You are connected to event: CFI-RPC3 7 December 2016 Workshop 162 The Role of Judiciary Systems and Internet Governanc (Standing by). 7 December 2016 Workshop 162 The role of Judiciary Systems and Internet Governance. Services provided by: Caption First, Inc. P.O. Box 3066 Monument, CO 80132 800-825-5234 www.captionfirst.com *** This text is being provided in a realtime format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) or captioning are provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. *** (Standing by) 7 December 2016 Workshop 162 The Role of Judiciary Systems and Internet Governance (Standing by.) Services provided by: Caption First, Inc. P.O. Box 3066 Monument, CO 80132 800-825-5234 www.captionfirst.com *** This text is being provided in a realtime format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) or captioning are provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. *** 7 December 2016 The role of Judiciary Systems and Internet Governance 09:00 (Standing by) >> MODERATOR: Good morning. We are about to start so I kindly request my fellow panelists to come here. We need to be very punctual according to the organization which I think it's a nice idea. So we will start in one minute and 40 seconds. >> Okay. Good morning again. It's my pleasure to be moderateing this session. We will finish two minutes and a half later so don't worry. Thank you very much. This is a co-organised session between UNESCO and the special rapporteur office for human rights so thank you Edison for co hosting this and thank you for accepting this workshop. I would like to thank the government of Sweden who is helping us to fund this session and the idea of the role of the Judiciary Systems and freedom of expression and we will explain to you in a minute. I had like to thank you very much my fellow panelists in the panel. You will see these people understand a lot about this issue and they have a profound experience in dealing with these questions. And above all I would like to thank you all to be here 9:00 a.m. after all the tequilas and miss calls to discuss a very pressing issue. Four years ago UNESCO and the two special rapporteurs for the United Nations stsm at that time Mr. Frank LaRue who is now my boss in Paris is about to arrive so I hope he will be able to be here with us. And Catalina Botero. We met and we explained that we were concerned about the relationship between the Judiciary Systems and freedom of expression in general. For our surprise he said he was also concerned and other colleagues were also concerned about several issues related to this relationship but particularly the amount of cases related to Internet that were already reaching the courts at that time. So we suggested to him that UNESCO and the special rapporteur's office could help the supreme courts and the Judiciary Systems in addressing this system. And the chief justice of Brazil at that time said this is perfect but don't come to another 20 people workshop. I have 17,000 judges in this country and I need you guys to propose something sustainable and that can reach the amount of judges and the operators of the system. And we said well we didn't expect that challenge but we are going to do something. And four years later we just signed ten days ago an agreement with all the supreme courts of IberoAmerica in 23 countries to deal with these kinds of issues. We have already trained 3,500 operators of the Judiciary Systems in 22 countries in this region those issues, Internet and freedom of expression but also other areas of the freedom of expression agenda. Edison is very much involved with this training, online training. For our surprise we have received 18,000 requests from judges, prosecutors, requesting information about those trainings and the possibility of doing that. We have with the partnership with the Colombia University jurisprudence data bank in Spanish for those judges but the Colombia University also has the same data bank in English. And we have established cooperation with all these schools of judges in IberoAmerica, Paula who is with us here, she was at that time working with the Mexican schools for judges, for providing a sustainable training for judges on these areas. So you see I probably when you came to this session you probably remember bad cases of judiciary judges taking bad decisions about Internet all over the world and this is also true but I would start with this positive message. There is interest in the courts in taking this issue further in a nice way, in line with internation standards and freedom of expression. The purpose of this session is to highlight these challenges but also to see how we can help judiciary systems in addressing these same challenges. Last year the United Nations assembly approved the new sustainable development goals. It's about in general good governance. And one of the targets is precisely improving and enhancing the rule of law. And in this same SDG you have freedom of expression. So we need more discussions for the development agenda, for the democracy agenda and for the Human Rights agenda. That said, these people here, men and women, they have no more than seven minutes to start with initial statement about these topics. I will warn you guys when you have two minutes left. And after that we'll cut your -- I will sensor you. And we will start with Toby. Toby is one of the leading worldwide experts in freedom of expression. He he does lots of work for UNESCO and Toby will offer a more global overview. The floor is yours. You have seven minutes. >> Toby: Thank you. I run the centre for law and democracy. It's a Human Rights organization based in Canada that focuses on foundational rights on democracy including freedom of expression. I see my friend from Mongolia in the office. In February we have training for legal professionals, part of a series that we are doing there. As the first speaker I'm going to outline what I see as the three key challenges, very broad brush in seven minutes or eight minutes. The challenge for judiciary regarding freedom of expression specifically with respect to the Internet, not the wider expression of freedom of expression and judiciary. And the first issue is for the most part judges are not digital natives. They're older guys like me and probably most of them is guys as well. And that can play out in three different ways. Firstly they may not understand the immediate technical implications of their decision. They say that website has to be blocked. They don't understand what technically that means whether it's possible to isolate that website or how that works technically so that it results in over broad restriction. Second problem I think is they often will not understand the social by which we mean freedom of expression of what their doing. About six ago judges in Pakistan blocked access to YouTube for the whole of Pakistan because of one video on YouTube. If the judges were blocking all of the libraries they would have thought carefully. They didn't realize what was YouTube and then they didn't want to change and it took five years. So Pakistan was without YouTube for five years. Third is they often don't understand the options that they have. For example, about a year ago in Myanmar there was a nasty video and statements on Facebook about Muslims abusing Buddhists and very difficult racial relations there, led to riots, so they blocked Facebook. I met with the minister of information and said why don't you talk to Facebook about what they can do to remove just this problematical content and not take the whole thing down. Now that started to change. Of course it's going to take a little bit of time but I think interestingly and just a few comments about Civil law and common law systems. Civil law systems are probably in a better position, more younger jos. In the common law system you have to be old and senior before you look at a judicial position so we are behind the curve on that one. In second issue is on many cases what is needed is either a radical change in the way the rules are being interpreted or indeed a direct constitutional striking down of a rule because the rules are simply inconsistent with guarantees of freedom of expression. The traditional rules in most countries on who is responsible for the publication of a defamation is broad and includes intermediaries who have no access to that content. Another is when to take jurisdiction in a case and often the rules on jurisdiction are very, very broad, not designed basically for a digital global world. So here I would identify quickly three sub challenges. Firstly in many countries there are formal restrictions on the power of different judges to engage in constitutional interpretation and to take constitutional action to strike down legislation. In my country in Canada, any judge can strike down any law on the basis of the first judge the lowest judge can strike down a complete law on the basis of constitution but in many countries you have to go from the court you're in to a constitutional court or the Supreme Court which is the only court that has that power. That's a very procedurally delaying and complicated mechanism and there even more restrictions in some other countries. Secondly, these issues that arise involve often very, very complex constitutional considerations. Even international law is not really settled, not settled at all in many of these areas on what the proper rule is. So asking judges who in many cases are not that familiar with the foundational principals of freedom of expression understand the constitution, certainly not under international law it's difficult to expect them to take these actions. Obviously the programme that Guilherme is involved in addresses that directly. Thirdly, for many judges, they're used to applying what we call black letter law approach. Applying the rules as they know and understand them as they always have done and to ask them to move way outside of that and think completely outside the box I think is challenging, especially given the massive implications of the kinds of decisions that as freedom of expression activists I would want them to come up with. For example, saying a minister can't sue somebody for a post on Twitter because that's just constitutional unreasonable, that's a big thing for a judge to do. And I think that given the huge changes that are needed to align standards in all of these areas with the digital world we do -- we are looking at a bit of a challenge about judicial activism. How far is it really appropriate for judges to go and how much should we rely on the legislature to make these kinds of changes? Thirdly and lastly just what I call the volume issue. In the offline world there's a vast flow of informal and dare I call it locker room talk with all of the implications that carries these days, that never would come to a defamation case. It's just chatter, chatter, chatter. Even though it's full of defamation, full of illegal speech. It would never come to a courtroom. In the digital world it's all recorded and the possibility of that reaching a court is increased. Many volumes of cases are completely unsustainable. And here what we need a solution that goes beyond even a constitutional judicial interpretation, we need new rules which at least establish a di minimus standards, it's too small to get to a court or some other resolution system or perhaps a more radical approach that what happens on Twitter just is not going to be susceptible to a defamation case. And within 30 seconds of my time I'll end. Thank you. (Applause). >> MODERATOR: Thanks a lot, Toby. Someone just Twitterd me that I forget to mention my name is Guilherme Canela. So today should have been here with us as well Catalina Botero, and now she's the dean of law at a University in Colombia but for last minute reason she couldn't leave but she was kind enough to send us a short video about her thoughts on this issue as well. So now we are going to the video. So let's listen to Catalina Botero. >> CATALINA BOTERO: (Away from microphone) I would like to focus on how careful the judiciary has to be on these issues from microphone) but at the same time they have enough power to easily (inaudible) of the Internet as we know it today. The network of communications known as the Internet has generated (inaudible) it has size, knowledge and culture and it has (inaudible) supposed abuses of power and corruption. (Static) open, free and neutral network. I want to insist on the fact that it must be a network where all people are free to communicate and receive information. All of this neutrality that promotes and protects freedom of expression and information. In a sense protecting Internet structure, specifically the right all people to use Internet to communicate and upload information or share their opinions. And also the right to access the highest amount of information possible without (Away from microphone) that can erase, block or filter information as it happens. (Inaudible) and valuable rights for democracy such as access to culture, science, education for information about issues of particular interest would be dramatically affected. We are talking about the rights of hundreds of beings of people. Judges decisions should protect the conditions necessary so that Internet can continue to be functional for democracy. Judges must consider that when their decisions impact Internet, they may be producing a systematic affect that compromises the functioning of the network. In particular the so-called right to be forgotten, can we not be concealed without taking into account that any decision can have delayed effect on the Internet's structure and the right to information of millions of people. For this reason judges should consider the importance in the society of protecting the access to what are the few I understand neutral sources of information available today to exercise for rights. Maintaining the integrity of Internet and adopting the issues that sacrifice in no way the principals that govern Internet includes political participation, access (inaudible) and promotes democracy. There's millions of people who (inaudible) or challenge of communication and to express their interest or opinions and be heard, and this is because of Internet. Protecting an open, free and neutral Internet allows accountability actions (inaudible). All of this should be taken into account when a judge decides whether or not to alter in anyway the information of the Internet. This is what we mean when we say don't break the Internet. Again I'm sorry I cannot be there today. I hope this brief intervention contributes to the fantastic discussion I'm sure will take place. I will have really enjoyed being there with all of you. Thank you for your time. And have a very, very interesting panel. >> MODERATOR: Okay. So now I will jump to Holly. We are trying to keep this interesting for bad and for good decisions that judges are taking in many places all over the world but also particularly in Latin America it's the decisions in Spanish and Portuguese and Holly will explain who you how this process has been taken place. Holly is connected on this global freedom of expression in Colombia university. So Holly, you have the floor for seven minutes. >> Holly: Thank you so much. I'm so sorry Catalina Botero could not be here but it's an honour to be her in her stead. The English version of it was launched in 20 15 and started by the president of Colombia University to better understand the norms and institutions that protect the free flow of information globally and the databases are are key tool to look at norm development and freedom of expression jurisprudence. We are trying to look at how national courts are aligning with international standards and see where new norms developing. We are trying to focus on the justice sector because of all of the incredible complexities that are facing the courts which Toby and Edison and Guilherme have so eloquently explained, the courts just are