping keep the time because I'm conscious of the group that will be coming afterward. So thank you very much. The importance of this session was mainly to report back, explain what it is. For those of you who have not participated in the Conference, you can go to Internet jurisdiction.net where all of the videos are accessible of the public sessions. I want to highlight a few of the words that were used. One of the key elements is the question of due process across borders, the dangers of having a sort of legal arms race due to the noun alignment of unilateral decisions and the question of policy coherence so that the different stakeholders know exactly what the others are doing. Thank you very much for those of you who have participated in the Conference. Thanks for having come this morning and please come to the booth in the village if you want to keep in touch with us. Please give us your cards as you are leaving if you want to be kept informed and go to Internet jurisdiction.net to have more information. Thank you so much! (Concluded at 10:07). Test test test test test test. 12/6/16. DC on Gender and Internet Governance Room 9. >> Liza Garcia We are just about to start the next session, which is the meeting of the gender dynamic coalition, so can we request people from the previous workshop, yes, to, yes. Can we request people in the room to come to the table. This is an interactive session. We would like to hear from you. It is not so much a presentation-based session. Santia. Yes. Thank you. Good morning. >> >> BISHAKHA DATTA: Good morning, everybody, I work have point of view which works at the intersection of depender, sexuality and technology. This is the annual meeting of the gender dynamic coalition. So before we proceed with our agenda, can I just ask people how many of you have been to a meeting of the Gender Dynamic Coalition ever? Let me then very quickly complain what the Dynamic Coalition is. Basically at each IGF, there are about 12 Dynamic Coalitions which are basically like thematic groups. The reason they are called dip amic co-a-- Dynamic Coalitions is because it's not essential for someone to be a permanent member of this coalition. So the people who are part of the coalition keep changing. It's a very dynamic, but people who are interested in that particular theme can come to the meetings or can participate on line. So we have a list actually for the gender, for the dynamic Coalition on Gender and ig and it would be gratefully if you all are it would be great if you would like to join the list we can pass a piece of paper and people who would like to join the list if you put your email down, we can add you to the list. That's how the Dip amic Coalition works throughout the year and the annual meeting is at the IGF every year. So one of the first things we would like to do which is a tradition at the Gender Dynamic Coalition is part of our mandate of looking at gender in Internet Governance is making sure that there are enough genders at the table that shape, influence and define what Internet Governance is. So we want enough women at the tables. We want enough trans people. We want people of different gender identities really shaping the Internet Governance mandate. And as part of that, there has been a tradition which was introduced by the Association for Progressive Communications or APC, which is a global network to do what is called Gender Report Cards so we basically look at how many women were participants at each year's IGF panelists as well as moderators to see whether the gender parity is being achieved or whether we still need to work on this. The first thing we will do is report back through the gender report cards and for that I will ask Smitra who is my colleague at Point of View to share a presentation. >> SMITA VANNIYAR: Good morning, I'm Smita Vanniyar. I will take you through the gender report cards for IGF 2015 and the African IGF 2016 and the Pacific region IGF 2016. Firstly the IGF 2015. Now, this is the depend he report cards were recorded for 107 workshops and sessions at IGF 2015. Out of these 88 workshops recorded the number of female participants at the workshops. According to this, the gender report card which came out, 59 workshops had half of the participants as female. Five had majority majority female participants, 22 had less than half fee Mel participants. And one had no participants at all.. The gender record card notes gender diversity of moderators. The top five are the workshops that had majority female participants, the five workshops. Next we go to look at gender diversity of moderators. This was recorded in 105 workshops out of 105 workshops 75 had male moderators and only 41 had feel may moderators. Among the panelists, there were 476 male pandists and 274 female panelists. So to carry on on the panelists so 80 workshops had more male than female. 14 had more female than male and 14 had equal number at IGF 2015. The Gender Report Card looks at relevance of gender at as a team at workshops this was recorded in 79 workshops. In two of the workshops gender was seen as the main theme.S whereas in 13 it was seen as an important topic. In 20 it was mentioned but people didn't think it was very important and in about 44 there was no mention of gender at all. We will just show a quick comparison between IGF 2014 and 2015. There was a can he crease in the number of female panelists but a slight increase in the number of moderators. We couldn't compare the participants you because it was calculated differently in 2014. So this is a comparison between the two years. >> So I think what's interesting what we are seeing as the trend because these measurements have been done since 2012 is I think we are seeing that the number of women who are either participating in the IGF or moderators or panelists is more or less increasing, right? Even though there may be slight variation. But the relevance of gender as a thing still needs work because as you can see on this chart in a majority of the sessions gender was not considered important or related to what was being discussed. And there were very few sessions where it was the main theme, then important or mentioned. So this is an area we have to work on. >> SMITA VANNIYAR: African IGF. In this there were only 12 sessions recorded. Gender Report Cards for 12 sessions recorded. Out of these, half, 10 workshops had half of the participants as female. One had less than half as female and one had more than half of the participants were women in that session. Among the moderators, out of the 12 workshops which were recorded, 10 of them had male moderators and four had female moderators. Among the panelists, the report card of male panelists and 14 female panelists, looking at relevance of gender as a theme, among the 12 workshops which were recorded in two of them it was seen as important, two of them it was mentioned and eight of them it wasn't mentioned at all. And is there were no workshops which had gender as the main theme. It was very interesting the African idea of Gender Report Card had this additional column, it said who dominated the conversation, dude or not dude. Unfortunately we didn't have enough data. So the ones that were reported said dudes dominated 100%. So this was the first time the Gender Report Cards were recorded at the after begin IGF. We go onto the Asia-Pacific regional IGF in Taipei in July. This, in this the workshop cord night Nateers had to report on diversity of participants so when you had to fill in the report at the end of the figure they were told the number of participants as well. In 31 sessions it was recorded. Out of this about 15 of them had less than half of the participants as female. 11 sessions had majority female participants, and about 5 of them had equal number of male and female participants. There were no sessions where there were no female participants whatsoever. The recording of moderators and panelists was a little different. This was done by APC members attendtion the sessions. It was reported in this format. There were nine female moderators and 33 female panelists. Gender a theme, again, here it was in two of the IGF, in three of the sessions it was the main theme. In two of them it was seens important. In three of them it was not mentioned at all, and about eight sessions had no mention of gender whatsoever. I would like to thank Daphne and Debby who analyzed the IGF 2015 gender report cards. That's my presentation. Thank you.. >> BISHAKHA DATTA: One of the traditions at the Gender Dynamic Coalitions we like to discuss the findings of the Gender Report Cards whether people find this useful. So we would really welcome any comments from the floor and also I want to tell you how the methodology. So when you apply for a session or a workshop proposal at the IGF, or at any of the regional IGFs, you have to write a report after the workshop has been conducted. And at the IGF itself, gender reporting has been institutionalized in that report. So there is a question which says how many of your participants were of different genders and, you know, how many moderators and participants. So that is the data that we are throwing back, and I think in the case of the Asia-Pacific region IGF, this data was collected for the first time. So it was done up formally by can -- informal alley by members of APC present there and it was also done, it was added as a question in the workshop reporting as well, but perhaps because it's the first time, not many workshops reported back on this gender dine dimension. And I think if you could talk a little bit about the European IGFs and what you have done this year. >> Okay. For the European I have to say we don't have -- Valentina from one word platform. An organisation in Bosnia, Civil Society organisation. I can say nationally what we did, we, this year has been the second IGF, and we have tried to have as common ground that our aim is to have a 50/50% policy. Of course, it's not very easy. This year we had more female participants than male or at least, you know, we had the third option, but let's say we had more people identify themself as female participating. The moderators, we had the three man panel, it's a one day event. We had only one event, on one panel we had female and male moderator co- moderating. The panel on business was with equal participation, 50/50, so we achieved. We had another panel where it was like 40/60, 60% men and 40% women, and another one that was heavy male. So this is a challenge that there is, and the results of the regional initiative, and I think that there is a challenge for all, but for us what is important is to have it as the very beginning so to say that this is what we want to have. So it's not an excuse. Organisation focal point has to really strive to make the best, and I think that is, the long-term could work, and I think that the national IGF are very important because at the national level, you can reach out more easily to the constituencies, the different constituencies. If you want to see in the global level more women or more issues of diversity or diversity, we need to start really under the national level. The more local the better so we can grow, this is our experience. >> BISHAKHA DATTA: That's great. Thank you. And also to say if there are people here attending the national IGFs, and if you all would like to record gender or do something similar, please talk to us after the session and we can try and figure out how to do it, because I think all of us completely agree with Vally, if we can do this at the national levels, at the regional as well as at the global level, we can really monitor how gender diversity in terms of participation panelists and moderators across the IGF processes. Any questions, comments? What did people think of the Gender Report Cards? Do you think it's useful to measure diversity this way? Just any comments that people have? Yes, please. >> AUDIENCE: Thank you. Renata Rivera for the record. I am a member of the (?). I would like to congratulate everyone on their great work. Also bringing a perspective from LAC IGF and Brazil IGF, we had Brazil IGF had for the first time in conferences and there were several events around gender issues, and they referred the work of the DC and the IGF year-long work. Also during LAC IGF we had a session on Connecting the Next Billion, and the gender perspective was very important in this debate. The aspect of measuring connectivity of women and under represented groups such as LGBTQ issues as well did, was brought up in the national, in this regional IGF, and I would definitely invite you all to continue engaging also with LAC participants to increase these debates. We have very diverse gender issues groups, very active, and the experiences we had also changing with the DCs and with other national and regional IGF were very rich. And I do hope they continue and increase immensely in the next year. Thank you. >> BISHAKHA DATTA: Thank you very much Renata. One of the questions we wanted to focus on is all of the data is showing that while participation has increased as well as in moderation and panelists, the mention of gender still needs some work, so I think one of the strategies that we have been following is when we go to sessions sometimes, we insure that no matter, to give you an example, we just went to the Internet of Things session in workshop room 2. And it's a little complicated trying to figure out how to ask a question related to gender in the Internet of Things given that, A, we are not that familiar with what the Internet of Things, like we don't know enough, right? So it was a little intimidating, but what we tend to do sometimes just to make sure that the gender component gets included is ask a related question. And then regardless of whether that is answered by the speakers or not, the effect of making them think about the gender aspect. So in the Internet of Things I think I asked a question about consent, and the reason I asked it is not so much that I knew it would be answered, but because I wanted people in that room who are setting the standards around the Internet of Things to at least start thinking about consent, which is very much related to gender and sexuality. So this is, again, a strategy that we use which, yes -- yes, please. >> AUDIENCE: Hi, my name is Rachel Kaye and I'm with IFEK. Mine are more questions than comments and partly because I'm not that familiar with the process and the Coalition. When a workshop is submitted, what kind of criteria is involved in terms of including a depender dimension in the workshop? And is that evaluated after the fact in those report cards? So if there has been a commitment made by the workshop organizer to include that then looked at after after the fact? Soar. >> That's a really good question. I think at this point, no, it's a really good question and really good suggestions for ways to hit integration better. At this point what we have tried to do is insure consistent monitoring as self evaluation as well as community evaluation through the report card mechanism, but the kind of most evaluation to the extent where you actually fulfill your commitments to integrate gender, I don't think that's quite happened yet, but what has happened though is that the MAG, for example, diversity on the basis of region, on the basis of stakeholder groups as well as on the basis of gender and age has been really prioritized in terms of assessment of workshop approvals. So that we definitely have seen an improvement. >> BISHAKHA DATTA: That's a great suggestion, Rachel that we have noted as a point. I'm not sure how we can operationalize it, but we can discuss it because part of the way IGF works and, Jac, correct me if I'm wrong, it's a soft persuasive touch rather than a hard evaluation sort of thing, but I think it's given us the idea that maybe we can look at some of the proposals as well as some of the reports and see how these correlate. And then think of ways to take this forward. >> AUDIENCE: I think ideally then that would feed into the next selection of workshops because then you would know that something being proposed may sound really good in principle, but then in practice, it actually didn't work. So then maybe there is recommendations that could come from an approval of the workshop, but actually when you do it, try this or try that. >> SMITA VANNIYAR: Currently the way it works is gender is assumed to mean women by workshop participants when they report back, so Jac, again, this something, do you think we can change the language of that question or just put it in brackets saying women, trans, I mean, I think it would be interesting to even record literally like zero trans, if you know what I mean, just to short of have that on the agenda even if we don't have enough (Bishakha Datta) so how can we, some of the internal processes of the IGF are hard to fathom, but how