facing incredible challenges due to the advance in communication technologies. We are hoping that the database would be one stop shopping for comparative jurisprudence and give justices and other stakeholders a place to go to understand how people are looking at these problems. So the English side of the database hosts nearly at this point 800 case analysis from 100 countries. We add 25 to 30 new cases each month. We are able to do that because we have an enormous network of over 100 experts and 15 legal researchers based all over the world. And our target audience is quite broad. We are looking to appeal to judges, Human Rights activists lawyers and academics. We cover everything from surveillance to national security, data protection, defamation, liable. And in an effort to really make the database more accessible we were lucky and grateful to have this wonderful partnership with UNESCO who was able to draw on the important work they have been doing with judges. And through that partnership and the help of Catalina Botero we launched this database in Spanish and that happened in October. It currently hosts 170 seminal cases from Latin America from 16 countries and they are continuing to add cases. We then from our side took 28 seminal cases from all over the world, had those translated into Spanish so it has more of a global perspective and we selected those cases mostly based upon those cases that are signed most by the Internet court of Human Rights. We took 28 seminal cases and had them translated into French, Russian, mandarin and Chinese. They are going to be uploaded on to the website. I want to give you a brief view of the website. Here we have the front page of the Spanish site and these are all of the partners who were involved in putting it together so it's enormous amount of talent that is brought together to do this. And I'm going to show you the English side here. This is sort of the main navigation page for searching for some of the cases. There's three different ways of doing it. We have filters, we have full tech search and tags. I selected one case the Google Spain case I thought that would be relevant for everybody here. One of the first cases on the right to be forgotten. For every single case analysis we have we have various cases. We then have a fact section. We have a decision direction area where we can add additional context to the case and we also evaluate whether we feel that the decision restricts expression, expands expression or gives a mixed outcome. Then we have the global perspective section and this is where we take all of the citations from the court decision and this will show you whether or not the court relied on national jurisprudence, regional jurisprudence or international standards and this gives us a stance of what we consider to be a global perspective. And I'm using the Google Spain because this was such an important case for I'm assuming most people here are familiar with it. Okay. I got to make this fast. Anyway, what we have under the case significance is a list of all the cases in the database that actually cite that particular case so this is where you can go if you want to have a comparative perspective on Google Spain to see what other courts in other jurisdictions are thinking about. I'm going to show you briefly, here is a graphic of how this court has traveled all over the world. You can see these lines. So it's had quite an impact. Another case I'd like to highlight is Turkey, this is the court of Human Rights case. I think a lot of people particularly David was talking about how there's role back in freedom of expression because of national security and surveillance but there are really positive models that I think people should look at. There are some courts that are making thoughtful decisions we can learn from. This is one of them. This was a blanket ban and the European court of Human Rights rules that in fact blanket bands are violations of article ten and a very important aspect of this case the court recognized the educational utility of YouTube because two of the plaintiffs in this case were professors so we are very happy about that one. There's a recent case in the United States that we found to be very important what cable operators in the U.S. were trying to do was create these bizarre hierarchies of access -- two seconds -- and that was away of kind of getting like ridiculous revenues and the court said absolutely not. This is a public utility and therefore those sorts of practices are illegal. And they supported five principals for net neutrality. You can read more about it in the database. I have lots of propaganda here in Spanish and English on the database so please talk to me afterwards. We have a booth in village number six. Visit us. (Applause). >> MODERATOR: Thanks a lot, Holly. I have no hard time on keeping these people on time. It's very good. Now I'm handing the floor to my good friend Edison Lanza is is special rapporteur or freedom of expression but in his previous life was an activist for many of those issues and also a lawyer who was presenting these things before courts. So he has experiences in many perspectives related to this issue so Edison, you're going to speak in Spanish, right? Apparently we don't have translation but you can see it in English while he's speaking in English in Spanish. Okay. Seven minutes. >> EDISON LANZA: Okay. Thank you Guilherme and thank all of you for being here. I follow in Spanish and take advantage that we are here in Mexico and then the situation about my terrible English. (Speaking in Spanish). (Applause). (Speaking in Spanish). (Applause). >> GUILHERME CANELA: Thank you, Edison. So the thing was not working. I'll make a summary and the few issues at the end Edison will underline. He mentioned the right to be forgotten, a key issue we need to address in the region. The protection of journalist and the source of journalist in the environment it's another element. He's worried about the pressure judges are receiving for content on the Internet and finally jurisdiction and the impact in other jurisdictions as Holly showed with her map and the different impacts of a decision in Europe in other courts. So this was 30 second summary of what Edison said in seven minutes. Now since he mentioned the case of Brazil perhaps I can switch to my Brazilian friends. Carlos, perhaps you can offer that in seven minutes. >> Thank you. I would like to thank the partners of this panel. I'd provide some news about Brazil and how the issue of the role of judiciary has been played out in recent years and try to come up with some ideas on how we can move forward with this discussion. So first of all just to make the point clear, from two years now Brazil approved a law related to specifically on the Internet which was so-called Brazilian Internet bill of rights. We call it (speaking foreign language). This is a law that is strong in the language when it comes to freedom of expression. The Brazilian Internet bill of rights refers to free speech at least five times and one of the strongest language what it has is on article second. I'm translating from Portuguese to English as we go but the article second of the Brazilian Internet bill of rights is the usage is ground in protection of freedom of expression. Pretty strong language just to begin with, with the legislation of course. And this is a legislation that needs to be applied, own forced by judges, by judiciary power. We have seen in the last two years how the judiciary reacted to this law because Brazil has been been going through a moment in which free speech has been challenged in a number of situations from electoral discourse, courts are getting more actively on the debates around the boundaries of freedom of expression in Brazil and from that regard I believe the issue Edison mentioned on right to be forgotten is a key issue in Brazil when it comes to looking how courts are reflecting on those issues. If you look specially on the court of appeals of the state of Sao Paolo in the last one year and a half we had 46 decisions on right to be forgotten. So it's decision s on the right to be forgotten and mimicking contrasting to the case that happens in Europe so it's interesting to see it because we are talking about the influences one country might have on another. It's interesting to see from May 2014 you got this widespread decisions ton right to be forgotten and some of them even discuss the issue of global removals just to say a Brazilian judge could order accountants to be removed from a search engine. So this is a really oppressing issue and I believe it has a huge impact on freedom of expression. We know by the end of the day this can be a very damaging result for free speech worldwide because we could balance free speech in the lower level like the race to the bottom. The issue of what is blocking always comes up when we discuss Internet regulation and free speech in Brazil. Of course we had these issues of blacking in Brazil and there are really damaging on the issue of free speech but at the same time it's important to highlight that the Brazilian Internet bill of rights has been used in some of these decisions. My personal opinion it's been wrongly used by judges in some of these decisions and I'm really glad to tell that you the last decision from our Brazilian Supreme Court that has reversed the last blocking of the what's up in Brazil, the principal of freedom of expression to say what the blocking of the what's up was not a constitutional measure, not a proportional measure. The last decision from the Brazilian Supreme Court on the issue of what's up blocking says that the suspension of a service of a app called what happens up that allows the exchange of messages instantaneously throughout the Internet as determined by the lower court seems to me that the justice seemed to me that it violates the fundamental principal of free speech which is protected here in the Brazilian Internet bill of rights and through out the national territory seems to be disproportional measure so it's interesting how the Brazilian Internet bill of rights has been applied and especially the issue of free speech is coming up really strong in those decisions. And just to conclude, which one is this? -- okay. Great. We have a piece of paper that you're look can be different depending what side of the paper is shown to you. One is you still have some minutes, the other one -- so I got the lucky side. Okay. Not sure if it's lucky for you. Then again just to conclude, the issue of free speech and Internet is definitely picking up in Brazilian courts not only in the Supreme Court but unless the court of appeals. If you look again at the court of appeals of the state of Sao Paolo only this year we have 234 decisions mentioning free speech and the Internet. And that comes from a wide range of topics, from registration of domain names to content removal to liability of intermediaries so it's interesting to see how judges are taking on those issues. One of the initiatives I would like to mention is the initiative called EGI which is school of Internet Internet Governance with its I would say legal addition which is an initiative from this last addition in which we create some small courses for a class of 30 to 40 students such to say and it's pretty much focused on legal professions such as lawyers, prosecutors, judges, high court judges. And we are putting up those courses and we of done two courses already in order to not send out the news about the Brazilian Internet bill of rights and its enforcement but also to make sure that judges try to understand a little bit better the impacts of its decisions. The issues Edison mentioned and I mentioned here -- okay -- are really crucial for the state of the Internet in Brazil in the near future so that's why judge training is really important but I would like to stress the point like judges are in one spectra of the profession. On the other side of the spectra you have the students and the law students so it's really important for Internet regulation being teechd in the graduation courses in the law schools so we can get not only the students studying law right now but the judges who are applying the law afterwards. Sorry for going over like 30 seconds and thanks for that. (Applause). >> GUILHERME CANELA: Thanks a lot, Carlos. And I think you saw the point where the connection what Toby was saying about the volume and what Carlos said if you can imagine Sao Paolo as Carlos said is only one Brazilian state. Image for the court of appeals that is already a second stage of judiciary power they already have 234 cases imagine what is going on and multiply that for 27 states only for Brazil. One thing Carlos didn't mention because I cut his time and it's important to underline, when we have electoral ears we have even more cases in the electoral courts related to Internet and I'm seeing people here that has a project on that so later on during the discussion marina can tell but this particular point. Now I'm connecting also with Carlos said I'm moving to Paula Carmona Diaz de Leon. She started when she was in the Mexican school of judges. We first did a court in Mexico online. We thought we were going to train 50 people and we received 2,000 requests for Mexican judges and operators to be involved in this course. Paola is a professor and teaches about freedom of expression and law, has won a very important prize here in Mexico. >> EUGENIA DIAZ de LEON: Thank you. First I would like to thank Guilherme Canela for participating in the discussion panel. My exposure is made up of four sections, the right to reply, the history of relation with Mexico and the list of the draft of the constitution action of the Mexico Supreme Court of justice and conclusions. The right to reply is the right of every person, in the sense that they are facts only or also opinions. That refer to it to consider them inaccurate or unlikely to be prejudicial. The reply will be made in the same medium. This is not a general rule. The publication will be free and printed in the next issue to the one that generated the publication. Legal administrative procedures are usually established as restricted. However, it is important to note the immediacy of the information. The time of the note and the reply should not be allowed otherwise the latter loses intended effect. Because the relation establishing legal mechanisms for its defense the right to reply has been considered as an important warranty of the right to information which should be understood as the power to freely communicate and receive information by any broadcast media introduced in the second half of the 20th century in the article 19 by the universal declaration of Human Rights. The case study information must have two characteristics. The first is voracity. Diligence in the search for the truth. The issue of constitutional warranty that acts with contempt for voracity or falsity of the communicated. Because the law does not cover the information that is known by the transmitter or without any contrast with any objective data preventing the issue from transmitting as facts rumors lack any evidence or insinuations. The second is information pluralism that can be understood in different ways. As an external pluralism that is to say that as an effect of the University of broadcast media. A social plurality and information. And impartial and neutral objective treatment of political information. The right to reply is also a manifestation of the freedom of information. Hence the conditions of voracity and information pluralism which effect and are applicable since the inaccurate information publishes and disseminated by a social communication medium which gives right to exercise by the subject effective is based on the -- sorry, is based on the voracity. That means should be contrasted with actual facts and you should act with diligence and professionalism in its obtaining. This prerequisite does not execute the issue from possible errors despite having acted in good faith. The meanings of information pluralism mentioned to stand out in exercise the right to reply. The internal pluralism implies the broadcast media opening to all voices. In the case of the right to reply information which facilitates the diffusion of different versions of the same event. And information pluralism as an impartial and neutral objective treatment since different versions of information have an impact on public information and decisions by citizens. Also external pluralism provides the assumption that information is not concentrated in a single (inaudible) which gives fluidity and freedom to the communicative process. To exercise the right to reply and the consequent publication must be distinguished from the responsibility derived -- okay -- oops. Okay. Thank you. Well, okay. I will reduce my participation and I only take -- took the background. We have in matter of writer reply we have many amendments. The amendment to constitutional article six on 2007, the general law on electoral institution and procedures on 2014, the regulatory law for constitutional article six to the right of reply from 2015. I will give highlights about analysis of the unconstitutional action from the Supreme Court about right to reply. The presence of two of the political parties at Mexico and the national commission of Human Rights promoted a constitutional action against the decree of the promulgation -- a sentence that was rejected for the following main reasons: It intends to eliminate the law of the -- from the law to the characteristics that the information of the right of reply must have. Also the law establishs the process -- well, and -- well, also proposed the validity of the provisions granting to the media the power to refuse to publish it or transmit at the requested reply based on the analysis of subjective aspects whose assessment is proper to the judicial authority. That is when the reply is offensive or when the people -- okay -- >> Ten seconds. >> EUGENIA DIAZ de LEON: 30 seconds? >> MODERATOR: Sure. >> EUGENIA DIAZ de LEON: Okay. I could add another element to question eight. The assertion that the right to reply is a limitation to freedom of expression. And that it's exercise needs to effect the honor of others because as I explained, the right to replies has relationship with the right information and information pluralism and truthfulness. It's opposed to the right of which results in liability and reparation of moral damages. The right to reply in Mexico is a right whose regulations contains inaccuracies that have been noted in their arguments presented by the proponents of the constitutional action which also have been reflected in the draft sentence that was rejected. Thank you. (Applause). >> GUILHERME CANELA: So now last but not least we will have you saw here we have a mixed panel of intergovernmental organisations, Civil Society. Now we will switch to the private sector which is obviously an important player in this discussion and I'm glad that my friend Marcela from Google is here. Many of the cases that were mentioned this morning are related to companies that are connected to the Google corporation, YouTube, Google itself as the search machine. So Marcel, I hope you can give us ideas on the private sector. Thank you. Seven minutes. >> Thank you. It's not obvious to most people how judicial decisions interfere with Internet governance. And I'll give you some numbers to illustrate what I mean by this. I'm senior public council policy on Brazil. Even though I'm not on the legal team I work closely with them. Brazil has over 3,000 cases with Google. That number does not, I repeat, does not include cases in which Google is not a party so essentially any criminal investigations or other data requests where Google is not a party to that lawsuit are not include in that 3,000 number that I mentioned. There's an impact on how regulation and decisions happen. One thing we learned and notice across the region, not just Brazil, it's almost unfair to demand of judges to have a very deep knowledge of technology and the Internet in general. Of course we ought to do better in that to educate them in several ways. I wouldn't say it's such an age thing. It's more like a familiarity thing. Courts have had to deal with these cases on an on going cases despite having senior judges don't really understand the basics of Internet technology, whereas some cases if you have young judges failing to understand the implications of their decisions. I guess that's the point I want to make. Most of them are out to to solve specific problems and almost all of them fail to realize the broader implications of their decisions. I'll give two examples that illustrate what I mean. There was a case in 2006 or 7 where a cyber cafe -- the state court of appeals said regardless of the cyber cafe to register customer data for investigations, they said you know what offering public access to the Internet, these are the courts words, knots mine, is a risk. And therefore who ever offers that kind of service should be held liable for any wrongdoing that a user can do. They basically said that business was so risky that who would actually endeavor doing that? So that was the first case that happened way back glad to say it's no longer the case obviously. And when more recent case we saw at Google is basically those phishing expeditions that have happened. We have seen court orders ordering the company to disclose our Google accounts of all users of Android phones that happened to be in a 500 yard vicinity of a crime that happened. We fought that order and won on and appeals ground but just to give an example of the judges failing to understand the broader implication of their decisions while trying to solve specific problems. How do you solve that problem? Basically with transparency. I was glad to see the project on global decisions. Brazil has something similar. It's called the Marco Civil observatory, where they actually public decisions that apply to Marco Civil with space for comments and decide what is going on and analyze if decisions apply the law correctly. When that kind of observatory and transparency is important is most of the legal research in this topic ends up being on superior court decisions, they are just sexier I think but the reality is the problem usually happens at the lower level and basically sometimes they get ignored unless it's a big repercussion case like what's up blocking. So that's what I had to say. I'll just mention this as well that we need more of these decisions because it's all fine and nice to be talking here about the global network, the global Internet in general but the policy implications of what we discuss here are actually applied by the judges on the national level so we have to keep an eye for those decisions all the time regardless of country. I'm done, thank you. (Applause). >> GUILHERME CANELA: You know, private sector goes straight to the point. (Laughter). So now we'll have -- we still have 20 minutes, a little bit for, for discussion with you guys. Just to let you know we have lots of propaganda here from the jurisprudence data bank, we have the road map we have built with the schools of judges in Latin America, this is in Spanish but it's online as well. Toby has book from his centre as well. If you want later on please come here. And then I have few people so let's take five questions, one minute and 30 seconds each question, no more than that and get back here. Rachel, Marina, Paul and this here and one more are five. If we have time we go back. We will take all the five questions so no more than one and a half minutes. Present yourself. Introduce yourself. >> AUDIENCE: Hi. NGO for woman's rights here in Mexico. Access to justice, it could be that progressive jurisdiction or decisions made by courts for instance in Mexico it's happening but what happens to for example women approaching to the judiciary in the lower levels not been able to access to justice in cases related to Internet governance for the judges to be able to interpret legislation. I would like the stress that fact because for a case to get into the Supreme Court or any other international instance it's a long way so there's a heavy gap there that I say yeah we have to ask judges who have higher standards in the way they are applying to every day life of data. >> GUILHERME CANELA: Thanks a lot. We have Rachel back there. Don't worry, the five people I have noted will be contemplated. >> AUDIENCE: Thank you very much. I will be short. I want to share a little bit what Internet society is aiming to do with the judiciary training. First for those that don't know Internet society was created back in '92. Exactly to be the home for the IETF which is the technical guy who do the standards and protocols but we know we had to broaden the activities between technical and policy issues because we need to make the engineers understand how their development and decisions impact the social and the policy making. And also the policy makers have the decisions impact the technical architecture and how it impacts the Internet infrastructure. So based on building on this experience that we have in this intersection we want to do a course and we are looking to do a course with UNESCO bringing to the courts to the judiciary system so the judges and anyone involved how the Internet plays, how it works, and how the Internet governance's principals need to be tackled. And then narrow down to the freedom of expression hate speech, right to be forgotten. So going back into the degrees of the issues. What is important and what I wanted to mention especially in Latin America where we have the Civil regime based, the courts become the entrance point for those issues so it's important that they had this broad understanding and I think the panel was pretty clear on that and I thank the panel for all your vision that's going to be really helpful and useful also to talk to you and to anyone interested because this is not our full expertise and we are really willing to do this right. Thank you. >> GUILHERME CANELA: Thank you. Here. >> AUDIENCE: Hello, everybody. My name is Paul, I'm the deputy director of Internet and jurisdiction which is a global multi stakeholder policy between the cross pollination of Internet and jurisdictions. I want to congratulate you to this panel. It's such an important topic. And we were organises the first global Internet and jurisdictions conference two weeks ago in Paris. For the first time more than 200 senior level stakeholders for more than 40 countries came together to find ways to solution. And one message, one of the key messages was it's very important to involve the judiciary more in those discussions which is a challenge. So I'm wondering how you imagine the judiciary can be involved. There are a lot of judges on the judiciary systems that are involved in making those decisions. As many of you highlighted in your presentations we see more in the absence of overarching frameworks that apply to those sort of questions of how to exert national laws on the cross border Internet. To change the entire eco system. So I will very curious if you can provide some comments on that. >> GUILHERME CANELA: Thanks. So we have this gentleman there -- no, sorry, you're the next round this. One there that is -- sorry about that. We will take five first and then Marina. >> AUDIENCE: Hi. I represent private sector, I'm a software developer. Training judges and Internet governments for decisions, not just Internet but for Internet of Things for the revolution of society is essential but also how governments are adopting and taking advantage for the use of alternative forms of government allow and law enforcement like computer algorithms and regulatory governments. >> GUILHERME CANELA: Thank you. And Marina for the last question for this round and if we have time we get five more. >> AUDIENCE: Thank you. I'm Marina from the Brazilian association of foreign investigative journalists. Thank you for mentioning your project. We collect the judicial actions taken for that demands online content removal in Brazil. And just highlighting some numbers we collected in 2016 local electoral campaign. There were cases only in electoral courts in Brazil for content removal. Some demanded preventing people from publishing on subjects and issues. 97 lawsuits included that demand. And this is 30% more actions that we registered in 2012 electoral campaign and that is curious because the 2016 campaign was 50% shorter than the 2012 campaign. And I'd like to check if you really believe that judges in Brazil are awear of the impact of their decisions of freedom of expression given these numbers. >> GUILHERME CANELA: We will go back to the table. We had one question on access to justice and women regarding their rights on the Internet. And the question and announcement about training but perhaps you should mention about the operators of the system. And Paul mentioned how we can involve more judiciary power in those discussions then we had a question about Internet of Things, algorithms that I didn't understand but it's my fault because I don't understand anything about that so perhaps Marcel can take the question. And then Marina, I think she underlined a very interesting point, but at least in Latin America many cases related to Internet and freedom of expression are taking place during electoral process so I don't know if one of you guys want to comment on this particular bit. So perhaps one minute for each one that wants to give a particular comment on any of those questions. Perhaps I start now the other way around so Marcel, you could offer your input. >> Marcel: Hi, on the electoral thing, basically let's remember that the elections in 2016 were municipal elections and people also running for city hall which means there's plenty more candidates overall than for example in shear numbers than the federal elections when you have congressmen and everything but it's like 600 people will have a place rather than all of these city hall places which are like more than 5,000 municipalities in Brazil so that would explain a little bit of that. The other thing is how the electoral legislation is very old at this point. It's not exactly a speech friendly, let's leave it at that. On the algorithm issue there's this growing trend of people being concerned about what exactly will technology do to these decision making processes. There's a book called the end of lawyers written by Richard Suskind, he makes the argument that legal tasks will be replaced by algorithms and machine learning. That may be true for contracts and easily repeatable tasks but we are still at a far cry from knowing all the nuances and the reasoning required for legal reasoning. I wouldn't go that far right now. It's hard enough to understand how the law applies for human judges let alone imagining machines do that in a sense. One quick comment to the point on how do we scale that? In Brazil what we have tried to do is really very piecemeal approach, sometimes we get invitations to do lectures here and there and let's remember, guys, judges are generalists. There's no such thing as Internet courts yet or specialized courts on that so obviously there's also a barrier where judges might not even be that interested in first place. And let's be honest, some judges are not humble enough to admit they don't understand the particular issue so they may not be interested in training in the first place so there's a challenge there as well. >> GUILHERME CANELA: Thanks Marcel. Can you comment on -- do you think that special courts for Internet is a solution or a possible solution in the future for this issue? >> Marcel: Me again? >> GUILHERME CANELA: Because you mentioned the issue. Do you think it's -- >> Marcel: No. I put more faith in the sense that the sheer amount of problems that show up regarding online content could demand fast solutions as well. You can see judges for example we had