can we actually get this done? >> JAC SM KEE: I mean, definitely a proposal that comes from the DC to say this should be included can be taken on to the MAG for discussion, and I think also at this moment it's quite opportune because we just had, I mean, there was just the IGF retreat that talked about, that had discussions about improvements in the work of the IGF. So this could be one of the things that we said, okay, integration of gender is quite critical. While there have been milestones in terms of report card and so on, but how can we make this more substantive integration in terms of content itself and discussion? So, yes, definitely welcoming very concrete recommendations is very, very helpful. So, please, more of that. And also, Renata is I MAG member but she can also contribute to the accommodation. >> REN AT A: I want to also bring in information. The MAG has a work group on evaluation. So this group was just chartered and it's an idea of keeping up with year-long work of improving workshop evaluation. I actually remember quite an interesting situation about gender issues workshops that when we were analyzing the workshops, for instance, we don't really have a way to see on the proposal form after the proposal is finalized, for example, panelists' genders. So I saw myself evaluating panels, and I didn't know whether I was evaluating Manels or not. So it was quite an interesting moment that it was sort of the aha moment. Are we going to have only Manels in the IGF if we don't have a way to ascertain whether these workshops have gender balance or not. So I think there is an improvement which can be made on the system, on the process. Key word in that saying such. I think since we are also now together brain storming this urge us to think of ways to entering this proposal, making sure the proposal does approach gender issues, make that clear on the proposal in that it is a gender balance panel. So the IGF as a corner stone diversity in its criteria of selection. So make sure you address it. Make sure you bring it on the proposals. And the Working Groups, they are MAG, but anyone can sign up for Working Groups, so the Working Groups on workshop evaluation, anyone can sign up. And that's going to help us improve the system. And also speaking on national and regional IGFs and the report card, for instance, there was a discussion on LAC IGF also about trying to adopt similar mechanisms such as the report card which is, which has already been adopted in the Asia-Pacific IGF so try to think of that also in your local level. So starting these proposals from the local level to the global IGF level is very important. >> BISHAKHA DATTA: In general do people think it's a good idea to try and have a recommendation that moves gender diversity beyond women, the women, men binary, to try and explicitly include different gender identities? In counting, like the thing is even if it's zero, according to -- I personally think it's fine because it just puts the issue on the agenda or if there is another way. >> AUDIENCE: Hi, my name is foundation in Colombia. I was part of the Colombian table about Internet Governance and we are, I don't know, we prepare free national Internet Governance Forums in the last two years on gender definitely is one of these issues that we try to improve. This year we have done a presentation about gender. The second year we don't have one in particular, and in the third one we have a panel about gender and inclusion. And I want to say two things in that. Here is one, if something that I so in all of these Internet Governance -- saw in all of the Internet Governance sessions is that the women participation is in some cases very high, but when it's gender issues, when the issue is specifically gender, you look around and it's all women. There is something similar that happens today here. Yes. And there are no men talking about, there are no men talking about gender issues. There are few ones. And it's very presence that they have here and it's okay, but we need more. And I think that that is part of the methodology is trying to find if their session about gender with all women or we can look for gender sessions with men and women and talking about that. That is one suggestion. The other one is in Colombia in our particular case it's very hard to ask people for their gender identity because a lot of people are not comfortable to say I am gay, lesbian or bisexual or whatever. So it's very hard to say if we are going to introduce that in the statistics because a lot of people it's not comfortable saying that. So I suppose that that is part of this discussion and it's very hard to think that these people cannot say what is their gender identity. >> BISHAKHA DATTA: I think. Again, great suggestions. So I think we will then maybe based on this suggest that, you know, certain workshops where gender is the specific focus, we try and do the reverse count, right? We try and see how many men there are. And, yes. So let's note that as a definite action point. I think that's a really good idea, and I think on the self-identification of our gender identities, let's not bring it up to sort of a high level. Let's see how we can freeze it in a way where we can just put, you know, some sort of additional thing saying please let us know if any other -- let's see how we can do it. >> AUDIENCE: One of the things that we are implementing in sort of the Forums for participation or for other things is to add an option in gender, female, male, and other. So other could be a place where you don't have to pes few, but it -- specify, but it leaves it open.. >> AUDIENCE: The raw statistic that the IGF is collecting, so when I registered I found two things I disliked, first, there is only female and male and it's compulsory, and second that you have to decide if you are a Mr., Mrs., or I don't really identify with any of this. And I don't understand why I should. So I think it should not be compulsory, but people could decide if those types of part or not but also to open up this generic identity. When we had our national IGF, we were thinking a lot about the other because we didn't, we were not sure -- we didn't want to, you know, you can go from an over extensive list or you can be so that, okay, we will put other and let people define, but this is a conversation, because then we enter other. So if we talk about the level of statistic, I think at the end the statistic regardless of the gender score card at the workshop, you have no really privacy when you come. I think the general statistic of the IGF could be more open and leaving people more space to define their own diversity. (ven lean Tina). >> >> AUDIENCE: Thank you very much, hey anymore is Adrian nail Lavin from Mexico. My first time at IGF and at this wonderful dynamic coalition reunion. I am one of the seven Commissioners at the federal (?) institute, the Mexican regulator for telecom broadcasting and the competition authority. And we are seven, and only two women and five men at the board of Commissioners. And I'm particularly interested in every country and at the international level in the decision making processes. So, for instance, I attended yesterday the high level meeting that was at day zero here at the main Conference room, which was answering two very important questions regarding the Internet, and the panel which lasted three hours was a panel of 19 men and eight women in different very top positions and I was very impressed that we weren't even half of the -- and that's only men and women. Of course, very important what I just heard about being all genders included. So I know it's a multifactor issue and that is only a reflection of how decisions are made also in every country, and that's why most of the, I mean, the majority are men just like they are at the domestic level in the telecom industry. It's overwhelmingly men in this sector. So there are so many different ways to address this and I'm not the expert, but one of the things I think that IGF could do, next IGF, when all of these workshops are being evaluated and finally approved at the proper instance this MAG, I think there should be absolutely transparency just like when you look at goods whether they are fair trade goods, whether they are environmentally friendly goods, I think Governments and other multi- stakeholders should disclose who made a decision. I mean, gender-wise, whether it was like all of the decisions we pass at IFT are made with five votes to men of women. And I think this disclosure of who made the decisions regarding Internet Governance or regulation, whatever, gender inclusion programs, local content, who is making the decisions at the local level? And also at the international level, and how many women, trans, et cetera, were included in those decisions? And if we consistently disclose this information at every meeting, especially now that United Nations is having this campaign, he or she and other because I would have loved to hear at least 50% of the other gender. I mean, everyone is involved in gender issues, not only women. So I think that would be a good start to put pressure on how gender should be disclosed in the decision making process. Thank you. >> BISHAKHA DATTA: Thank you very much for an excellent suggestion. I think what you are talking about is that there are many players in Internet Governance, which is absolutely true at the local, national, regional level, and that while we are measuring within the Internet Governance Forum processes, it might be worthwhile to think about how to step outside those. I think that's a great suggestion. Since I live in India, what I will suggest is actually this goes outside the IGF process, right? This cannot be mandated by the IGF, but maybe we can do a pilot in our country. Maybe we can look at one particular, you know, so we will have to think of a methodology, but I think you have put a really important point on the table. Renata, you are the last comment in this because we then need to move onto the launch of the draft sexual harassment policy and discussion around that which I think will take a lot of time and then we have a little question and answer session that Jac will lead. >> Renata: I just want to make an observation regarding Mexico. Congratulate your country, because on our host country team, we had a very interesting gender balance element. We had Martinez and Victor Lagunez always helping us plan the IGF. I think it's an appalling information 19 help on the high level panel. It's very worrying (Men), but I agree with Bishakha this goes beyond the IGF. This is something we need to think in a multi-stakeholder setting how do we dialogue with Government, how do we do pilot experiments. And also I would like to call for the main session on trade policy and Internet, we had such a challenge trying to dialogue with Governments also to do a more balanced gender panel, and we even had some comments from a gender activist why there are no gender activists in trade, for instance. The UNCTAD has just released a course on trade and gender, and it is amazing how there are no, there is no connection between creative digital economy between the Internet we are going to have in the future. There is discussions about taxing our Internet and we don't have women involved in this discussion. The discussion is mainly closed doors Government, mostly all male panels. So we definitely need to start thinking about how to amplify this debate, bring the gender perspective in and definitely try and find a way for us to dialogue there. Thank you for bringing the suggestion. >> BISHAKHA DATTA: Before we close this session x Smita has done a quick calculation of the gender balance in this room and the figures are. >> SMITA VANNIYAR: There are seven men and the rest are female. There are 34 women as of now. >> AUDIENCE: Marian Franklin, Internet rights coalition and GIG Annette. An encouraging story at the GIGANET meeting yesterday it was remarked on Twitter and in the room that the opening panel was all women, and this is just emerging, very quiting very good papers, all women, everyone clapped. But the darker side is during a recent meeting with the current special rapporteur on privacy, there was an enormous issue about extraordinary imbalance in the gender perspective, but our champion was Chou how long Hu from UNESCO who made the point clear. It was not responded to well, but the point was made. Thank you. >> BISHAKHA DATTA: Thank you for that. Let's move on to the next part of the agenda which is introducing the draft sexual harassment policy. So while Smita brings this up on the screen, just to give you background, at last year's Gender Dynamic Coalition meeting at the IGF, it was for the first time people in the session said that it would be good for the IGF to I have a sexual harassment policy. We discussed this in the room and there was like widespread consensus that something like this was needed before incidents occurred rather than sort of for the IGF to scramble after an incident had occurred. With that in mind, we then drafted a policy which we will share for you. So Smita, if you can just go down to the ten so I can explain the process and the policy. Please, yes. The ten. Can you just go down a little so we can see it from the top. Thank you. There is a light coming in here actually. Super, let me look at this. So what we did as a starting point is we decided to look at sexual harassment policies that were already in place, and we looked at ten such policies, five from technology-related organisations, five from outside technology-related organisations or Internet spaces. The five within the Internet space that we looked at is one is geek feminism which has a policy for community and a separate one for Conference. We looked at Obuntu, we looked at the international engineering task force, we looked at AP cri, and went they also looked at, we crowd sourced it and put out stuff on Twitter and Facebook asking people to send us sample sexual harassment policies they thought were good. So we got some from India, from California and we also got one from the data fest which is number 4, which is actually an arts festival run by the disability community in Liverpool and we thought that that was an important perspective, and also because it's an event-based space. So that was the first thing we looked at. Then if we go down a little bit, we also looked at the codes of conduct at prominent open source community gatherings because often sexual harassment policies are related to the code of conduct so we wanted to look at the lank aimings. That's what we did by way of background research. We also started an online mailing list where we asked people who were interested in this to comment on the first draft of the sexual harassment policy and we will go back to them because it has changed significantly since then. Moving forward, the policy itself. Okay. First of all, why does IGF need all sexual harassment policy? One is we felt that simply, A, because sexual harassment occurs in multiple spaces online and offline and the IGF is not necessarily exempt from that. Two, because we really felt that all IGF stakeholders have the right to participate in a multi-stakeholder process where they are treated with respect and dignity. So we need this kind of policy. And third, we felt that having a policy also sets clear expectations for behavior. And having a policy in place can sometimes give a signal that this kind of behavior is not considered appropriate in this space. That said, we also want to note that the policy, that IGF already has a code of conduct which we have looked at and related it to. And we would like to actually suggest that the fist thing that we recommend is that the IGF community in the policy we recommend actually that we think of sexual harassment as wholly unacceptable within figure processes. And that we take a zero tolerance approach to its occurrence, which in practice means that corrective actions may be taken up to and including expulsions when policy violations occur not necessarily as a first step but perhaps as a last resort and we will go into detail. So if we move down, yes, we also said that the policy needs to cover harassment occurring both in physical spaces during meetings, conferences and events as well as digital work spaces including mailing lists and virtual meetings because both of these are very much part of the Forum's processes. In terms of the definition, what we have put here, Smita, if you could just put -- thank you. We have put sort of a basic definition which covers the range of sexual harassment, which is up there talking about words, images, gestures, physical contact and physical digital or communication spaces, the key to sexual harassment is the word unwelcome. We have also talked about requests for a sexual favor or threats after I sexual nature and we have put down there that