that experience in Brazil for example when discussing how only the judiciaries should be deciding whether content should be or not be removed. Some judges say yeah but we are not sure if you want that burden so even then they're not happy with the idea because they believe there's so much content out that could be questioned and sadly our numbers confirm that. >> GUILHERME CANELA: Okay. Carlos? >> Carlos: Just the piggyback on the answer Marcel delivered on specialized courts for the Internet. Issues concerning the Internet might be issues concerning Civil law, criminal law, textation law. So if judges are generalists and certainly they are, to think about specificized court on the Internet will mean what this judge by the end of the day will need to decide on issues such as criminal, contracts, taxation. I believe it's a tough idea to develop at least at this point. So very quickly on the issue of access to justice, just a quick news on the Brazilian Internet bill of rights. When it comes to the issue of intermediary liability there's a provision in the Marco Civil that states that small claim courts can be the entry point in which those discussions are delivered to the judiciary so you don't need to go to a high level court to pay expensive fees and even have a lawyer to initiate removal of contents and responsibilities of an intermediary. I think it's important moving forward on this discussion to identify judges that can serve as catalysts, motivators of this issue on specific regions because that way the judiciary system might not react as some sort of external interest trying to get judges to get 2 or 3 days of their working time to dedicate to the Internet and there's an internal demand rather than an external one. I think that's pretty much interesting. Just to conclude I'm really impressed on the number much conversations I've had with judges especially older judges where they say this Internet thing is of course not for me but I have to decide about it so I need to understand it. And to my surprise some of them says I'm old enough to learn about if Internet as a whole but I have kids so I usually resort to my kids at home which explain to me like this is a total tilt in the system when judgess are resorting to their kids to understand how the Internet works so I believe it's our task here to make sure that judiciary will have the resources and mechanisms to get this conversation forward in a more structured manner. That's it. >> GUILHERME CANELA: Okay. Thanks, Paola, do you want to add something on this? >> PAOLA CARMONA DIAZ DELEON: Thank you. >> GUILHERME CANELA: You can do Spanish. >> I will speak in Spanish. And okay. Okay. (Speaking in Spanish). >> GUILHERME CANELA: Edison has stolen my card to make notes so now I can't do the thing with them. Toby. >> Toby: (Speaking Spanish). So three quick points. Firstly, on the question of access to justice of course that's a very big and important issue but by and large in this area to say Internet and freedom of expression and access I want to turn that upsidedown. Most of these cases are not about access to justice, they're about abusing systems to harm freedom of expression and I want to focus more on cutting off access to justice to the people which currently have it which tend to be powerful social actors, politicians, business people using their access to shut us up. We need to focus more on diminishing access to justice in this area. In terms of Internet and jurisdiction it's a very, very complicated issue. Guilherme mentioned the publication that I have. I only have two more copies because panelists have taken some but it's online. I think there's a big scope for judges to make positive rulings about the limits of jurisdiction. I was at your panel the other day, yesterday morning talking about the need for states to exercise some kind of restraint in their extratoryial claims about their jurisdiction and I think judges can play a big role based on guarantees of freedom of expression in supporting that. Finally I want to mention a little bit about this idea of specialized court on Internet and I don't support that idea but I do think that jus as you mentioned using a small claims court we cannot have the volume of cases running through the regular court system. The public pays for those courts. Apart from the freedom of expression implications it's a massive waste of public money. Thousands and thousands of cases going through the court which are just a bought abusing freedom of expression. I think an alternative could be -- and the details need to be work out a lot but to have some administrative mechanism with for example right to be forgotten claims. It seems that's not something for the courts. I'm also uncomfortable with Google which is an involved actor dealing with those kinds of claims. I'd rather see an independent administrative body and it could be a way of addressing the volume and still maintaining the public nature of decision making for these issues but specialized on certain things. >> GUILHERME CANELA: I all right got the two minute warning so Edison you have one minute. >> EDISON LANZA: Thank you. If it's my English, let me know. I think one factor that interference in the decision of the judges sometimes is they hurry up to make a decision. I feel that in some cases they want to have a decision that you know against a big company like Google and this is a factor that they have been hearing in Latin America. Other thing is here in Latin America, the Latin American system of Human Rights of a great deal of freedom of expression but we don't have the same impact on freedom of privacy. The judges and the administrative system looks for Europe in the standards of privacy and then this is a huge issue that having in the decision about right to be forgotten. Finally, we know with UNESCO that it's very important to work in different levels about the judges. We start to work with the schools of judges and centre, information and capacity buildings, and the judges in Latin America and we have great impact in that. And then I think that we need to start a dialogue about between the forums like this and the forum of the judges. We have IberoAmerican counsel of judiciaries and then they don't come here, for example, because I think that the judges need to involve creating in this kind of discussion. I think it's very far of this discussion and this has an impact in the compliance and understand the architect and all the issues of Internet. Thanks. >> GUILHERME CANELA: Thank you, very much. Holly told me she's waiving her right to final comment. I want to thank you all for being here. I just want to mention that we are keeping this in cooperation with the IberoAmerica summit of judges, the 23 supreme courts in the region. Next May we will open again in massive online course for judges and other operators of the judicial system in the region and perhaps all this is again another way of integrating them in this discussion to interact with your question remembering it's not only about judges. We need to discuss this with prosecutors and other players in the system. So thank you very much. Sorry for not getting all the questions but the panelists are here. I'm sure they will be more than glad to further discuss those issues with you. Thank you. Good morning. Bye. (Applause). (Session concluded at 10:32). WS88: Collaboration towards and beyond the Child Online Protection. 10:45. Services provided by: Caption First, Inc. P.O. Box 3066 Monument, CO 80132 800-825-5234 www.captionfirst.com *** This text is being provided in a realtime format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) or captioning are provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. *** WS88: Collaboration towards and beyond the Child Online Protection. 10:45. (Standing by). 7 December 2016 WS88: Collaboration towards and beyond the Child Online Protection (Standing by). . >> MODERATOR: So good morning, everyone. I doubt that we are so happy to have you here. I mean, I think it's about you. I mean it's about us. I mean we are talking about Child Online Protections and collaboration how we can take it beyond. So we have some interesting discussions yesterday during the session. We talked about Child Online Protection and how this whole probably domain is evolving. So I'll probably start with a quote from the president and founder of UA. The real wealth of the country is made up of men, of children, and of future generations. It is this which country -- with this I start the panel discussion and we are great to have you here and we have quite a good range of speakers from different industry sectors. We have Clara Sombrin, she's the child protection specialist exploitation and violence from UNICEF. Welcome, Clara. And then we have the managing director from German childhood protection on the Internet. Then we have Natasha Jackson, we have Suzy the CEO of Internet watch foundation. We have also Dr. Abraham. We have Dr. Mohamed Saidalavi who is very prominent in doing child online security work. We also have the chairman of the society Dr. Abdullah. And I'm from Internet society UA chapter. I have worked with Mohamed on probably bringing this panel together. So just a quick probably start of the session so we will have panels speaking for around 5 to 7 minutes. They will talk about the hard pressing issues and their perspective on this whole issue and how they suggest this collaboration can be taken forward. We will have 5 to 7 minutes from each of the panel members and then we will open the floor for more interactive discussion so we want to hear from you, what do you think how this could be taken further. And then probably if there are any questions and the closing remarks. So that's the structure of the workshop. So I will probably request Dr. Hamid to start with. >> Hello, good morning, everybody. I'm really happy to be here today. Extremely happy part a part of this dell grags. It consists of 27 federal entities, industrials, private and government. Our aim, Esafe Society aim is to empower student, empower people to protect children from the risk of the Internet. Currently we see nowadays people are using the Internet more and more. And there are not much reliable programmes or tools to protect us from the risks out there. So our aim is to build programmes that will satisfy this objectives with and after empowerment for student. Our role is to give consultations and to give advice as an advisory role to the other societies in the UAE. So our role again is to find the best programme from all over the world and blended to the UAE culture so the student can understand the society. With me is our chairman and the CEO of Esafe. We are here helping to build programmes and to provide the society with the good tools to protect the children out there in the cyberspace. Thank you, very much. Thank you, hamid. Dr. Ibraham, your floor. >> Thank you. I'll give you very brief idea. The idea started with his highness and prime minister. We should see what is the best practice around the world, the law enforcement is only 10%. Limited on 10%. And cooperation with all involved government departments. It was hard task to implement it in the field. Okay. What is going on? This is what happened. By the end of the day we have a big focus we will fine we are working as isolated island. That means no cooperation. In UAE we try to reach from this current situation to this situation. It means everyone is working in coorporation with each other so we try to unify our message to the students on a very sustainable living. So the miscommunication will lead to this situation. We try to unify our message, the students are our own partners. We sit all together. By the end of day we will have one homework. So in order to programme succeed our philosophy is teamwork, professionalism, experience, diversity and delivery and continuous sustainability. So by the end of the day after two years working sitting together discussing we deliver programme, AQDAR, it means the main concern of the empowerment is the student. What is AQDAR? Focusing on entire community spectrum, customized within UAE culture and implemented on national level. Started from zero points, it means it started when he's in school then to university, after graduation. It's not effecting the child. It's the whole of the students. After we finish with two years working we finish with the national curriculum. We believe it is the first one in our countries, it's in general four pillars. The four pillars health and safety, crime provision -- we cannot just focus on e-crime. E-crime started -- it's integration programme. That's why our curriculum, everything is included in one basket. So our partners, the academic, law enforcement, family and youth programs, one of our partners is Internet society as Dr. Hamid and Dr. Abdul is here. We are proud to partner with them in these initiatives. Different people our target, parents, teaches, students, community. So we started all the people related to this programme. Our teaching methods, doing methods, telling methods. It's not just by presentations. We will have different tools. This is marketing material, for example, market. You have maybe you'll find it on your table. It's in Arabic and English right now. Also there are more than 15,000 teachers in UAE to be our messengers to the students. We implemented so many messages including the awareness messages. This is the statistic. More than 12 million around the world. Even Mexico is included. More than 25 individuals from Mexico that downloaded the game. After working together we find national effort so we have now one representative society. Also we unify the students, the students for example they have a problem they don't know who whom to talk so we have one number, 11671 which is implemented in more than 61 countries around the world. We have magazines in Arabic and English also. Now we are working to create ambassadors in cooperation with eSaftey so they will be our messengers. They will be our messengers within the students. There's one sending the good messages to the students. Also we have AQDAR summit. We try to -- we ask all the people around the world whether our curriculum teaching curriculum ready to come to challenges around the world. We will have evaluation programme based on those students. Achievement until now, ITU, also UAE ideas we achieved international prize from the United States. Also last week we have video can represent how we try to empower the students. (The following was a video: (Music playing.) (Speaking foreign language). >> Believe it or not this film totally has been published by the students. Actually I have seen it when think finished. They have out done themselves. If you think your organization would add value to this global movement we request to you collaborate with beyond the UAE mandate. We are looking for more cooperation. Thank you, very much. (Applause). >> MODERATOR: Thank you, thank you Dr. Ibrahim. I'm sure there will be a lot of collaboration occurring between the organizations sitting on the panel and experts who are are listening. Now I pass on the the stage to Clara. She's a child protection specialist from UNICEF. We will hear her perspective. >> Clara: Thank you so much. I work at the UNICEF headquarters in New York. We were asked to speak to what are some of the main challenges we encounter in our work and what is our own organization doing to address it and some key recommendations. I think you might have heard in other panels that globally one in three Internet users is a child today. And we know that ICTs are becoming an integral of the child's life, they're online and starting to use mobile phones at a young age. We know that the children's access and use of ICTs are highest in high income countries, it's really rapidly expanding all around the world. I think for us in UNICEF what we have been seeing is one of the main challenges is while we might have quite a lot of research in high income countries about how