the impact of sexual harassment is often distress, intimidation, fear, humiliation or harm. We also want to point out that sexual harassment can be subtle and indirect or blatant and overt. It can happen once. It can be a series of incidents. It can sometimes be unintended. It can sometimes be deliberate and it can sometimes be coercive. So all of this is there. We also want to say that it can occur within the Conference space and timings and outside of it, but when you are involved in IGF related stuff, like you could go back to your hotel and, yes. So we want to include that. And finally to say that sexual harassment can occur between individuals of the same sex or gender. So that's sort of a brief thing. An an annex we do have a sort of list of several sort of type breaking this down we didn't want to put this in the body because it would become a giant list. We will show it to you. Moving forward, yes, we also wanted to specify that we do not want to confuse sexual harassment, A, with a friendly interaction between persons who are receptive to one another where certain behavior is not considered unwelcome. The key is also unwelcome to sexual harassment. And also that we don't want to confuse it with sort of careless communication. We can discuss all of these points. And finally, the reporting aspect of sexual harassment, Smita, if you could go up again, thank you, is what we would like to say is that anyone experiencing sexual harassment at the IGF is encouraged to report it as soon as possible by contacting the antisexual harassment in the at whatever email address. So we are recommending in short that the IGF set up an anti-sexual harassment committee. Profession provisionally we are thinking that a five member committee might be a good idea which is two people from the MAG, the mull multi-stakeholder advisetry group, two interested IGF community members and one member of dynamic could ligs on gender and Internet Governance. That's provisional. Two questions that we have, we have said that all reports or complaints to the committee will be kept confidential and that anyone making a complaint will not be publicly identified. We have put the clause without his or her written consent for discussion, but we have two questions here. What do we think of anonymous complaints? We haven't put it. Its there as a comment in the document. And what do we think of third party complaints? I can see Marian, yes, so we want to discuss this which is why we haven't put it in, anonymous and third party. We also want to say that we have put in a sentence saying that we would like the committee to take all complaints seriously and we would like committee members to not shrug off, minimize complaints or discourage stakeholders from reporting this. That's one of the real complexities with sexual harassment committees. Sometimes there is a stream of like let's set will it outside, don't make it a formal report, et cetera. Then we have basically said that we will leave it to the committee to take action it deems appropriate, which could range from a reminder of the policy, warnings and expulsion from all IGF spaces, but we want to discuss other possible ways to actually deal with sexual harassment. And then finally, if we go down, we have also asked that the committee in keeping with the IGF's value of transparency document each report, discussions, action taken without publicly revealing the identity of those involved in the case. And then if you go down further, what you will see is that this is where we have the long list an Annex of different kinds, so it's a long list. It's Annexed, just go down, Smita just to show it. Yes. Yes. So if we can now go back to the main policy itself and if we could have comments because this is draft, and we are not necessarily looking to finalize every aspect of this today, but we are looking for comments. Do people feel this is in the right zone? Is it too tough? Is it too soft? What are the things that are making you go, what about third party anonymous? What are the things that are making you uncomfortable? Is this in keeping with IGF's culture. Okay. So we have one hand, two hands, three hands, four. Okay. First four. There is an online question. >> AUDIENCE: Hello, good morning, minimum name is Salvatore and I will do a question on line from Gene Gerr. Can you give us an example of a question to ask to ensure that gender is included in the transcription? >> AUDIENCE: So basically, for example, if a remote participant is inputting then also ask store gender if these would like to, then you can also reflect that. (Jac SM Kee) >> BISHAKHA DATTA: We need the nuance so I would encourage you to type so we knee the need the nuance here. >> REN AT A: I would like to give eye few comments on the sexual harassment policy. First, the composition of the committee, I would suggest instead of two members from the IGF community, one member for BPF gender and one member from the IGF community or we could have three members of the community and one member for, from the BPF gender to keep in line with the even vote and with the non-even vote and to have also the BPF representative. And about, about anonymous complaints and also complaints which can be attacked in the reputation. I do believe that everything has to be documented by this community as it was put on the policy, so anonymous complaint can be sent over. Other complaints which could be seen as salacious, other things have to be documented but this committee has a responsibility with the disclosure of this information so this information can only be disclosed in specific circumstances such as conserving due process in the following of the harassment complaint. I also is, my biggest concern, I think, is that first and foremost, what would be punitive actions? We are a community. Do we exclude members from the community? Is there a possibility to exclude someone from a discussion on gender, for instance. I don't see it. So I think maybe thinking about educational measures and reflections is also interesting, then punitive measures because communities should work on self-regulation as well and education and awareness. So this would be something that, and, of course, that also involved articulating with Secretariat because let's imagine a scenario where we do have some sort of a culprit and we want to exclude this person. This is a process. This as a punitive process. We may not even have the width to go that far so we have to address this before we reach the scenario. >> BISHAKHA DATTA: I will quickly sum up to make sure I got it right. The first point about members, you said let's have either, did you mean keep five members or increase the number to six? >> Venata: Keeping five instead of two interested from the community, one interested from the community and one from BPF gender. Or keep the two interested from the community and add one more, and add one from BPF gender. So we have seven in total of voters, because we need not an even number, right? >> BISHAKHA DATTA: So that was the second thing, you talked about that you personally feel that it's acceptable for the committee to get anonymous complaints as long as everything is transparently documented properly, et cetera. The third is that in keeping with IGF it would be better to go with educational as well as self-regulatory measures rather than things like expulsion and is expulsion even doable? >> Venata: We have to remember we are in a U.N. setting so we do have constraints there of how to interact with our community members as well according to U.N. rules. So we should check that. >> BISHAKHA DATTA: Okay. Yes, please. >> AUDIENCE: My name is Gustavo Pivo, I'm from Brazil, and Brazil there is legislation that I think can be somewhat reused, a concept that can be reused here. In Brazil we do accept anonymous information for crimes, but they do not have the same value as an identified person making a testimony. An anonymous information can be used to initiate informal investigations, but not a process against someone, and I think that in the sense this can be applied here, an anonymous information can be seen as a somewhat less trustworthy bit of information but still valuable and it can trigger further discussions. And third party information can be useful in this sense. And what happens is, well, our community is very small as we all know, and everyone knows each other. So it is a distinct possibility that while someone who has suffered harassment does not want to expose him for herself for the committee, maybe you know them or they know you, and that's your privacy. I understand that's a right, a Human Rights. And on the topic of the committee, I would like to suggest that, sexual harassment it's not male and female it's male, male, it's female on female and male and female. I'm gay myself, so that's something important to me. So I would like to please ask that we all keep diverse sexualities in the committee to we can see sexual harassment as the many kinds, many forms it can have. And on punishments for someone who does commit sexual harassment, I understand that we could, for example, use, we can prohibit them from proposing workshops or alternatively, we can only allow them to propose workshops after they make a workshop in which they, let's say, in which they try to -- they can ask forgiveness or they can, yes, they could -- well, someone make may commit a sexual harassment and next year you can only propose workshops and on the other year, saying why you did it, why you happened and tell that you are sorry. So in a way it would serve as an example, and a lifetime ban on the IGF is -- I can understand that as a less measure for someone who has repeatedly made offenses, but while that's case-by-case, I guess. That's all. >> BISHAKHA DATTA: Thank you very much Gustavo. One point I want to assure you that we already have in the draft document explicitly aligned saying that sexual harassment can occur between individuals of the same sex or the same gender identities and your other suggestions are great. Thank you very much. Okay. (Speaking off microphone). >> AUDIENCE: I still -- I'm Jurino from Thailand. I'm not sure, hesitant about the term that you used unwelcome action because this is good in some sense but it's also problematic in terms of it's very subjective. How can we define that and how do people considered being the predator can know that they actually do the sexual harassment already and especially in the community that we have, the cultural diversity sometimes people didn't know that. The thing that they do is unwelcome for other people so I don't know the curve of learning on that point that we can do. Bishakha DATTA: The reason we included the word unwelcome is because in many sexual harassment policies around the world that is there, but we will record your point to see how we can actually, you know, think about that >> AUDIENCE: Thank you. I think the proposal is a very sound one. I'm wondering if I could suggest an in between step precisely because we are dealing with awareness raising in a small community, and people sometimes are not aware of what they are saying, and if I may refer, I am on public record here, so if I may refer to Marian Franklin, if I may refer to this meeting on privacy where a number of panelists were making comments they thought were humorous, but were actually problematic. And they didn't know this. There was a one-on-one conversation with one, and one has to work very gently here. The key issue about sexual harassment when it goes public and someone wants to have somewhere to lay a complaint, what we also need is a space, a place, a group that people can come to say I'm experiencing this. There will be no further action necessarily taken. What we have is a proposal to put an implementationry tool. I'm wondering could we develop a middle step. So there is a space people can go quietly to say I didn't feel comfortable with this comment, and then at a certain point the information is gathered and then a decision is made whether to proceed. I feel this proposal might be just one big step too far, but to have it ready, to have it ready because it's very well formulated and to start talking about sexual harassment, its definition and say here we have a space, we have a group anyone can come to talk to and that group is perhaps develop into a bit more -- I'm concerned about cracking the whip too quickly. Because we might undo all of that work. So, yes. (Marian). >> BISHAKHA DATTA: I think this is an excellent suggestion, which is we know from experience, right, all around the world that people do not like reporting first of all, that reporting often becomes a last step, and I think what you have said is actually really pointed out a sort of a gap in some of the sexual harassment policies that we have seen where this middle space does not exist. And I think this is actually a critical space, and that that is what we need to bring in to make it more of an arc rather than then, hey, you get a warning and then you are expelled which anyway is a little pointless. So I think we would definitely like to build in that middle space if anybody has thoughts on like who that would be or where that space would be, please share them. The other thing I want to ask you Marian explicitly is do you have any thoughts on third party reporting or anonymous simply because you visibly reacts, yes? >> MARIAN FRANKLIN: Well I heard my colleague from Brazil. I think it has its place, and precisely this middle space needs to be there so these things can be sorted out. Before you know it, because of the differences in understanding about what is or is not appropriate, yes, I think if we could create that space, we can deal with people coming and saying I know someone is feeling in this, yes. That was just my concern that it wouldn't become a sort of, well, it could be misused. >> AUDIENCE: I was thinking about how we understand it is unwelcome. This morning I was on the cue of coffee and there was a gentleman, I would say middle age and I'm almost 50 and she had this nice way of holding up me and another girl. And I said you don't need to talk with me having your hand on my arms. So I think, yes, because I probably reached an age where I don't like anymore. So I think that there are many people that could experience this and I feel they are speaking, you know, they think that it is not to an educated would not be rude and say, and you accept that someone touch your body. (Valentina) so I think that those are things that are cross culture, and it's when your personal space got invaded. And I think it's important. I would say in the middle ground would be nice if then we are having the policy, any workshop printing or anything where we enter has a small and before the workshop, we say this is a space that should be really welcoming, and people should feel all welcome. And if someone felt they are not respected or welcome, they can during the meeting or if they want to go to make, so that we make sure the beginning of any workshop or plenary that we make a disclose that everyone needs to feel comfortable because we have the joke in one EuroDIG ago, the European one about an analogy on rape. And I protested in a plenary from one of the speakers because the guy didn't see. But then we protested, we make a big fuss in the plenary, and so the guy didn't understand, but at least apologized. So we got a word. I think it's important that we don't ever get to this point because then the space is disrupted so if we can find a way of just insure and make people more aware about the necessity of respecting each other, I think that this could help in making people thinking, but also setting the tone of the conversation. >> BISHAKHA DATTA: I think to spurned to that it's a great suggestion. I think both you and Marian talk about something that in some spaces is often referred to almost like a friendly base policy which is how you keep the space comfortable for everybody to participate, and so I think we will pull in some language around that, et cetera, as a more like a principle kind of thing, and also try and figure out how that can be built into workshops so that the awareness can be created with a light touch. I mean, I think it would be great to have a slide at the start of each workshop with just vcially and with a few words or something says something of the sort, but, again, great suggestion. You had your hand up? Is there any remote participation? >> AUDIENCE: Remote question from -- how do we promote the gender issues question when the related aspect is not obviously to some of us. >> BISHAKHA DATTA: Can you say that again. >> AUDIENCE: How do we form late the gender issues question when the related aspects are not obvious to some of us. This is the question from Gene Gerr. >> How do we form late the gender issues questions when the related aspects are not obvious to some of us. >> BISHAKHA