children use ICTs and what risks and harm they face, we don't have as much information in lower and middle income countries where we know that Internet penetration is rammedly expanding. We don't know what are the risks they face, what are the different types of harm, are they the same type of risk and harm, does it pay out differently when it comes to gender and what are the specific experiences in different countries. I think also now the challenge is there's still quite a low awareness among children, parents and also teachers and caregivers but some of the risks that children face. And we have seen this in our programme over the past couple of years. And then I think there's still insufficient capacity of some of the key stakeholders such as governments in how to address this issue and also insufficient coordination. That's why it's so wonderful to see this example for the UAE where you have a great example of multistakeholder collaboration. So what are we doing in UNICEF to address this issue? UNICEF works in more than 150 countries in the world and we have programmes to address violence, preventing and responding to violence in more than 124 countries so we want to accelerate governments and Civil Society's capacity to implement sustainable government goal agenda in 2030 and target 6.2 which is to preventprent child from all types of abuse. Last year some of you may have participated in the panel. UNICEF partnered with many partners and implemented to target online child exploitation with the support of the UK government. So we are working with governments and Civil Society, private sector in ensuring that we have legislation in place, policies in place in the countries that protect children from online violence, online child exploitation that we have services in use. These include working also with reporting mechanisms such as help lines where children with report violence but also the reporting mechanisms and I'm sure that we will speak more the hotline perspective. We also definitely work a lot with awareness raising with children themselves, parents and teachers in schools because we also believe as AQDAR that schools is one of the key venues where we need to work with children to inform them about the risk and we do a lot of research and evidence-building. I wanted to quickly mention some of the key global goods that we have developed last year. So we are right now finalizing a guide for governments on what are the national policies that should be in place to address online violence and online child sexual exploitation. This guide we are doing together with ITU and other partners. What are the best practices out there spanning on from prevention to response. We also worked quite well with the industry and I know Natasha will speak more. I do want to mention a couple of years ago together with ITU and many of the partners at this table we did launch these guidelines for industry on Child Online Protection and we have got a lot of other tools and guidance for industry that you can find on our website. We are also undertaking quite a lot of research and there hab a panel previously on the global kids online research but we have also undertaken research with other organizations and we have worked with a family online safety institute to set or update the global resource and information directory which is an online platform where policy makers, general public, academia can go to the platform and find what are the current exams on how are we advancing Child Online Protections around the world. I invite everybody to look at it. Lastly we have worked a lot when it comes to the needs of victims so we are looking into research and building the research on what are the needs that children have when it comes to recovery and also building an international network of practitioners that can come together in an online community and learn from each other on what are the best practices out there. So these are some of the things I know we are pressed in time on what we have done in the last couple years. >> MODERATOR: Thank you, Clara. I think it's very interesting what you have done. (Applause) now we will here from Natasha, she's the head of public policy. So we will like to hear what are the industry perspective on this whole issue and how collaboration could be taken to the next step. >> Thank you, the GSMA is the global mobile operator association so all our members. And we have been working with them for the last 9 or 10 years for issues related to child online safety. Also to make sure that the mobile environment which is hugely beneficial for children and everyone, it can become a safe environment and children can access services in a safe and operators and industries responsible in its approach. I want to touch on one of the questions we were asked which is what are the challenges. I've attended many IGFs over the years and I think the continual challenge we have is still around understanding and misunderstandings. A lot of us have learned huge amounts but the services are changing and the trends are changing and that's where the research that Clara talked about is so important and also by Sonya Livingston and her team. can still be misunderstandings by some of the politicians in terms of what are the different roles of players and what can the industry and partner does, where can they take actions and not take actions. It's important for us to continually seek to learned more and understand more about these issues. The other two sort of challenges we have related to that were around processes, particularly regarding I will little childhood sexual abuse content making sure the right laws are in place and the processes and capability and procedures and companies and with law enforcement are in place. And we see that in both sides. Not all of our members have individuals who are looking at Child Online Safety issues in place today. The issue hasn't come to them. They're dealing with really big immediate issues around connecting people first. So we need the get the knowledge, understanding and procedures first in place there. We probably need more on that on the law enforcement side as well when dealing with the legal content. The third challenge is obviously time. It takes a long time to figure up the capabilities. In this room we have such huge knowledge and understanding but that's buildup from many years and many collaborations and discussions. So it takes time in companies, it takes a lot of time also to get individuals knowledgeable on issues to get senior management understanding the issues and what their companies can do. So enough of the challenges. What do we do about it? Industry? At GSMA we adopt the multistakeholder approach that everybody talked about here so we have partnerships at a global level, with UNICEF, we work with organizations such as the Internet watch foundation, Suzy here also with hotlines with in hope, we also work obviously and our members work with law enforcement in countries and we work with other industry initiatives and that's very important as well as mobile operators we recognize what the digital ecosystem is converging and hugely converged so we work also with other industry partners with the family online safety institute and with cross industry coalitions such as the ICT coalition in Europe where we work with Microsoft and Google and companies like that. Essentially we share our expertise and we deliver a lot of workshops. We also produce lots of reports and examples that I have here, here is one branded with UNICEF which is on notice and take down. It's about company procedures and policies that will help companies remove any images. We work across. We need to take responsibility for the whole digital ecosystem, all of us. We work with in hope to produce hotlines so guides to setting up hot lines in countries where they don't exist and we work with the IWF with them on them. And we also have guides we recently produced with child help line international a series of guidelines on the issues. People don't know all of the issues that children are now starting to reach out to them about whether it's sexting or grooming, inappropriate conduct, discrimination and hate speech. So we have a series of very quick almost cheat sheets on these issues that can help people new to these issues get up to speed very quickly and we have not done this on our own. Again it's multistakeholder so the first page shows all the contributes who worked to put it together, that's industry, that's help lines around the world, companies like Facebook, all sorts. And these are available on the GSMA stand for those of you who are interested. I'll stop there. >> MODERATOR: Thank you Natasha. Now we will here from Jutta. Thank you. (Applause). >> JUTTA CROLL: Thank you for giving me the floor and thank you for letting me speak on this panel. First I would like to thank the united emirates for that programme. When it's my turn I wouldn't speak about educational programs, I will speak about stakeholder collaboration and I'd like to explain more what this means and the gray areas of child exploitation and abuse. When you look at the legislation about child sexual abuse material around the world, you will see that we have very different legal regulations what is considered illegal and what is illegal in a country. And we also have content on the Internet that might be considered illegal in one country but it's not considered illegal in another country and we have content on the Internet that is not consider to be illegal at all although it is very disturbing for the children depicted on commented on. For example we are talking about images that show children in erotic poses. These are illegal in Germany, for example, but they're not illegal in all other countries much but then we are also talking about every day images that might be put up by children or by teenagers themselves that might be completely innocent images but they can be put into a sexualizeing context. That means someone is commenting on these images just saying what they would like to do to abuse that child that is depicted on this image. These are all gray area images and on the network no gray areas that we started in Germany with the support from the German family minister we tried to combat these images so we came together with the hotlines from Germany who already have been in this situation that they get reports on images where they have to assess whether this it's illegal images and it's put to law enforcement or whether it's not illegal but still it's disturbing what should we do with these images? What can we do about that? So then we came together with Google as an industry partner, the first industry partner to the network who said if someone is searching for a certain search term on the Internet we can show them this saying the content you're looking for might be illegal so if you're really looking for that you could turn to counseling service which is another partner in the project which is the German project don't offend but there are similar projects in the UK for example called stop it now whoever counseling and service for people who are looking for such content and who might need to get a therapy to that. So what the message from the network was yes we understand it's possible to combat this time of content, then in 2015 we have set up a community which is now signed by 35 organizations around the world who all agree that it's necessary to address the problem of this content that is in the gray area between legal content and illegal content. And as the next step this year we have published a brochure I can show that around and maybe on the camera. I have several copies with me. This brochure on the one hand it explains the approach of the network, how will the stakeholders work together. It also helps outline analysts as well as researchers and also industry to better differentiate so it's not our attempt to take away from the Internet any content that is perfectly innocent but as soon as images of children are put in a sexualizeing context so that means the children's images are used for sexual arousal of adult people then we try to make the providers take this content down. We try to differentiate between images that are disturbing and the brochure gives like a hands on guide to hotline analysts and researchers to understand what is a better understanding of an image. What are the emoticons and icons. So I'm happy to talk to any of you about the brochure and the content of this. And my last remark would be I can also tell you that we are doing educational work and if you're interested in what we are doing about children's rights and the right to be protected but also the right to have the privacy and freedom of expression you're invited to join our workshop on Friday morning number five which is called children's rights to privacy, safety and freedom of expression. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you, Jutta. (Applause) for your work you're doing and the approach you've taken in a right spirit so thank you for that. Now we move on to Suzy and we would like to hear from Suzy on how private sector as well as our representative from a global NGO works towards collaboration and what other steps. >> Suzie: Thank you very much. Delighted to be here. I represent the Internet watch foundation which is one of the biggest hotlines in the world. We take action on illegal content so child sexual abuse images and videos. We are actually an NGO but we are a self-regulatory body for industry. We have about 130 members who include some of the biggest companies in the world, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, Google, Twitter. We also have big mobile operators, ISP's and filters. There are a lot who are mot members of the IWF particularly in Africa and South America. These are companies we want to develop a relationship with because the key to removing online child sexual abuse for us is working closely with industry. So I'm going to tell but how we work with industry. And from our point of view it's a very fruitful balanced relationship. We get a lot from industry and hopefully they get a lot from us. And they do the responsible thing and work with us to remove online child sexual abuse. So we have been going for 20 years. And we have assessed over 700,000 reports. Last year we removed 68,000 images and videos of child sexual abuse. We actually account for 75% of the inhope database so one hotline alone accounts for that. You asked what the challenges are and the challenges are keeping up with technology for us. So there are obviously huge issues around legislation, law enforcement and the relationship various obviously key but I want to talk about the technology side. We provide a range of services to the Internet industry. We work with them and learn from them. They're the biggest innovators in the world. For the last year we had a Google resident who has been creating software for us. We have been working with major companies particularly Microsoft on pioneering technology to help us fight this problem. I want the talk about a couple of key things. One is we have a blocking list, a URL list which goes out across the world. There are about two and a half thousand URLs on that list every day. It's very dynamic about 300 go on and about 300 go off every day. And that goes out across the world to stop people from accidently stumbling on child sexual abuse. If they do stumble on it they get a message explaining what is happening, why they have been blocked and what to do if they're worried about their behavior or if they think they have been blocked in error. We have to deal with technology issues like the increase in encryption. One of the things that's really changed for us over the last year is we have been developing a hash list. The most common version of a digital fingerprint is Microsoft's DNA. You can apply an algorithm to the image and that algorithm will apply if the image is slightly changed. Now we have been working initially with five companies, Microsoft, Twitter, Google, Facebook and Yahoo where they run a series of 20,000 images of the very worst kind category A through their services to stop them being uploaded in the first place. We are using our hash list to go out and search for all those duplicates. Why is that important? It's important because nobody knows how many images and videos are out there but the number of duplicates is huge so our analysts don't see very new images, they see images again and again. Last year we worked with a young woman in the U.S. who had been notified by U.S. law enforcement that her series of images had been found on over 1500 people who have been arrested. One image in particular had been viewed over 70,000 times. You can see how important it is that we have the technology to go out and find those duplicates and bring them down. So that's why the relationship with industry is absolutely key but also the reason industry works with us is because we are independent, we are trusted, we can quality assure our work and they need to know they can trust us. Microsoft has given us their Cloud function so people can download the hash list directly from the Cloud. As well as pioneering new techniques and methodologies we work with research in looking up ways we can combat the next challenge with technology. If we don't work with industry we are not going to resolve this issue. Okay. So that's absolutely essential. Thank you so much. >> MODERATOR: Thank you, Suzy. (Applause). >> MODERATOR: So last but not least we will move to Devon (phonetic). He's special for me because he comes from our region. Sees the one who works on the ground in ensuring -- this is a big issue in Asia, let's here from Devitt (phonetic). >> Thank you. We concentrate on the Child Online Safety issues. We have partners in Asia region and around the world to put more mission. So on the perspective we will want to share more on how we encourage participation on the issue to concentrate about their own rights and responsibilities online. First I want the share some view of engagement working in Internet governance. As you can see in the current time we got IGF to be around the world engaging youth in the discussion of Internet governance issue. Some ambassadors are also here on the floor. They are the group of youth from Hong Kong that their work is mainly focused on the Asia region for seven years. This is engaging students who understand the Internet issues. This year they also started a new initiative in Hong Kong. And the program is mainly focused on the high school students in Hong Kong. There's a workshop on safety issues and also they have activities, they're making movies by them self to promote -- a one minute move by them self to promote Internet issues and child safety issues, online protection and also privacy issues. It's a one-minute move. They finished that job in three hours time and just very short period of time and makes good use of technology like mobile phone and some apps that can be easily downloaded online. Just another method of how we can engage students to be organisers of some of the events and put the message of child online safety. In the coming future organising the youth IGF in local initiative, it can also be organized in the country based IGF. We are looking for why IGF organized every year as a regional meeting in the AP region, we are looking for the AP region that got more local initiative why we can have a better collaboration. On the other issue is also about some initiative in the region that we -- our partners are doing. I would like to introduce a campaign which is you can also search it online, hashtag save rep for kids (phonetic). Child rights in Asia. They include students from south each Asia country, doing consultation and regional meeting to consult how to think about the Internet and make a very useful guideline for children online, how they attack the problems. So I do think from the user's perspective children can give good suggestions to their peers on how they can tackle cyber online safety issues and also making some video to promote in their own country. So this is some of the events we are supporting. And I do think it's good models in a sense. Last but not least my main focus is on engagement for youth and students in Internet governance. Right after this session at 12 in room four there's a session on youth initiative about youth. So I want you to discuss. Thank you. (Applause). >> MODERATOR: Thank you. Now I come to the best part of the session. We would like to open the forum for any questions we have or any probably better suggestions on collaborative efforts between organizations here and elsewhere for a larger cause. The idea is we have to move ahead from keeping ourself restricted to protection and we have to move to prevention and move towards more enablement of youth and children in general. So any questions on the floor? Do we have any questions? Okay. >> AUDIENCE: Thank you, very much. I'm from Kenya, in Africa. I have a question to perhaps it will be taken care of by Jutta. And Suzie as well. And Karla, UNICEF. It's about some NGOs, non-governmental organizations who sometimes look a bit deviant when they use images of children malnourished children, especially in those less-developed countries like Africa, south Asia and other areas. I was wondering what policys can we be able to put in place so that we can stop such misuse? Because I consider that to be misuse when they put photographs and images of children who look very malnourished at end of the day it's for their own financial gain. I don't know how we can go about that. >> MODERATOR: Do we any other questions? He's asking for a mic. Okay. We can hear you. >> AUDIENCE: (Away from microphone). >> MODERATOR: Thank you. Any other questions from the floor? Yeah. >> AUDIENCE: I am Marcela from Argentina. It's not a question. It's just well a question for everybody. I feel that there is a lack of participation of real participation of youth and children in your approach, I cannot see them. I've seen your video that's all right, we will send videos the same. But I feel that we are not evolution in the kind in the way that children and youth can help in each of the problems you have. It's both. >> MODERATOR: If I can reframe that I think what you mention is how we can probably be more narrative to have more inclusion for them so we have to be encouraging as well as inclusive to include them more. Maybe we have one more question from there. And that's the last probably. Maybe one more. So two other questions and then probably we will have a closing remark and answers. >> AUDIENCE: Good morning. Congratulations for the presentations. I'm from Kenya. I want the tell you what I'm doing in my constituency in Kenya with the schools. There's the child education and primary schools. What I've done is that I've created an intranet where I download content from the Internet like a Wikipedia, YouTube, the school syllabi and anything that I would like to kids to see. And I then disconnect the server from the worldwide web so they don't get to snoop around from the world web side. This is to teach them and to understand that the only content they are allowed to see and also allow to see to check any other things except for the bad areas that they're not needed to see. Thank you. >> AUDIENCE: Good morning. I'm minister of communications and Internet technology. I'd like to congratulate the panel for the wonderful information provided. But I would like to have consideration about the context we are living in. You may be aware our country is recently advancing in technology and information technology. And at the same time we have given access to children for education. And unfortunately because of the issues that we have discussed in this panel and because of the risks that we have from Internet for the children, parents are not very much in favor of allowing their children to have access to Internet. Although it's very much important for the education level, I would like to ask the panel members on how technology can we have a short-term solution because long-term solution is really an issue and we are working on it in terms of legal documentation in terms of the support that we need from the government institutions. Technologically how we can at least shorten if not completely mitigate the risks that the children are facing and let them access the Internet for the education purposes. Because today it's a real impediment. The parents in our country are not really willing to have their children access the Internet for the risks that its posing. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you for comments. So I have precise seven minutes now left for are the conclusion so I'll give one minute each to the panel members for them to respond and if they have any closing remarks. If someone wants to start. >> Well, to me, answering your question is really as a technology, technology only helping is adding value to the protections or to the speed of controlling the material on the Internet. That's how I see it. It's only controlling the material on the Internet but education is number one. We have to educate our children, parents, everyone, about the knowledge, about the risks, and what are the result. After and before the education. Tools are there and governments are implementing some of the tools like UAE, united Arab emirates we are adding all sex material. We are not allowing sex material on the Internet through the IPs and there's other tools they are using. So UAE is controlling the sex material or abuse of children but education is number one. Thank you. >> I think we should make clear definition what is the Internet. This is the Internet. So I think nowadays you are living at least the same with our kids, the same with new generation. The Internet is not the PC or lap-top. So that's why we believe we used to think on behalf of the students. We used to design our programme behalf of the students. We used to implement our programme in behalf of the students or the youth. What I believe is to empowerment the youth, give him the tools so they can challenge. Now, for example, 20 years back myself 20 years or 30 years I was aware of my kids not to go to the sex websites. Now I think I hope this is not recorded, I pray for my son, my kids go to for sex website but not to go to the Isis, not to go to the drug websites. This is the problem. So that's why I think we should give more empowerment for new generation. Let them work alone. Let them be totally isolated with our support. Thank you. >> Yes. I think -- I don't think we have time for all the questions and I'm happy to take some of them including the question from Kenya about the malnourished children afterwards. I think we need to focus on prevention but also response. It's about balancing children's rights to having access to the Internet at the same time being protected from harm. It's about empowering children. And yes I agree we did not focus enough on the children's participation. It's critical. I also think that we need to better understand what are the effective policy and programme responses in different contexts so for example to the gentleman from Afghanistan I completely understand the challenge and I would assume also in such a context but it's not only about em pureing children to use the Internet but it's actually to working with parents as well and improving their digital skills as well. So those are some of the things that we would focus on. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. If you can be quick. >> Clara: Yes, I'll be quick. I can eco the same remarks. I also want to highlight the benefits that come from model and digital technologies but in terms of getting connectivity out to those areas where perhaps many people haven't used it as part of the efforts the GSMA takes is under looking digital literary and one area is around women, women are much less likely to own a mobile phone and understand the technologies. As primary caregivers if they don't understand it, how are they educating their children? We have also programmes who are working with NGOs and others to increase correctivety and digital literacy this countrys where model technology is just being extended today. >> MODERATOR: Great. Thank you. >> I want the pick up on the question on the colleague from Kenya using children for the commercial purpose of some organizations. I think that's also related to the message I've given before. Everybody should know about using images and what could happen with images that are put up on to the Internet. That is partly education, that is also education of parents and education somehow of organizations. But that is also part of respecting the rights of the child because the children themselves have their right on their own images. So it's not only educating them not to use the images in the wrong way but also respecting their rights on their own images from the organizations you have been talking about but also from all the other Internet users. We need to have a shared responsibility for this. We cannot only blame the children. Either they are educated or they are not. We could not blame them only for when their images are misused. It's also the responsibility of the other stakeholders, of the companies that could help to take them down, of the hotlines who take the reports. So we need that shared responsibility approach. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. >> Okay. Very quickly I know. So I just want the respond about the role of young people. So as well as the Internet watch foundation, I'm a director of the UK safe for Internet and they do awareness raising side, educational programme and have a help hotline. Young people do play a huge role in this. My area of work is criminal content so clearly young people are not engaging with us on every day except for the content. In the UK we really do ensure that young people are included. Thank you. >> I do appreciate the panel's work on how we can talk about collaboration, it's not only one party, it's multi stakeholder engagement, the students themselves and also caregivers. I think all of us is doing different rates on how we can protect students. So I encourage everyone to join us in a sense to how we can, all the stakeholders on the Internet, very new for our generation. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you, David. Thank you for this, applause for all the panel members. I want to emphasize this is just the beginning. >> We have broken the ice so it's about just for to you take it forward in the hallways, in the meeting rooms, on the coffee table and making the collaboration happen. Thank you for the panel. (Applause). (Session ended at 11:51). Services provided by: Caption First, Inc. P.O. Box 3066 Monument, CO 80132 800-825-5234 www.captionfirst.com *** This text is being provided in a realtime format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) or captioning are provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. *** 7 December 2016 12:00 WS87: Law Enforcement, Cyberspace and Jurisdiction. (Standing by). >> MODERATOR: I think we are ready to get started. Republican to workshop number 87. My name is Christian Borggreen. I'll be a moderator. I'm with the computer industry association in Brussels and delighted to be co hosting this section with Alexander Seger. The team of law enforcement access to cloud data is fairly known so we are not going to spend too much time introducing it but I'll give you a little taste of it. It is a basic cyberspace challenge is the notion of territoriality and jurisdiction and especially challenging for law enforcement to access evidence stored in the cloud. And just a basic sample, you can imagine a criminal suspect in country A trying to get evidence that is stored in country B in the cloud but it's actually stored in country B from a country established in country C. Obviously this lack of legal clarity that cyberspace brought upon this discussion is a problem not only for law enforcements but for companies, for our rights and for companies the risk that when their trying to address one country's rules that might be in conflict with another country's rules. And where in a few instances where there are legal agreements for instance mutual legal assistance, these are also very cumbersome and take a long time to use. All right. This session will quickly explore some of the main challenges identified by the main stakeholders which we are trying to invite on this panel here. We will look to some of the national, regional and global solutions and also be discussing how we avoid fragmentations of cyberspace, reduce conflict of law and ensure rights are adequately addressed for individuals. The format will be four minutes maximum from each speaker here followed by Q&A by the audience. And please if you are remotely participating thank you so much for doing so. You can also be sending your short questions via Twitter using the hash tag WS87, work shop 87. If you can get the slides up here. If we can jump to the next one. What we try to do here -- no, not yet. One second. Okay. To have sort of four of the generally shared goals for this discussion for law enforcement access to data, to have sort of a general framework. What we will try and do is use these four general goals to guide our discussion which hopefully will be more of a solution focused discussion. Not only talk about all the problems and how complicated they are but hopefully trying to have solutions that can be addressed further after one hour of panel discussion. All right. Now we will jump to our first speaker, I speak way too much. I hope you can keep it within four minutes. Our first speaker is from Brazil, Neide deOliveira, also coordinator of the national cyber crime working group in Brazil. I was hoping you can talk about objectives for law enforcement, some challenges you're facing and some alternative measures that Brazil's government has taken the make sure you get this access for instance through organizations. And I think we will jump to the next slide. >> NEIDE deOLIVEIRA: Good afternoon. Imhonored to be here, thank you Mr. Alexander Seger, Christian Borggreen and Bertrand De la Chapelle for inviteing us to this meeting, to give us the opportunity to present our view on the Internet. As Christian said I'm federal circuit prosecutor in Rio de Janeiro. And represent here the international corporation secretary of federal prosecution. We have two officers in Brazil, the state and the federal one. And we have a common discussion group for cyber crimes issues in the country. Brazil's approach to the theme of Internet jurisdiction was settled with the passing of Marco Civil Internet our Civil rights framework for Internet. It was passed after an expanded public consultation process. It regulates connections to Internet and asks us to Internet applications and to also determine the (inaudible) distributing data. Although our Marco Civil is not yet a data protection law, it is already under discussion at our congress right now. It does guarantee essential rights on Internet such as private and freedom of expression. Our Civil rights framework is very clear. Constituted under Brazilian laws we have established in Brazil must follow Brazilian legislation. The article 11 grants even one of this conducts performeded in Brazilian territory is enough to bring the company to Brazilian legislation where there is a branch in Brazilian territory or it is part of the same economic group that means when at least one of the companies established in Brazil, even if the company does not have an office in Brazil it is bound to Brazilian legislation when the service is offered to the Brazilian public. That means to us that any Internet company or operation is serviced in the country is under Brazilian jurisdiction and must present in court all personal data under Brazilian law. Since legal requirements are met what is revealed by the competent judge. We do need an improvement to deal with the companies that are not established in the country, only offering its service but for those that are well established even paying tax in the country our law is very clear and the judges are enforcing it by legal means. From our point of view there should be a common framework among countries so there wouldn't be so many different legislations but now it's a matter of which company and for example Brazil, this country has jurisdiction over the company. The organizer and the cooperation of the states are very much welcome. I commend the organization for in great initiative. That's all. >> MODERATOR: To understand you correctly, for law enforcement it was important access to data. You protect the privacy. You feel that you're more confident in getting that data when enforcing data operators locally in Brazil but having a two track approach where you're forcing data to be stored locally in Brazil but to have an international framework. >> NEIDE deOLIVEIRA: In order to have more efficient response by Internet service providers, and it's not necessary to have a data centre in our country. Of course. It's not necessary. But if the provider has an office in our country or offers their service for Brazilian users, it's enough for us to, these providers have to obey our legislation. >> MODERATOR: Thank you so much. I think we will have another question. I think we will jump to our next speaker from Microsoft, Paul Mitchell. What do you make of this? >> PAUL MITCHELL: I'll tell you awe couple stories to set the tone. Many of you know Microsoft has been involved in a legal case with the United States government as relates to e-mail data stored in one of our centers in Ireland. The initial filing, imagine officers investigating a leak to the press, they serve a warrant the seize a bundle of private letters in Manhattan. They have to open the box with a master key, rummage through it and find the letters. It goes on to imagine the reaction to the U.S. secretary of state since this would bypass all the legal formal procedures and would claim it's nothing more than a German company producing its own business records. You can imagine in your mind what the points of the case are. I'll make the observation it's not actually about the content of the e-mails in question at all in this case. In reality it's about principals, the rule of law, the balance of security and privacy and the interplay between national and international law. This case is not over yet. We won the last appeal round but the United States has indicated they would like to take it further. So next we have an example of the horrific Charlie tragedy that happened in Paris last year. While there was a man hunt going on in Paris at 5:42 in the morning we got a call telling us two terrorists in Paris had U.S. e-mail accounts. We it to the authorities in 45 minutes. There are frameworks today for international agreement that can and do work. The Brazilian police arrived at the apartment of one our executives in Brazil -- (No audio) -- of the law enforcement investigation the Microsoft turnover Skype data for a Brazilian customer. The problem was the data in the case was not in Brazil but in the United States and it would be unlawful under U.S. law for us to provide it. As it also happens, he was in the U.S. at the time so his wife was not very happy about the event. Key point there is when dealing with data requests complying with one country's law may result in breaking another country's. So these stories are real and illustrate the point that the legal frameworks need to evolve with the technology's evolution, the existing technologies we have don't address the complexity of the Internet and cloud services but it's also acknowledged that the growth of the digital economy, the future of the Internet of Things and potential innovations around big data, machine learning, artificial intelligence, all of these things that have potential economic and social benefits rely on the ability to transit data back and forth across borders for providers to balance the load on their cloud service systems and network. All countries want to realize these benefits though somehow they have to cooperate to solve the problem. I'll close by noting that Microsoft is one of only a few if it's scaled where this is such a big problem. We operate in 122 countries. We have well over a billion customers. Some are governments. And we have hundreds of data centres located all around the world which are intentionally designed to protect the data but for us to actually offer the services that we do, we need our customers to be able to trust us and for them to trust us we have to have a framework of trust that is grounded in the room of law with due process that applies globally. I'll stop there. >> MODERATOR: Can I ask you briefly, you're an international company very active in your discussion. Where should we look towards good solutions? We don't have enough time to go into it but can you point a little bit. >> PAUL MITCHELL: I'll give you examples of some things that are in process and working. The Internet jurisdiction project which I'm sure we are going to talk more about is about capturing -- a couple of things that are pushing the boundaries in the right direction are work being done and transparency and on the ability for companies like Microsoft to be transparent about when we get data requests, what kind of data requests they are and what we are doing about it. So we and the other large providers are all doing transparency reports at some level. The ranking digital rights project is an example of again trying to point in a particular direction that is actionable. So those are -- those are things that are in process. There's also the U.S./UK agreement which is a starting point to other new forms of multilateral agreements. >> MODERATOR: Thank you so much. We goerg jump to our next speaker, Nathalia Foditsch. I was hoping we can get more insight, academic point of view from things we heard from Brazilian enforcement but maybe thoughts about what we need to talk about when talking about territoriality and jurisdiction. >> NATHALIA FODITSCH: Thank you so much, Christian, for the invitation. I'm honored to be here today. First I wanted to raise the question on the reasons why it's so crucial to discussion these issues. Besides any social and Human Rights issues involved in all these process and due process, there's a huge economic impact in not having a proper system in place or having a flawed system or having a system that needs improvement. Recent study that was undertaken in Washington, D.C. found that last year only over a billion dollars was the economic cost of app shut downs at a national level in different countries and I'm not even only talking about the shut down of the whole Internet but -- (no sound) -- (lost Skype connection) -- in terms of mutual legal system treaties they can delay a lot of process so I guess that's one of the main reasons why we should also talk about how to improve the system. An average ten months in Europe it takes to have a reply. And also we have to talk about the alternative options to mutual legal system agreements. Do we really want to have direct public requests. Considering that the Internet is already so much privatized do you want to foster the privatization of government more or do you want the government to be involved in having a proper transfer of data in which rights and due process is guaranteed. More over it's important to understand that in many cases if we don't have proper system in place, this might lead to mandates and also government hacking which can also have even worse consequences in terms of Human Rights. And actually I would tell everybody to take a look at a paper that was originally launched by access on government hacking. And it will be interesting also to understand to what extent not -- having a system that needs to be improved is leading to data utilization mandates. We had the recent case of Skype, what's up in Brazil. Billion they're saying that having encrypted messages is pretty much not being able to intercept the communication is illegal so I'm not sure that's the way we want to, you know, go and develop. In Brazil just to finish, right, because my time is almost over, to what extent having the take down is necessary and proportionate. A hundred million users were affected by taking down what's up in Brazil so is that what we really want? In the end they also migrated to sella gram (phonetic). It's not bad. They create competition. But those are my brief points. >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: Great. Thank you so much. I'm sorry for bash ing you here but when authorities just, you know, if they have a beef with one provider they just shut down the whole app. How many? >> NATHALIA FODITSCH: 100 million years. >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: That's probably not the best way in the future to go about it. Okay. Speaking of freedom of expression and Human Rights, you're the director of the freedom project and could you expand because I promised the audience to talk about the solutions so if we can talk about the solutions and not the problems. >> Great, thank you so much and good afternoon. My name is Emma Llanso, I'm at the centre for technology which is based in Washington, D.C. And my colleagues and I have been working closely on this issue of transporter access to data. I want to talk about the transparency aspects of this. In four unifying goals we had, goal three was really to provide transparency a clarity for users, governments and companies in how these trans border access issues and scenarios are kind of playing out. So one area where we have been doing a lot of work on this topic is in the freedom online coalitions working group on privacy and transparency, freedom online coalitions a coalition of 30 some governments from around are the world to work together to promote an Internet freedom agenda and they work on a variety of key substantive topics that we are facing on the global Internet n November 2015 our working group on privacy and transparent put a report on a number of consultations we have done with governments and companies describing the state of play and around transparency regarding government requests to companies for user data or content restriction. And trying to identify some of the obstacles and opportunities for transparency because it's very clear that there's a growing demand for more information from governments and companies in this issue around the world. I think it's really important as we talk about potential solutions here to really understand sort of what is the case for transparency, what is the point of it. And it's not really just transparency for transparency's sake. It's not that we want to see lots and lots of grids of numbers and stacks and stacks of reports because that in itself is a good. Transparency enables a couple key elements. Of course it enables transparency (laughter). It is transparency. And that leads to enables accountability. We are empowersd to exercise oversight if we have an idea of what they're doing and what is going on. It promotes individual empowerment. It gives citizens and individuals an understanding of how companies and government action affects them individually and directly, and also affects how these entities are shaping society and affecting the information we have access to and what our governments know about us. This kind of empowerment can also lessen the chilling effect about their willingness to express their views and use information and communication technologies. And then of course transparency helps to inform policy discussions and advocacy and helps us find the kind of solutions that I think we are all really here for today. So I think one of the -- there's a couple of ideas that I wanted to sort of throw out there for discussion. In terms of how we develop laws, policies and frameworks with meaningful