DATTA: I think that's a great question, and I think this ties into what we saw in the Gender Report Cards where we saw that despite gender diversity increasing among participants panelists and moderators, the mention of gender is still relatively low across sessions. It's fairly high in sessions that have gender as the main theme or the core area, but in a lot of sessions the majority of sessions it's not mentioned at all. I think one of the things we can think about at the dynamic, as the Dynamic Coalition on Gender and Internet Governance and this was something we discussed last year, but we were too busy with the sexual share rasement policy to -- harassment policy to work on it, but maybe for the year ahead is we could work with other dynamic coalitions and really work at what are the intersections between several issues and gender and figure out a way to make this accessible to people within the Internet Governance Forum processes that could be a starting point. Again, if others have thoughts please pitch in. I see, you had a hand up then Chad then Maria. Okay. >> AUDIENCE: So Marian very kindly and very nicely mentioned about third party, which are in retrospect I really do reconsider my thoughts and what I have personally seen actually in my own universe, for example, is that two people are friendly with each other, they have a long lasting friendship, and a third party might misinterpret their relationship. And in our environment which is multi cultural, we have many standards, we have many cultures here. That can be specially let's say dangerous because in some countries have very friendly cultures. We are very warm with each other while in others there is greater distance, more respect. So in that sense, while anonymous information are, let's say they have inherent danger of abuse, third party information might actually have a greater potential of abuse because they might be entirely misguided. And that's what I have to say. Thank you, Marian. Your opinion was very important for me. >> BISHAKHA DATTA: Thanks very much. I think this has been a great interaction. I want to add one thing. I think, here is the thing, there is another issue with third party which is a named third party complaint doesn't necessarily take the wishes of the person who has experienced sexual harassment into account, right? So I also find like a named third party complaint very troubling. Anonymous complaint would, again, be I guess what we are then saying is we are comfortable with saying first person anonymous complaints, right, not because, of course, you can have third-party anonymous complaints, but we don't want that, we want first person. That's what I'm getting fantastic. Jac then Maria, yes. >> JAC SM KEE: The third party, I mean, I think if it was included, it would have to have the consent of the person who had been the victim of sexual harassment and whether or not you have it, and I think that obviously is hard to prove, but at least if it was stated in the policy that if we were going to leave third party, it would have to in principle have the consent of the person who had been violated to allow that third party to submit for them. Again, how you prove that and all of that, but I think if at least it's documented, then.. >> AUDIENCE: A suggestion around the previous discussion around how do we have more discussion around gender into sort of a self-awareness or awareness raising. So maybe one of the -- I have a couple of suggestions that are related. One could be that, and it could be a gentder dynamic coalition doing this is to have an orientation pre IGF talking about what gender is, a two-hour one would be probably sufficient, you know, a day zero. That's one. Secondly, there are actually orientations being held by men or by Secretariat I'm not sure who organizes that. In that situation there should be discussion around what the gender policy is of IGF and if we have something around sexual harassment policy that should be included in that orientation so it becomes much more high level. It's not only the gender dynamic coalition, but it is actually the whole in IGF doing it. >> BISHAKHA DATTA: Fantastic! Thank you very much. Maria. >> AUDIENCE: I was thinking about gender as the term. Would it be possibly the moment now to unpack that term so that we can have other indicators that lead to an understanding of gender? Because it's called the G word and people get, you know, red flag word. But there are other ways of noticing gender in a positive way developing without calling it necessarily gender. So just as we have listed the different understandings of sexual harassment, could we consider understanding of gender and then workshop organizers will understand what we are getting at it's not just how many men or women, it's other issues and offer ways in which they can incorporate gender sensitivity without asking them to list women. I think it's time we implemented and enabled that (Marian Franklin). >> BISHAKHA DATTA: Ren at a. >> >> AUDIENCE: I want to second on having orientation about the kind of code of conduct in the IGF.. And I would also remind that there is a new commerce track this year, so there is also a place that you can sign up a mailing list to help people who are new to the IGF get around and those who are new to the IGF get more information. We are walking around with these badges. Some of us have volunteered to be mentors with the languages, I speak Portuguese. If anyone wants to ask any questions. And also referring to what Marian just said, there may be a situation where you just feel uncomfortable and you want to talk about someone in your own language. Hey, that person touched me in a way that I did not think was all right. Is this a culture rail thing and such? So, again, we are a community so we should devise ways of supporting each other and trying to find ways to address uncomfortable situations and maybe start building places for awareness, education so people feel welcome here. The newcomers track has lunch time sessions, and we have one which is the perspective of society for newcomers, so, again, Civil Society can provide a great input on how to be more, how can IGF be more inclusive and be more, and be a safe environment. I would invite you all to be involved. Thank you. >> BISHAKHA DATTA: And Rachel, last quick comment. >> AUDIENCE: It was going to be continuing raising awareness. I think taking any opportunity at any moment that you have in session in the hall, in, when you are not in an environment where you are feeling threatened to raise awareness about what it means and how culturally it's different and me picking up on the idea of putting your hand up in a session and saying what you just said was inappropriate, and could be considered sexual harassment, you know, actually using those terms and going further with and maybe I don't know how many people are in the Coalition, but kind of a commitment of those at least in the Gender Dynamic Coalition when they are participating that they can use that voice. >> BISHAKHA DATTA: Well, thank you everybody for really productive conversation which has moved this policy forward in a very concrete manner because we will now incorporate many of these points, and I think that will benefit the policy greatly. We will then submit it -- we have a meeting of the dynamic coalitions on Thursday where we will talk about the policy so that the other dynamic coalitions are aware of it. Once we have redrafted it and put in all of these points, we will look for endorsements from the other dynamic coalition. We will put it on the gender dynamic coalition list as well as other lists related to gender which we know about which are part of online communities and broadly related to Internet Governance. And then submit is to the multi-stakeholder Advisory Group to make sure that this can actually be put into practice before the next IGF. That, I think, it our commitment. Okay. Moving to the final session on the agenda, the final item on the agenda. We are happy that Jac SM Kee who many of you know who is a member of the MAG as well as Director of the women's rights program at APC. Jac would like to have an interactive discussion on trends in gender and Internet Governance. >> JAC SM KEE: Before I start on that, maybe also as a suggestion to take some of this work forward is maybe a working group can be formed. This is sort of the methodology and format for things to happen in IGF, which is the working group is formed and then to think through who are the composition of the people in the working group to figure out the final mechanisms of, you know, I have been creating that space to talk about more about this issue or how to concretize some of the suggestions. So if you are interested to be part of this working group at least for the DC to then maybe signal your commitment to this. So it's not just a discussion every year. It's actual like kind of, you know, labor that needs to be put into this to think through the work so if you are commitment, please signal your commitment, that would be useful and what ren at a and I can commit to is to bring the conversation to the MAG and think about how the MAG can interface more effectively. So we really only have ten minutes left and I wanted to have a very quick conversation just around what in your opinion are some of the trends in relation to how gender as an issue has been taken up in policy spaces around Internet and ICTs. So, for example, during the WSIS period 2001, 2003 was looking at gentder development and emphasis around promoting women in sciebs, technology, engineering and mathematics and we are seeing increased interest in looking at online gender-based violence especially in the IGF spaces and other related spaces. So I wanted to get a quick since from what in terms of what you thought the friends were in how Internet policy, what do you sigh as things coming up and what do you see as critical issue that's have not yet been looked at? So what's missing in this conversation in relation to gender and ICT policy? What I will do is just open it up and if you can quickly give your, you know, I know it's a bit of a flip from thinking about concrete work to thinking about sort of what issues are missing or what issues are critical and emerging. If you can give your quick response, I would appreciate it, and because we only have five minutes, so keep it, the interventions quite brief. >> AUDIENCE: I have already spoke too much but green feature request to have debate on thinking about trends on gender issues debate, a debate on gender and Internet Governance linked to regions, so how can we make our discussion more inclusive? Do we have here all regions, do we have different stakeholder groups. (Ren at a) I think if this is a great moment, Jac, you are giving us a gift to brain storm on what we want to have. So my dream request for trend and gender debates would be really multi-stakeholder geographical balance in gender issues, so gender in Internet Governance. >> JAC SM KEE: Thanks Renata. You realize the link between increased, women's increasing participation and contribution in terms of age is younger women who are arriving, younger women who are contributing and have we been, start to look at those intersections between the demographics of age and the gender on the positive sense of gender. (Marion Franklin). >> AUDIENCE: Just like the situation in Thailand, the problem is the women's group are not participating, are not engaged in the Internet policy and sometimes they didn't understand the digital culture well, I don't know how can we engage them to put some in. >> JAC SM KEE: What would change in the agenda in terms of topics? Because this also sort of helps in terms of thinking about what is missing in a debate. >> AUDIENCE: Can I just echo the importance of including more women, especially women from the south. I feel like they are really missing in the debates. >> AUDIENCE: I was just in another session on privacy and there was only one woman panelist when you talk about the privacy and gender aspect sometimes it's completely missing. And there are some crucial issues, like I come from India where most of the women are not able to access. So when they are not able to access, how will they be participating as well? So the access and the participation of a gender is more important to discuss about the Internet Governance and the Internet arena as well. >> Jac SM Kee compoip You mean access to the Internet. Thank you very much. >> AUDIENCE: I want to quickly answer your question of what would change in the conversation, so I think we would have many more concepts like autonomy that would come into the whole conversation. I think there would be a greater -- I think one of the problems in the current conversation in the Internet space is that there is the assumption of a neutral user (Bishakha Datta) a user who doesn't have a gender, a class, a CAST, a race, a sexuality, but then the default reference point of that suppose thely neutral user is actually male. So if we are able to shift that conversation, right, and bring in like an embodied user, that would from our experience, we would be able to connect to issues like privacy, consent, surveillance to larger questions of bodily autonomy, bodily integrity, freedom, or even the whole conversation now where we are nuancing the whole freedom of expression issue which, again, sprung very much from the neutral user to now we are saying, well, freedom of -- whose freedom of expression? And are we entering a situation where online violence is taking away women's freedom of expression? So already it's changing. >> JAC SM KEE: Anyone else in terms of key issues that you feel is emerging in your context that you feel is not discussed enough at the IGF? >> AUDIENCE: Can I quickly add cultural identities of women, especially for indigenous women in our country because the contents are mostly shaped by only certain groups of people. So there is a need to have that space for them as well. >> AUDIENCE: The start up culture, there are more and more initiatives that want to teach girls or women to use ICT, but it's a start up culture where the individuals, you know, the profit, it's just one fit to all. And it's given, it's like a given. This is the trend. So what is missing? What I would like that we can discuss different way of accessing the Internet or the technology using it. There is not just one specific model that is sold outably Government and company is the only one. (Ren at a). >> JAC SM KEE: I think we are running out of time. If there are any last thoughts or comments, please raise them. And then I will sort of as a way forward. >> AUDIENCE: May name is Moses from the yew Ghana network. I'm sorry I came in a little bit late. If I miss something, please excuse me, but one of the things I think can be done especially to increase more female voices and perspectives into the Internet policy debates and discussions is to build capacity to recruit them and to teach them much more about gender and Internet Governance issues and I know most of you are aware of the general Internet Governance action training that APC has done before. I think it is very critall because in Uganda where I come from we reviewed a number of ICT policies and laws and most of these policies are so gender insensitive, it doesn't take any consideration about gender issues. They are predominantly male made by male lawyers and stuff like that, so the perspectives and views of the women and the issues that affect them are really lacking. So I think to increase more meaningful debate and outcomes of policies, then you need to get more women on board to be able to sit at the policy table with policy makers and discuss and share views on issues that affect them. Thank you. Jac SM Kee compoip I will take a recommendation on day zero recommendation on 234*EUG and gender maybe. I want to quickly throw out a question if you feel that the gender DC could be a good space if we allocate a little bit of time at each DC time to discuss emerging issues related to gender and Internet Governance does that make sense? Is that a good suggestion?. >> BISHAKHA DATTA: Thank you once again it's been a great, great session. I am going to reach out to some of the people who have input into this session to see if you would like to join the working group on sexual harassment. And thank you. (Concluded at 11:47). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 12/6/16. >> Welcome ladies and gentlemen to this work ship. My name is and drew all the coordinator of the school on Internet Governance which was the first school on Internet Governance in Europe and with this session we would like to invite the recent schools on Internet Governance which are up in the world now and try to find if we can try a mulety global approach in terms of collaborating and coordinating schools, but first I would like to ask Wolfgang Kleinwachter the Chair of the European Internet Governance which was the inventor of the global concept schools and Internet Governance to give a short introduction because we want to use the time for discussion and afterward I would like to rely on my guide Jorg Schweiger, Denic was the first and only sponsor who explored the potential of this concept and made it possible that we could start in 2007 with the European summer school on Internet Governance but first I would like to invite Wolfgang Kleinwachter to say eye few words. >> Wolfgang WOLF: . When we have the first session on Internet Governance in New York, the position of the working group was exceptional, it was 20 governmental representatives and 20 non-governmental representatives, among the noon Government Avri was a member, there are a number of academics and during the first meeting governmental representatives approached and us and said where can I study Internet Governance and it was difficult to answer the question. Internet Governance is a little bit more. You can study law but it's not enough. It's a little bit political economy, it's infor attics, social science, political science, cultural dimensions. So it's a multidisciplinary phenomenon, but universities are organized around disciplines and faculties so it was a big challenge so we could not answer the question where to study Internet Governance. So finally the academics came together and said we can do and one of the conclusions said and Jorg Schweiger will talk about that later is we have to create a multi- disciplinary course that includes different disciplines so we can accommodate news needs. And the outcome was two years later the launch of the concept of the summer school on Internet Governance. The pilot workshop took place in Germany and I started to organise nice this so I aprops DENIC the German registry and thanks to them we are where we are now because DENIC discovered at an early stage that it makes sense to be innovative in the field of education and to have new foremans of knowledge and with this I hand over to Jorg Schweiger. Thank you. >> JORG SCHWEIGER: . I'm the CEDENIC managing the Top Level Domain with Germany with more than 60 million domain names, currently one of the top three registries worldwide and thanks wolf gang for the opportunity to speak and I will try to give a double header in a sense that one, I would Troy to explain why DENIC has been a sponsor for the school of Internet Governance every since and secondly he asked me to provide you a little bit more with the history and what the further development of the school on Internet Governance could be. So where did we start? Well, actually, one conclusion from the Internet Governance discussions at the U.N. were somewhat on Information Society business between 2003 and 2005 has been that more knowledge about management of critical infrastructure is needed. All stakeholders involved in Internet Governance must have a better understanding on how the Internet works, and this statement does surely address a lot of incumbent players at the Internet Ecosystem, and it truly motivated DENIC to contribute. And why did it? Well, as a private company but being rooted in a research and academic community, it was a given to promote capacity building programs even far beyond our own needs as a technical service provider. So we recognized the need to reach out beyond our technical community to train stakeholders from Governments, from Civil Society and the growing user community to enhance their understanding on how the Internet works, how the Internet's basic infrastructure like domain names, IP addresses, protocols are being managed and being governed. So what members of the global academic community who participated in the U.N. working group on Internet Governance approached DENIC in 2006 with a request to sponsor a workshop investigating opportunities for broader engagement of the academic community and the process of enhanced Internet Governance cooperation as by the way envisages by the Tunis Agenda we welcomed this initiative. So in effect, in June 2007, a workshop in rotten Germany took place which was organized by two global international network the international communication association and the international association for media For Media and Communication Research and this workshop that had been sponsored by DENIC and UNESCO concluded with quite interesting recommendations, I think, one being to form GigaNet now known and most recognized global Internet Governance academic research network that actually just yesterday had their eleventh symposium in Guadalajara. And secondly, the lawn of a massive program for teaching Internet Governance on a multidisciplinary basis, and that for sure being the founding idea of schools on Internet Governance SIGs as I will refer to them earlier. So stemming from those recommendations, teaching Internet Governance was piloted in Germany in 2007 by a master program at the European summer school on Internet Governance, which is now known as Euro S SIG. And this program has become a success store story and DENIC is proud that we supported the initiative right from the start and in various ways. So the program and the concept of schools on Internet Governance soon became the source of inspiration for similar activities around the globe, like the south school on Internet Governance in Latin America. We had in 2009 the first Arab school on Internet Governance. Now, we see regional six take place in Africa and Asia-Pacific, and since a couple of years even national SIGs emerges in Brazil on wards, India and the U.S. And there are more, even more initiatives like very recently in. r e c e n t recently in Georgia and stack Stan. There are regional, national and international governance Government activity other gTLD registries, registrars, ISPs and various members of the community including ICANN, ISOC have followed the example and they are supporting the concept of Internet Governance schools. So. That was history. In July this year Euro SIG celebrated its tenth anniversary honored by Steve Crocker, Chairman of the ICANN board. We see hundreds of young people got their extensive knowledge about Internet Governance via various SIGs, and we see fellows in many international Internet Governance committees from the IGF MAG to the ICANN board, so fellows who started or at least enriched their career paths at mi SIG or any other school on SIG. I'm giving too much credit to Olga here. So all of this being very encouraging to move forward and how do we want to move forward? Well, I think by preparing this workshop for the IGF, we discussed an idea to build a global platform where the various schools of Internet Governance can exchange they're experience, pool their resources and contribute to even more knowledge building at the international governance ecosystem among all involved and affected stakeholders. And so this DENIC supports an idea that came up to form a new IGF dynamic coalition on schools on Internet Governance. As this peers for me at least, and to Wolfgang, I think, to be the next logical step on the road forward into uncharted territories of a borderless Internet. Thank you. >> -: Thank you wolfgang and Jorg Schweiger for this overview. We have quite a lot of regional organizers in the room, and I would like to invite you now to share your regional experience because we have now heard about European one and the global sort of approach, but what are the regional specifics when it comes to especially your school? What is the difference maybe to the European young, what do we have to take into account when we think about further collaboration? And I would like to invite first Olga Cavalli she established a school on Internet Governance two years after the European one was formed in 2009 and since ever she is organising one school a year and Olga, and I ask everyone to be very brief, five minutes maximum just to give a short introduction to your school so we have a lot of time for discussion. >> OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you for organising this session and inviting me. We started as you mentioned the south school of Internet Governance after a kind invitation from Wolfgang to the first school and we had that conversation there that we could do something in Latin America. What we realized in Latin America is that the participation of our region in this global meetings was much less than other regions, even less than Africa. So we thought that we needed a program that could be more outreach oriented, more welcoming people that were not included in this global dialogue, and encourage them in participating in ICANN, IGF, and regional and global events. So we have organized the school starting in Buenos Aires, it was easy to organize it in our hometown, and it has been growing in the number of participants. Then in 2010 in saw Paul low, 2010 in snowfallco city, 2012 bowing ga taw, we started with remote participation so it's open to everyone. And since day zero, we have simultaneous translation in Spanish and English all of the time. Since 2012 we have remote participation with video streaming and two audio channels oar three depending on where it's organized it may be including English, Spanish and Portuguese. Then '13 Panama, 2014 for the fist time in Caribbean in Trinidad and Tobago. 2015 in Costa Rica and this year our host was the Organization of American States in Washington, D.C., where we were honored by, with the preference of Vint Cerf as our keynote speaker and we have a nice picture in our booth and in our brochures. We have some rules from day zero, full gender balance among fellows, as much as geographic diversity as possible. No limits in age. We grant fellowship to all of the selected candidates. If they come from abroad, we can provide also the hotel and meals and if they are from there only the training and the meals. So we try to be as multi-stakeholder as possible, and there is a big list of countries. I won't go through that. We have trained more than 1500 fellows so far, and the next school will be organized jointly with Rio De Janeiro on 3-7 April. The call is open now. So if you have more -- if you want more information visit our booth in the booth area. Apply for a fellowship. We have no limitations of country. They can come from other regions. Those interested in Latin America we don't provide air ticket but we provide the rest of what you need for the school. So that was my contribution. Thank you very much. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Olga. You mentioned you have 1500 participants over the last eight years, right? Just to give you an overview at the summer school in Europe, we had 300 overthe years. So this is quite a different type of concept having -- what is the number of participants per school? >> : Copy In Washington it was 180. The idea is outreach. It's not so much high academic content but it's understanding the value of being included in the global and regional multistakeholder, and by the way, we will organize the fist average continuian school with the ISOC average continuian chapter ment year and the first -- next year in the first quarter of 2017 thank you. >> MODERATOR: You mentioned a good point, you said your school is oriented about outreach being involved and we had discussions at ICANN meetings and before hand where we realized in preparation of this workshop that there is no one size fits all. Still, if you call us SIG we should follow some kind of same basic guidelines. The next school which emerged was was before the IGF in 2009 in sham alshake. The Arab people took the opportunity to organize a school. From this point of view it was not a regular school but now they are back to more regular approach, and I'm looking for Bahar. He is here. Bahar, could you give us a short overview of what is happening in your region since the first approach in 2009. >> MATE: So in 2009 the IGF too many place in shammal shake and before that the Egyptian Government, the local host of the IGF meeting back then led the initiative of organising a regional Arab regional school on Internet Governance. ICANN was one of the partners that worked back then with the Egyptian Government together with other stakeholders including from technical communities, ISO chapters and so forth. The idea was the same. There was, you know, a need for more education in this area and since the IGF itself was taking place in the region, the thought was to try to do something in preparation to at least, you know, try to raise awareness before the meeting. What happened afterward was that this sort of addition of the Arab Internet Governance school did not continue for different reasons, and three years after that, ICANN was working on developing regional strategy for the Middle East region which includes Arab countries, includes non-arab countries like Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and one of the recommendations that came in the strategy back then was to, for ICANN to contribute to the capacity building part of Internet Governance and to follow the same concept of summer schools that had been taking place. So we started with the Middle East school on Internet Governance in 2013. I guess that was -- or maybe '14. We have had three additions the first time. The first was in Kuwait. The second was in Tunis and the third one last summer was in Beirut, Lebanon. Very quickly, just a few highlights how this works, we have a program committee from community members that work on developing the program, Ike six, seven people based on their experience, background, et cetera. They kind of identify the topics to be included in the program and they also seek feedback from the rest of the community through mailing lists and other means and once the program is more or less identified, we begin to sort of liaise or communicate with key experts in the fields to try to invite them as faculty members. So that's one aspect regarding the program. So it's kind of a multi-stakeholder approach. The second thing is ICANN is so far taking lead in organising those schools in the Middle East, however, we work very closely with the Internet Society and with RIPE NCC in the Middle East who have been supporting and contributing to this program over the past three years. The third thing is the outcomes or what we have seen so far coming out of this program, one, we have been seeing more people coming to ICANN through the fellowship and the NextGen program from those schools. So those schools, you know, they work as platforms for producing more people coming to ICANN. And out of this pool of fellows and next gene NextGen we have started to see fewer of them working in different ICANN constituencies and working groups and that's a good think. The other good outcome is recently we have been receiving requests from different groups interested in establishing national schools as well. And one has emerged so far in Pakistan and they had through the academic community and technical community with help with ICANN and ISOC as well, and just recently I think last week or the week before, they had the second edition of their local school on Internet Governance. So these are more or less the key highlights from the Middle East school. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you, Bahaer, I take note that it needed technical community involvement to set up the schools in your region because other wise probably there would have been some challenges around, and I think we can be very thankful to the technical community, ICANN in particular because they are supporting somehow all of the schools on Internet Governance so far, and I think it's a great effort that you are pushing forward in this region and make it part of a strategy actually. So here we actually see another way of doing such a sort of school which we should take into account when forming collaboration platform. And also one comment regarding the fellows, I would say it works vice versa, those who participated in the ICANN or ISOC fellowship program, they are sometimes also coming to any of the schools afterward. So I think this is a good exchange, and we have seen, I mean, if you count down from the participant that's went through the Euro SIG, we could at least name 50 or 70 people who are involved or engaged in ICANN or IGF or have a leading position in Governments or so on. The next I would like to invite is Anriette Esterhuysen. I have seen her in the room. She is there. Okay. Anriette was the one who was behind setting up the school on Internet Governance in Africa which was also inspiring in the way you worked interactively with people. I think it was at your school when the for the first time we introduced a multi-stakeholder role play which was then further developed by doria prescribe, please tell us. Tell us about the specifics in your region. >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: The African school is partnership went API and the net part agency which is intergovernmental agency of the African union. APC does most of the implementation but it's been useful for us to have the partnership. We started in 2013 and we decided to have a competitive process. There is a tendency in particularly within the ITU framework of capacity building where people send officials. They don't necessarily want to learn and there is not, you know, the opportunity is there, but it's not necessarily reaching the people that are very interested. And we were shocked by the demand. The first year we had more than 300 applicants and 2013 we had more than 8 Hupp applicants. So -- 800 applicants so that's a real challenge. It's inspired by MISON. We see it as a leadership academy as well. We bring together people from Civil Society to quite senior leadership level Government and regulatory agency personnel. And that is also quite mixed. We also quite consciously try both capacity of faculty not just of participants. So we have core faculty, international and African that we invite back every year or we try to and we have what we refer to as resource people who are often then presented on one topic, but they will be faculty, later on hopefully. We have alumnae in the room, actually. I'm happy to have them. We have alumnae lists and alumnae what is app groups.. We feel Internet Governance capacity building is done by institutions who actually teach people about their own institutions. We want critical thinking about ICANN about the international intergovernmental system about national processes so that's very much a part of it. Innovation is I track tick couple which Avery leads for us which has worked well with participants negotiate an outcome document final. We have got a new innovation which is to introduce gender in Internet Governance governance change which is done in different ways through recruitment and have is a gender, an interest group that participates in the school. I think placing fellows at the IGF Secretariat yacht is something we have done on occasion, and I think for the dynamic coalition that would be something to look at. How can we actually through the schools identify people that could be placed at Internet Governance policy institutions. I think -- the challenge -- another positive thing is national spinoffs and we have people who organized a Kenyan school quite recently. So the challenges have been cost. Africa is a huge continent. We just the travel is huge. Languages is a challenge. Thus far we have only been presenting in English and English is a requirement. It's a very intimate school, very interactive, so using simultaneous translation could change the nature of it. We really should be having at least one school in Arabic, one in French and one in English a year. And we are starting an evaluation at the moment, we want to do a trace study or use a tracer study methodology. We will be tracking publications and participation in events of alumnae. And going back to 2013. We evaluate every year, we have a formal evaluation of the school, and that has helped us adapt and improve the curriculum every year because the evaluation results are quite detailed and very useful. Maybe Avri -- actually is Amy here as well? So Avri if there is time, I would like to hear her perspective. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much Anriette. You mentioned two things I would highlight, the number of applicants you received, that's truly a challenge to go through all of the applications and it shows that there are still not enough opportunities to teach Internet Governance, and also to evaluation, I think this is something dynamic coalition could truly take up in terms of develop to move forward. I think this could be a valuable contribution, and also because you mentioned, I would like to ask please one of, all of you who participated in any of the schools, please raise your hand that we have an idea how many alumnaes we have in the room? That's quite a number. Wonderful. So we are almost around the globe. The last region I would invite which came up recently with a school on Internet Governance is Asia-Pacific, and I have here Jungbae, I hope I say the name right. There is a hope to teach 10,000 fellows a year so we are interested in hearing your perspective. I had the chance to participate in the Indian schooling on Internet Governance. >> Hello, my name is Jungbae, serving as APC Secretariat. I produce on the APC initiatives. Faze far as we found there are nations learning now and we expect five to ten more to get started in 2017. They are also in U.S., Georgia and Kenya. So these are the current development of six on the globe. In terms of the nature of Asia-Pacific region, the mission is to provide Internet Governance courses to large populations. In APC we focus on the best course for Internet Governance experts and readers. There are estimated around several hundred, we guess. Basically the organizer of the national and regional IGFs and SIGs so they can serve around 10,000 Internet Governance practitioners in the region through their own courses. As well as holding AP SIGs we also focus on open course work development especially creating videos starting with posting APC lecture videos and we also collaborate with other SIGs in IGF sharing information such as faculty, cross materials and others. For AP SIG, we have seven tracks with 24 clues now and the -- classes now and the problem is now on the development, and we gained eight regular classes in 2016 and we will provide around 10 regular classes in 2017 so we can cover all of the core classes. Also we are developing the group discussion, the hot topic sessions with case studies for encouraging more active participation. We had the first AP SIG just last September in Bangkok with 39 participants from 21 countries and we supported India SIG and Pakistan SIG as well as encouraged participation of Central Asia which is kind of the bare place now. Especially we are sporting the Afghanistan participants SIG and Pakistan SIG and they will develop their own national SIG maybe in the next year. And we are planning to have a little bit expanded version of the school in the next year with one day of the collaboration meeting among the SIG organizers. There are fundamental issues for us also, the first one is how can we update the class materials every four or five years, because Internet Governance area we need to update materials. That's a crucial point and the second one is how can we accommodate several Internet Governance leaders as we can only accommodate 30 to 40 participants in APC because we are focusing on active participation. We are trying to cooperate request national SIGs and related programs as much as possible, as well as studying online participation for the next year. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. I would like to highlight one point you said which is very important one, you say to update material every five years. I think we might have to update the material more than every five years just looking at the IANA transition for instance which was a big issue over the last two years. But this brings me to an important point where I also see good ground for collaboration for dynamic coalition if we, for instance, have a pool where we can offer approved, for instance, ICANN approved material where ICANN could yap load the presentations -- upload the preparations which can be hope by any SIG by any presenter available in the region. I think this would be a good point where we could really collaborate with all of the Internet institutions around the world and which makes the work easier because as you said you are planning to teach 10,000 over the next years and, yes, you have the biggest region in the world, Asia-Pacific. It's quite, and then you have the issue with the IDNs which has to be taken into account. Can I just finish that round and then we -- on the Asia-Pacific. >> My name is Paul Wilson I'm Chair of the Asia-Pacific regional IGF group which is our regional IGF meeting. I wanted to mention that that meeting has also had a training component since the beginning so we have had a regular component of SIG type material through that vehicle but we are actually moving now to a model that I wanted to negligence here because it may -- mention here because it may be of interest and that's based on the idea that an IGF meeting is a school of Internet Governance. We can't come here and separate the learners from the teachers, and in fact there is no teacher here who is not already learning. There is a huge source, pool of source material of educational materials, information that is but to date and regularly coming into this process, and so in the establishment of the program for becoming APrIGF we will be including in our call for workshops also the ability for people to propose tutorial sessions so in fact any group who wishes to offer a tutorial session that is really a component of a school of Internet Governance if you like will be free to do that. And that material will come in through the same competitive model that the program that is used to source the program that the APrIGF itself. And I think, I mean, it's an experimental process at this stable, but I think it would -- stage, but I think it would be nice to see a clear link between the schools of Internet Governance and the Internet Governance Forums that I think one of the key purposes of these, of the school event must be to increase the participation in IGFs and in terms of resource availability it's nice to have ambitions but the resources that are duplicated in bringing fellows into these events can actually be saved by taking a more inclusive and I would say more organic approach. I wanted to add that from our region. >> MODERATOR: Thank you, Paul. You mentioned a good thing, this brings us actually to the point that we might introduce a level system in the future because visiting an IGF is definitely capacity building in itself. You learn and you get material in all of this, but on the other hand, we should be clear if we talk about school and Internet Governance it follows a certain type of academic curriculum where one module builds upon the other and this was the original idea of schools on Internet Governance as you really have sort of educational knowledge transfer, but I agree, and I think this is the practice in many regions of the world already that IGFs and schools should have a very, very close connection to each other. We have now been in all regions of the world and you might recognize that we are missing North America. Usually North America is always on the top of everything. This time it's not. The question is why. I can even say in the summer school in the European summer school in Internet Governance the least participation, the least participants come from North America. And although there have been a school in the Anna Beck. >> (Speaking off microphone). Nicole is not here but he is very active and is planning something. >> MODERATOR: We should note that there is in this region no ongoing effort while all of the other regions of the world manage to set up their initiative. >> AUDIENCE: I think that's a reflection of the fact that there is a lot of graduate school opportunities to learn more about Internet Governance in the U.S. I'm not saying that graduate level capacity building is the only channel, but I think what we find and why in Africa the command is so huge (Anriette Esterhuysen) is we are filling the demand from people in practice in policy and in the sector as well as though of young students, academics who want to learn more about it, and because there is no university level. There is no international studies program anywhere on the continent that actually focuses on Internet Governance whereas in the U.S. there is quite a lot. >> MODERATOR: Olga you have raised your hand. >> : Copy we had this question of organising the school in Washington or not because we were focused in Latin America but the Organization of American States were so kind as to be our host and they said that they prep represent the whole America so it was a good idea we had many students from Canada and United States in that, in this year's school that had 180 students. I just wanted to comment on that. >> MODERATOR: Thank you Olga. It was mentioned that some schools need to serve very specific needs, and that also the need is there to establish national schools on Internet Governance. And as one of the representatives of the national school which serves very specific needs, I would invite Hartmut Glaser who is involved in this organisation and schools on Internet Governance as well as faculty member from the very first beginning and Hartmut Glaser you set up a school in Brazil in your country which has a very specific focus. Please tell us about this one. >> HARTMUT GLASER: The graze I'llian Internet steering committee took care of our domain names. We start with the multi-stakeholder model in '95 before ICANN start it was the idea of the multi-stakeholder model. So Wolfgang invited me to go to the MISS O'in school in Germany, number three, and I am participating for the last seven, eight years but then decided to start together in Latin America ole go and myself, 2010 saw Paul low and then we decided to go for a more Brazilian accent in the school, and we stepped out for some years in 2014, 15, 16, we decided to have really hands-on school, 10, 12 hours a day during a full week, 50 hours working with 30 to 40 students selected from a number of 150 candidates, and this year, this year 2016 we discovered a new need. You know that 2014 we have the NETmundial Conference in Brazil and our presidency approved the Marco Seville Bill of Rights for the Brazilian Internet users and we discovered that our judge, or court, our Supreme Court don't understand what is the Internet. So we decided to go in a new branch, a new activity. We have the normal school with 40 students, and this year for the first time we have two distinct schools only for two days, only 20 hours, but only for lawyers, prosecutors and members of the different courts. And the last one was exactly some weeks ago in Rio deagain air row, we put it together where some good friends there, and now we are receiving invitation from different courts in the country because we have a lot, if you will follow the history in Brazil, what's App was stopped some years ago, You Tube was stopped. We have some miss decisions by our court and we discover that outreach is important, but education is more important. And we decided to maintain focus on quality and not on quantity. So we released the numbers to 25, 25, 30, and we are working in this accent full week school every year and two or three more smaller schools only for selected judges invited normally invited, prot cuters and high level court members in our country. The reaction is very positive. The invitations are very high, and we are developing really hands-on lectures, classes. That is the model Wolf gang developed in Germany. I am happy in and we are following this way. I know outreach is person. So we maintain in our country it's Brazilian school for Brazilians we select 150-200 candidates, 20, 25, 30 some receive a full sponsorship, some pay. I see that some of our fellow students are present. So I mrsing is that we are doing a good job and we will use this for the future. Thank you.. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much very much Hartmut Glaser. I would like to sum up the first round where we heard from the coordinators of the summer schools that we actually could identify a couple of points for collaboration in terms of managing applications, doing evaluations, updating and providing materials, but taking all into consideration that we have specific needs and different stakeholder group to reach out. If we are talking school on Internet Governance, we need, of course, sort of teachers. We call them faculty. And I would like to invite three of our faculty members which have been participating in various summer schools, the first one would be Avery Doria. You are the one who participated in most of the global schools ever, and you have been fortunately at the European one every year so far. I would like to hear from your perspective on what do you think how we should move forward in developing the concept of SIGs in terms of providing curriculum and providing and organising the KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER. DOIR: thank you. I have been lucky enough to be involved in the schools from the beginning, for a while I had a perfect record at all of the different schools and then I lost it, and that's good, but first of all, I wanted to say one thing in going along with what Paul said before is for me, all of the years at the schools have been as much learning experience as teaching experiences because what happens especially in the schools that are bringing in fellows that already have experiences in one area or another, they always know more than I do in their areas. And they may not be generalists. So for all of us it is a learning and so that's one thing we have to keep open. That's the notion that there isn't a big division between faculty and fellows, that, and in fact, I tend to call them the fellows as opposed to the students because we are all students there. So that is an important element that I don't think we can lose. I think there is, it is important to have the core subjects because most people come to these, both faculty and fellows with only partial knowledge, a partial perspective on the field we have got. And being at the school allows for people to fill out their perspective, and I think that's an important element that needs to be kept. I think, I mean, I was part of developing the whole idea of a track tick couple in multi- stakeholder decision making with the African school and it's evolved over the years but it's become something that basically let's a lot of people who have never participated in a multi-stakeholder decision making process to actually do, and designing these things has become more and more complicated. It was at first just sort of ad hoc. Now, it's sort of spend a half year defining it, having subject matter experts, having sometimes even stable presentations, so that -- stage presentations so that various people take on roles really you have a three part process you are trying to do in a week. You have got getting people to accept their roles and take it seriously, discussing the subject and coming to cop census, and you have to make that in a seen that works offer a week. I like the construction that I have seen in most of them where a good part of the time is core subjects and a good part of the time is a combination of local and the topic of the year subjects. Though the topic of the year subjects is often one we have used for the pract couple because it's a significance everybody is making globally so how can we make the decision ow selves. That's been a very big way of when a subject is still a little too raw for teaching, but it's not necessarily too raw to take on as an exercise. So I think that that is an important element. That probably is as much time as you wanted me to take but those are sort of the elements. I think there is a lot of good solid elements and those are elements that we need to keep and we need to focus a little bit more on on a few of them. I think the core, perhaps, can be strengthened in terms of its subject areas. And make sure that we have covered all of the different flavors of this enterprise. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much Avri and thank you in particular for developing this multi-stakeholder Practicum which indeed offers fellows not only knowledge transfer but their ability and how to participate in a multi-stakeholder model. Many of them go to IGF's later on and see how it works in real life and they actually have the chance with this multi- stakeholder track tick couple to do an exercise before hand and I think that's an important point that we do not only deliver the core of Internet Governance but also deliver some skills how to participate meaningfully in multi-stakeholder environments f yes, please. >> Avery Doria: One thing I forgot to add. With the Practicum we don't succeed. Some some of them we manage to retch consensus and on some we fail miserably, and in both of those we have had a very good reliable actual experience in terms of doing it. So I don't want people to think that because you do a Practicum you have to succeed at it. You just have to learn at it. >> MODERATOR: I think failure is success in itself. We have Bill Drake on the line. He is also one of the old hand faculty members and I hope the technical allow that he will be able to speak to us as one of the academic faculty. Could you please give him the floor. >> WILLIAM DRAKE: Hello, everybody. This is my first time missing an IGF so it feels very interesting to be remote participating. I am an old hand. I have done, I think I counted, I was trying to look before we started, 15 of these between MISON the south school and one time in Africa, and I agree with Avri, it's a collective learning experience for everybody and it's been really great seeing how the faculty have come together and the participants as well, the fellows have often sprinkled out throughout the ecosystem and been with us for years to follow. So that's great. I think this is a good idea that you are floating Sandra about having a dynamic coalition to take this evolution to the next step. I remember conversations a decade ago when we were talking about whether it was possible to set up some kind of international federation of these things and we realized how bureaucratic and complicated that would be, but I think a more decentralized kind of approach that you are suggesting here sharing best practices and involving common understandings of certain issues is something that is doable and would be a good contribution. I wasn't sure what to say about this from a faculty standpoint except I guess I will make three points real quickly about sort of challenges, I think, that we face. One is I'm cognizant of this particularly because yesterday I finished the 14th meeting of my global Internet Governance course at the University of Zurich, and when I compare my experience at the university with my experience in these settings, I have to say that? General I think it's proven a lot harder to do sort of conceptual and analytical discussions than it has more empirical and descriptive discussions. We tend to think in a lot of these courses to sort of cling closely towards what's going on in particular institutions and how certain things work rather than concentrating on the broader sort of analytical things that inform the understanding of Internet Governance generally, and, of course, concepts banter in this context, how you describe and define terms, concepts, trajectories, et cetera, shapes, agenda setting, negotiations, the search for solutions so it really, this is very nounal and ideas intensive field because things have been sort of created by us through the process. Engagement. And I feel like in a way, I wish there was more time to be able to evolve the kind of conceptual kinds of issues that one can take more time with in a university setting, but that's just a constraint that we face. A second one, I think, this is related. I think we tend to concentrate a lot on the institutions associated with the management, collective management of the infrastructure, the istar institutions and so on and I think my sense has been that overall we have been less systematic at looking at the institutional arrangements that pertain to the use of the Internet for information communication commerce whether it's rules on information content and flows of information to issues of information security, international trade, eCommerce, intellectual property, privacy protection. I don't feel like we, at least this is my sense that we don't do this as systematically as we do ICANN, RIRs, et cetera. And we all start out by citing the WG Internet Governance broad ef decision of Internet Governance and we say by the broad definition matters but a lot of concept ration tends to go narrower and I think that's an issue to figure out how to get the balance right. And the last point when is also a question of balance the challenge is always to try to find the sweet spot between all of the backgrounds and orientations and interests of the diverse fellows coming in because what might be of particular interest to somebody who is like in a Ph.D. program could be very different from what's of interest to somebody that's going to go to work in one of the technical administrative bodies in business or Government, et cetera. And I'm not sure if we always get that exactly right, maybe more could be done with breakout sessions that are more customized to particular sets of interest, so on. But in any event, so there are challenges, I think, to continue to evolve this going forward, and improve it each time. But I think that we have built something really wonderful over the past decade together, and through in a classic Internet way, through a very decentralized kind of model of cooperation and information sharing. So I'm very positive about what's been done and I hope that this dynamic coalition idea goes forward. So I will stop there. Thanks. >> MODERATOR: Thank you so much, Bill, for taking your time, I know in Europe it's quite late, but I'm happy that the quality and thanks to the host extraordinary that we can allow him to speak to that audience. With Bill we had intensive discussion about how to set a curriculum. Do we put ICANN first? Do we do IGF first? Are we stalking about the microcosm or the macro come because we always experience that we overwhelm the fellows with so much knowledge in one week that they leave the school on Internet Governance and say, oh, my God, now I know what I don't know. We are always, and he puts a lot of thoughts into this, and we will continue to work on this and I think that it will be a great contribution to an overall deinstitutionalization. Now, for the last fellowship, I'm sorry faculty speaker I would like to invite a very special faculty member because he was, he managed not only once to make fellows cry during his session. Because he can he has the ability to get very emotional presentation and it was not, I can truly tell you it wasn't only one fellows were there with tears in their chies to Bertrand de la Chapelle please tell us about your perspective and how you could manage to make them cry. >> BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: Thanks for the mention, I'm Bertrand de la Chapelle. It's actually a unique experience in terms of the interest interaction with people because it's a people topic. This is something that touches upon the lives of people, and I think that's probably the reason why it resonates. As a faculty member I participated in every single European society and one in Latin America. Unfortunately not enough around the world. But for me, it's an opportunity every year to step back basically and look at the evolution and how things are evolving in good ways and bad ways and I must say that in the course of those ten years, eleven now, things have gone very much on the positive side, but also very much on the negative side in terms of the tensions and the emergence of those things. So it's a great moment for me every year to just step back and try to reflect on what is exactly the substance of the feeling that we have when we engage in this environment. The second thing is I think the role playing and the thing that the Practicum has introduced is amazing because it forces people to step in somebody else's shoes. So it encourages people to say, okay, I'm Civil Society, what if I were a Government, how would I look at those topics from the other side. And it's an exercise we never do, and it's one of the strongest ways to get out of the silos and to basically understand that there is not a bad guy or bad woman on the other side. It's basically that they have their own tasks to fulfill and sometimes it's difficult. The third thing is I was very interested in listening to the presentations on how it has emerged in the regional things that this is a perfect example of the self-replicating system. It's like the IGFs. People have not dictated from the top the creation of regional and national IGFs. The regional and national summer schools have come just from the example of something that seems to be useful and is replicating. And this is one of the solutions, only one of the solutions to the scaling of the problem because there is an additional challenge to scaling up. It's not only the regional coverage. It's the shear size of the number of people that have to be reached. And so I empathize with the problems that Asia-Pacific may have in terms of the number of people that have to be educated, trained or sensitized. I think one of the benefits of this dynamic coalition will be to study a little bit further how video sessions and material, online courses could be developed so that there is a capacity to scale up. And the next thing quickly is the articulation with the IGFs. I was just sharing with Peter van Ross the fact that I have always been surprised that will is no formal sort of one-on-one sessions at the IGF on a specific number of issues. If people want to be brought up to speed at the very beginning of an IGF on something that they want to follow afterward, it would eliminate a lot of the work that is done at the beginning of some of the workshop sessions because you have to explain what the problem is. If there were sessions, training before hand that would be great. And the final element I couldn't emphasize and support more what Hartmut said regarding the judicial arery. It is an -- judiciary, it is an important topic to bring the judiciary and the people involved around the judiciary, the lawyers and the prosecutors, so on, into those discussions because they are wanting this, but at the same time, they are very sensitive on how the way, I'm sorry, on how you present this. It's not training. It's not education. It's exchange of experience because there are independent actors and they have their own responsibilities, and one of the big challenges that they have and that needs to be overcome is that by definition, they are forced to implement the law as is. And the law as is in many cases is the problem. So understanding how to prepare for the implementation and the enforcement of laws on a cross-border tool on a cross-border network when you are in the position of being the judiciary of one particular country is a very big challenge, and I think this is the example where as Avri said, it's as much an exchange of experience as a pure training. There is an element of training, but I'm glad to hear that there is appetite for this. And I think it's a huge effort. It may be a separate track as heart mut said, but I think it's an important element to explore. >> AUDIENCE: Only to mention Sandra one key point will be consumer protection. It's a new area that we discovered in Brazil. We have a Secretariat for consumer protection under the Ministry of Justice, and they asked us to help them how they need to go in details with the law (Hartmut Glaser) so we are working with a new accent, with a new style of school, consumer protection in Brazil using the Internet, rights for the users. >> MODERATOR: Very good point as well from Hartmut and Bertrand de la Chapelle that one of the concepts is that we have the information from the first, from those who are working in the registry who are working on an issue so they can deliver the knowledge they have and the knowledge the fellows gain from the firsthand. And this is a perfect handover to our last segment of the session where we want to actually ask the people who pay for the summer school who are sponsoring the summer school which without them it wouldn't be possible and the technical community and the Governments, those who get the people out of these schools, what I actually expect from those schools and what are the needs of those people. And from the business sector, I know we have many people in the room who are supporting the summer schools financially, but I would like to invite Andres in the room and also gone discal low, Christoph Christoph Steck. Are you for Christoph. Wonderful. I would invite both of you to let us know probably not why you are supporting it, we just take it for granted you are supporting it, but what do you want to have out of this course? What skill set do you need in the business sector? What do people need to know when they have gone through such a school? Gonzalo maybe you are the first. >> For us it's really important to have the sense that there are very different approaches by the different stakeholders. So that by participating in the summer schools, we tend to provide them the different views and for the students, for their need to understand how the different approaches are and how we look at things differently. So that's basically a more relevant objective when we are participating in these events. And also for us, it's also very positive because we get a very fresh approach with their opinions because basically most of them are newcomers and having this different approach, different opinion from them it's important for us, and that's where we also would ask all of the business community and all of the rest of the stakeholders to engage in the summer schools and to be more active and to help these newcomers into the Internet Governance world to start to understand and to have a better knowledge. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much gone discal low. Andrew, would you like to conclude. Just as you know, Andrew decided to take the support for the day last year sponsoring three of the fellows from the south school and the European school to participate in the IGF which would otherwise be very challenging for them, and this is actually a real good example of capacity building. So they went through such a school and have then the opportunity to participate in the global IGF which I think is a unique opportunity. So thank you. >> Thank you. So to answer the question, what are we, what would we look to expect for students to emerge from the schools, I think it's a baseline knowledge that gives them ability to contribute in a meaningful way to the various Internet institutions globally, and so that means that certainly after graduation they can come to the IGF and make meaningful contributions, participate in panels that they can go ICANN and join Working Groups and help shape the outcome to that policy development. I think if this is multistakeholder system is going to work, we have to all of us continue to strive for greater diversification of viewpoints in every aspect of the ecosystem. I think a significant draw back that we face is that there is too much concentration from certain sectors or particular parts of the world, and so we want to make sure that there is always that new flow of information of people bringing new ideas, new perspectives, coming in from all parts of the world with all language experiences, and so I think what the schools can do is make sure that we have, that those folks have the ability to step in and start adding to our work. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Andrew, and we talked about it yesterday already that one service a dynamic coalition could also deliver or one service for the fellows is actually that they could publish their CVs once they have participated in such a school so that Governments and the business sector, technical community have an opportunity to directly look up people who participated in such a school and have a certain knowledge already gained so that they can join a company or so ever, so sort of a little database for fellows. One fern in the groom is Keith Drazek. He is here with multiple hats. First of all, we would like to know from Keith what the technical community is actually seeking for out of these schools, but on the other hand, you are also among the faculty members for the European summer school and I think for others too as well as a sponsor so you are the person with the most hats in this room. >> KEITH DRAZEK: Thank you very much, Sandra, my name is Keith Drazek, I work for Verisign registry operator for.com and dot net. So thank you, it's been a multiyear privilege to be a part of the Euro SSIG, the SSIG and also in supporting the regional and national IGFs and I think it's important to consider them together in response to the question of what are we looking for or what are our interests in supporting the summer schools and regional and national IGFs and the global IGF. And it is ultimately a support for the multi-stakeholder model and to insure that as Andrew said, I think to insure that people, newcomers into this space have, you know, a baseline and the ability to contribute and to learn and to not feel lost as they sort of venture into this fora. I think it's also a support for relationship building and networking. I think the summer schools to me have been a remarkable opportunity personally, speaking personally, but also what I have seen among the participants, both faculty and fellows is a remarkable opportunity to engage together to get to know one another better and ultimately what we are doing here is all about relationships. In the multistakeholder sort of arena. So I think what we and what Verisign have seen over the recent years in ten years of Wolfgang and Sandra's work now going on eleven, and the extensive work that Olga has put in and others in the national and regional IGFs but especially the summer schools have really made a big difference in terms of contributors to our community. I focus mostly at ICANN that's my day job primarily is focusing on ICANN but it's not lost on me or my company that that's just one component of a much broader ecosystem, and it's all very much interrelated. So thank you very much for the opportunity. >> MODERATOR: And thank you, Keith, for the ongoing support on all of the three levels. And now last in the row of speakers I would like to invite Thomas. You should know best what Governments do need. >> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Olga asks really. Thank you for that. Well, thank you, and hello. First of all, I would like to congratulate Wolfgang and Sandra as this is the only SIG that I know and I have had the pleasure to participate after ten years to be able to participate because of date reasons this year in MISSON for the amazing spirit that they create among people from all over the world. And with regard to what Governments need, I think it's, this is probably less an exercise for us Governments directly, but rather first of all a capacity building exercise to get new generation of experts from all stakeholders into the discussion and that has been markable how intense and how much fun this learning exercise was, and the positive side effect is that there are a number of faculty members from other stakeholders, business, academia, Civil Society, that actually learn along with the fellows through participation and input from Governments how Governments actually work. So this is a very welcome unintended side effect. Experience has proven that this has not been equally sustainable with all of these people, but at least some of them are actually also benefiting themselves from this. So it's basically a capacity building exercise from my point of view for everybody. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you, Thomas, I know Governments for them it's sometimes difficult in this multistakeholder model to be really understood in the right way. So we have ten minutes left, and unfortunately we have not enough time to have an open discussion about how to move forward but I think we have gained a lot of input for how to move forward and I would say my conclusion would be that there is no doubt we should form a dynamic coalition, we will move forward, make the official application process through the IGF and we will keep in touch. Actually all of those people and their representatives or the stakeholder groups that are represented should be part of such a dynamic coalition so that we can actually work on a work plan. We will follow up by email and then have the next meeting maybe the official start of the coalition during the next IGF wherever that might be. But for the last ten minutes, I would like to invite some of the fellows to share their experiences from the schools they have participated. And I would like to start with Renata, you participated in the south school, right and I would kindly ask you because I don't know you all, just raise your hand when when you are a fellow and I will use the last ten minutes and please be brief so that many of you have the chance to speak. >> AUDIENCE: Hi, Renata, just a quick input. I was a fellow first at the Brazilian school of Internet Governance in 2014 south school of Internet Governance in 2015 and recent Internet school of Internet Governance. I am grateful for the opportunities I have had. It is really about taking policy making to the next level, being able to engage in ICANN and other venues such as the IGF. I would also like to thank this effort in creating the dynamic coalition. Fellows have started independently a mobile messaging group to try and keep up with each other's development and exchange information, but this is all very decentralized. So alumnae don't really have currently a network that they can engage in, so it would be an interesting opportunity to see the dynamic coalition effects on the long term, see if we can get the groups of alumnae to collaborate and build together projects. So I received some inputs from alumnae on mobile, on the many different mobile messaging groups and Skype groups also welcoming this effort. So I'm relaying them here to all of you. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you ren at a.. Next, Rachel. >> AUDIENCE: Hi, I'm richal Pollik, I participated in the summer school in Mison in 2014 and I would like to he canco just a humidity thanks to Wolfgapping and Sandra, the faculty, Avri, ber trained and also to Andrew I was lucky enough to participate with a fellowship from amna done last year in the IGF. And it's really the summer school in MISON was such a transformative experience for me because it gave me a solid foundation in the issues, but also meeting the people directly involved in Internet Governance and so when I did attend an IGF and then EuroDIG and ICANN to recognize familiar faces and I felt that I could find my place and I went lost. So thank you for that. I would also like to echo what Renata said about tapping into the alumnae network because as has been mentioned so many of us have continued in Internet Governance in various venues and organisations, and so I know some universities have very active alumnae associations. Sometimes they just want money but also organising events, and so I don't know if an association, something that formal would be required but at least to create a network for people to stay in touch and to contribute, and that might help with some of the challenges about scaling up and introducing new topics. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you Rachel. I'm sorry, I don't know your name, but the gentleman. >> AUDIENCE: My name is Emanuel Vitos, I'm from Togo. I was a fellow of the Afr SIG, the African SIG this year. It was a very good opportunity for me especially coming from a country where all of those Internet Governance issues are new issues and even the Government and a lot of people don't really know about it. It was a very good opportunity having all of those tools, going back home and bringing the input and the National Initiatives. So I'm very grateful for this opportunity and I hope that other people from other countries will have the opportunity to focus on Internet Governance issues he is special lip in the Global South and Africa. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Any other ones? Please. >> AUDIENCE: Hello, everyone, I'm Claudio from state university in Brazil and former fellow of south school of Internet Governance. I would like to add a word or two about building on what Keith said about engagement, not only in the sense that people coming out of the SIGs engage in the phenomenon itself in the institutions of Internet Governance, but also engage with each other and with their own communities. For example, from my fellows from 2014 and 15 in Costa Rica, the fellows who happen to also have teaching positions in their home universities, we communicate frequently and we exchange time slots in our classes back in our home universities in undergraduate courses and in postgraduate courses. This is a very simple interaction, but it's absolutely transforming in terms of teaching which is what we are discussing here. We have inputs during our regular courses from people with another view that might otherwise not reach our students because of that very physical connection that was triggered in that moment. So I think this is a very interesting point to highlight from my experience. >> MODERATOR: Very good point. Thank you very much. Do we have -- Sophia. >> >> AUDIENCE: Sophia Morales, I'm from Mexico, but I live in Singapore teaching governance and new media international University of Singapore. For me it was, well, I did the summer school in 2014. For me it has been exactly the same. It's an amazing opportunity, the opportunity to really experience the governance process. It was the first time that we did the role play. We were in the IANA transition period, and the exercise was just amazing. I think that is important what we are talking about here. The network is important, I think that we need to continue, well, we have been -- this is what for me was so important to attend the tenth anniversary of the school because the value for me was not only all of the things that I learned, but as well the connections that I made. And as well to be more familiar with the environment. Thank you so much for the opportunity. >> MODERATOR: And I have -- I would say last, I would close the cue then, I'm sorry, I don't know your name either. >> AUDIENCE: Thank you very much, my name is Elisabeth Kosaga, coming from electronic. I was honored to attend the African school on Internet Governance this year in October and I'm very lucky to have been made -- we learned quite a lot. They introduced an aspect of gender within Internet Governance at the school and then we went back to Uganda, we have tried to replicate the Afr SIG classes in Uganda and we have had monumental impact as far as young girls and young women embrace the Internet. Because originally girls and women are very scared of the Internet because of all of the bullying. And we had a couple of discussions on Internet shutdowns. In Uganda we had an election in February and we had the Internet shut down and, again, in March. So much as it was a real aspect, the Practikum introduced us to multi-stakeholderism where instead of just looking at the shutdown as the user, you also need to look at it from the aspect of the national security, what is the Government thinking. So the pract couple really allowed us to explore the multi-stakeholderism approach. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you so much, and I think the very fact that the fellows are still here, I think that's the best revenue we can get as an organiser, coordinator of these schools and we are happy to that you stayed involved over the years, and with this I would we are close to the end of the workshop, I would give the last word to Wolfgapping the father of the SIG consent how to move forward. >> Soon I will be the grandparents because we have to many new mothers and fathers which is very good, looking backwards what I started and said, okay, if an idea is born, you never know whether it will succeed or not, so this is like Bill Clinton has described Internet Governance as stumbling forward, so from year to year you try to learn and you try to improve, and as I said in the beginning and I think consensus here in the room, time is RIPE to make the step forward in this still unknown territory. So our idea what Sandra has outlined is really to create a very decentralized mechanism. I think Bill mentioned that we discussed years ago to have like a global school. This makes no sense. The situation in different countries in different regions is different, but we share some values and we should also agree on a certain quality standard as a minimum standard for the schools. So it means school is an ambitious name and so that means we have to deliver quality. Some people mention that over the quality is sometimes even more important than quantity, and I think in the concept of the summer school, we are really teaching the Internet Governance leaders of tomorrow. So that means we have to deliver high quality in content and also in methodology what we offer. And I think the dynamic coalition on schools of Internet Governance could be a tool which helps us to meet the standard or to develop a number of criteria where we can also encourage more schools on the national level to contribute to this knowledge building. So we have, you know, there is no plan to build new bureaucracy or have a structure. So we, even we are very careful when we propose a certain committee or group though we did not call this group a coordination group because there is nothing to coordinate. We didn't call it a steering committee. There is nothing to steer. We just call it the collaboration group. So this is a group that we can collaborate on an equal level. We have asked Avri to be the focal point because Avri was in all of this summer schools and she can a little bit help to enhance this collaboration or this communication among this, and then let's wait and see what we can do until the next IGF in 2017 and in the meantime, we hope we can develop some communication tools. There were some good proposals, you know, and it extended certain groups, it's a process as ber trained has said and that means I invite all activists in this new network to come with their own ideas and then to structure the ideas and to contribute to this so that we can in ten years from now not only celebrate the 20th anniversary, but we have a much bigger community than we have today. Thank you very much. And enjoy the rest of the IGF. (Applause). (Concluded at 1:32) Copyright © 2016 Show/Hide Header