transparency in mind I think one key aspect to keep in mind is at an operational level providing transparency can be some what challenging for companies or governments. It can be a big data management project. You run into all sorts of questions about what data should and shouldn't be provided based on national security concerns or other kinds of issues and so any time we are talking about how to provide -- oops -- did we lose the mic? No. Any time talking about how to provide transparency we need to keep that in mind for what those projects might pursue. I see I'm out of time and maybe that's why my mic has changed. >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: We are not shutting you down although that is good in the future for moderating just to shut people down. Especially on a freedom of expression related panel. No panel would be complete without having Bertrand De la Chapelle. I'm just going to jump directly. I will shut you off if you don't come and help us get closer to what we are trying to achieve here which is pointing to some solutions. >> BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: . >> Thank you Christian. I'm Bertrand De la Chapelle. We have three programmes and one of them is specifically dedicated to this issue of cross border access to user data. I insist on the term cross border. The fundamental problem we are confronted with is this information that is stored by countries in a country that is different to the one where the crime that is investigated is taking place. And in addition those companies are serving users around the world as was said by Neide without having any local offices or any service on the Internet hopefully is accessible everywhere in the world. We held in November 2nd weeks ago conference in Paris called the global Internet and jurisdiction conference that had one of its tracks dedicated to this. The first element is to frame the problem appropriately and to recognize that this is a problem that is a problem for all the different actors. There are no good and bad actors. There is a common public interest need to be able to find the information when there's a criminal investigation. The problem is that the current mechanisms of neutral legal assistance treaty lead to a situation where it's either cumbersome and leads to a conflict of law and puts the companies into a situation where they have to choose which country of law. And so fundamentally the key xhen challenge is what are the proper frameworks, what are the proper standards for due process to govern those cross border requests that are coming from a public authority in one country to a private actor in another one. So beyond the framing what is important to know is that this is a problem that is being tackled by several different initiatives. There are initiatives in the U.S. some of which have been mentioned and Emma mentioned a process whereby a certain number of Civil Society actors and companies and academics with the participation actually of the U.S. government is looking at ways to handle the specific situations when the only nexus of connection with the U.S. is the use of a U.S.-based platform. The crime is in one country. Investigation is done in one country. But the data is held by a company that is based in the U.S. and that's the only nexus of connection. So how to develop safeguards and procedures for this is one of the things what the proposal is exploring. At the same time the justice department in the U.S. is exploring position bi-lateral agreement with the United Kingdom that could be scalable afterwards to handle those specific cases. But in parallel in Europe the counsel of Europe and Alexander Seger in particular is dealing in the context of the cybercrime convention on how to improve those mechanisms and the European commission has been taught by the council of administrators of justice and home affairs in June with a specific role for access to basic subscriber information. It's important that all these different initiatives are aware of what is being discussed so that there is a chance of policy cohereance and this is one of the these we help facilitate in Paris two weeks ago. Towards the solutions, what is important when we try to address those issues is to deconstruct the big problem into manageable chunks. One first element is the operational challenges in trying to find a solution. I'll list a few of them here. The rules are not the same for basic subscriber information, for traffic data and for the content of e-mails, for instance. I wouldn't get into details because of time but it's important to know that the rules are different for those three types of data. There's a very important question of how do you validate the authority and authentication of the investor. How do you know it's a law enforcement agency in Kenya or in France? There is a question regarding the criteria for jurisdiction and Paul was mentioning the Microsoft case which is a very important case trying to distinguish whether the location of the company or the location of the server is actually the relevant criteria for establishing jurisdiction. To be honest it's very likely that neither is a good criteria because if you apply them too rigidly it leads to certain inkurnss and bad solutions. One of the challenges being discussed is are there other criteria for the jurisdiction including the location of the crime and or the nationality or are the residence of the person wlos data is being requested. And so just to finish, beyond the challenges that are common it is important are to identify what are the common corporation areas that can be explored and in that regard the criteria under which there's a notification of the user is a very difficult issue. The criteria as I said for the jurisdiction and everything related to due process mechanisms. >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: I think we are getting closer to solutions. You got a little bit more time there but that's okay because you're helping here. We got closer to solutions. Before we go to our last speaker I would own courage you to send your questions on Twitter using the hashtag WS87, workshop 87, and have your questions here in the audience because in four minutes we will go to Q&A and you can ask our experts all your questions and comments as well. And of course our final speaker Alexander Seger is head of the cybercrime division of the council of Europe. >> ALEXANDER SEGER: Thank you. I have one slide if you can put it there. >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: Yep. >> ALEXANDER SEGER: This is a real technical challenge. What I'm going to talk about in the next four minutes is the type of solutions that are currently under discussion within the framework of the Budapest convention on cyber crime. A number of things up talked about referring to national security arena, talking about criminal justice. At the Budapest convention there's 50 parties, Brazil is not a party nor an observer state. United States is a party, Japan many others. The party to this treaty meet twice a year as the cyber crime convention committee and the cyber crime convention committee established -- it's all on that slide -- to identify solutions and how to address the issue of criminal justice access to evidence in the cloud. The group produced the final report about 6 or 8 weeks ago and that was then discussed three weeks ago by the cyber crime convention committee. The rational is that you're talking about cyber crime but also about evidence in relation to any crime. It changes the scope and the scale enormously. Evidence is on servers often in foreign multiple shifting or unown jurisdictions. And without data there's no evidence, there's no justice. And I fully share the frustrations that other prosecutors have because we have on the cyber crime commit about 120 prosecutors and law enforcement officers. We cannot protect society against crime anymore. Less than one percent of any cyber crime reported actually ends in court proceedings. And only very small part is actually reported. You have to keep that in mind. So a number of very specific issues have been identified by the cloud evidence group. Important one is we need to differentiate the type of data needed. Law enforcement most on needs subscriber information. Without subscriber information it can't get started. The committee groups identified the effectiveness of existence, I don't think we have to go more into that. We have the issue of loss of location or loss of knowledge of location, we don't know where the data is. And that leads to a jungle of unilateral solutions and I would say the procedure is part of this now. In frustration because governments and law enforcement have a job to do. They find their own national solutions to address the problem. Then we have the issue of when is a provider that may hold data actually in my territory? What moment on wards are they here? We need to define that. And that was also mentioned in the presentation by the Brazilian prosecutor earlier on. We have this generosity by U.S. service providers. They and the U.S. law can provide voluntarily subscriber information. Content is another debate but provide subscriber information they can provide. But voluntarily. There are a number of challenges that come with it. By the way, other than the United States parties to the Budapest convention, 138,000 requests were sent to six providers. It's about ten times more than requests were sent just to six providers. We have the issue of emergency procedures. And Paul from Microsoft mentioned emergency procedure used in the mutually request in the case of the Charlie hepto attacks. Service providers can incorporate sometimes on content in emergency situations, child abuse, and so on. They can do that. Non-U.S. providers are not allow to do that so we have an unequal playing here which we have to understand line. And again for European countries, European Union countries and providers providing a service in Europe there will be a different situation from April 2018 on wards when the new European data protection rules are in force. Five solutions identified, not going into detail as the website indicated here you can find the report in detail. One is we have to make it more efficient. There's no way around that. It cannot come with more adventurous solutions if we don't invest more. The second solution, second part of this package of solutions, it's about protection orders. Orders to provide or produce data. Article eight in one b talks about ordering a service provider, offering a service on the territory to produce subscriber information. Now the debate is what does it mean offering service and so forth. But if consensus can be found that's article one B can be a legal base for a domestic production order offering service on a territory and the connecting factors, then it may create a legal basis for this type of regress to providers like Facebook, like Microsoft and many others, it may also protect the service providers because there is a lawful order at the origin. The third solution is that this whole complex of domestics production disorders has to be clearly defined in domestic law. You have a whole variety even in Europe. In some countries a police officer can order the production of data, in others you need a court order for the same thing. There's no harm whatsoever. Final the fourth proposal is practical cooperation with providers to improve it to use unline tools to make it's clearer for providers. What are the powers of law enforcement in different parts to the Budapest convention so if Microsoft gets a request from a police officer in country A you realize the police officer is not authorized to ask this from you, only a prosecutor. And if you get it from country B only court with issue an order to produce this data and so forth. We also by the way create the cyber crime convention committee meets at least once a year with providers to discuss issues and listen to your concerns from the provider side. And finally we expect the final decision to be made about starting this next year, it's a protocol to the Budapest convention to find legally binding solutions to a number of issues answered I think I'll stop here. >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: Thank you so. We got a little closer to some solutions so thank you for that. Now we are open up for Q&A from the audience and hopefully there will be a lot of questions. Hopefully it will be someone with a microphone. I'll just throw it to people. I see a question there, the gentleman with a phone and there's one in the very back. Maybe we will take that first and then go to you afterwards. >> AUDIENCE: Hi. I'm Leeanndroe from Argentina. I like to raise a point about the powers of law enforcement specifically speaking about rule 41 that has been approved in the U.S. that expands powers for judges to issue warrants on a global basis for remote access and I would like the input of the panel for this as I think it's setting a precedent globally to every country basically just allowing judges to issue warrants that are across borders. And I think that is worrying on Human Rights perspective. So I would like the input of the panel on that. >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: Great, thank you so much. There was a question here. >> AUDIENCE: From Mexico. So it seems according to what I have heard that compliance rules regarding or improved by international cooperations could be the best manner so to translate those principals into an enforcement law or to ban principals to provide certaincy about transfer or maybe the storage from abroad from country A to country B and exercise persecutions internationally. Am I correct? >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: Thank you. I think I understood the question. And final comment here and one question also, a question here in front if we can get the microphone here. Okay. We'll take you. >> AUDIENCE: Hi, I'm a Brazilian lawyer and I want to highlight the blocking of a patient in Brazil is due to a different interpretation from that proposed bylaw which does not consider the principals laid down by Marco Civil. And what experts in the field are expecting is that the authorities become more open to understand a subject that is new to them. Thank you. >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: And I think we have a question up here in front. >> AUDIENCE: Thank you. Thomas from the German federal foreign office. I don't have a question but would like to give an answer maybe to your question about practical measures. >> Yes. >> AUDIENCE: Concerning transparency. Germany and Brazil are running the general assembly resolution on privacy for quite sometime. This time we introduced paragraphs in the preamble to provide transparency and we have two paragraphs in the operative report one calling on states to enable more transparency measures and another one that addresses companies also encouraging them to be more proactive about transparencies. That is a practical thing. And both sides, enterprises and government should follow up on this. >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: And we had one question which maybe is more relevant to Paul. It's regarding a prosecutor in New York. Are they best served to come up with a global framework about how to get access to data. But I mean this is a new topic, this is a fairly new topic in terms of interpreting, there's no legal framework. We have justices in New York and Brazil who are takle this question here. Maybe we can attack that question, first. I don't know if you want to go first Paul and then afterwards... >> PAUL MITCHELL: So I'm not entirely sure I understood the question but if the question is should some American judge make the decision on worldwide who should have the right to do what, I think the answer is clearly no. I think most of the rest of the world would have a problem with something like that. We are trying to have a slide up there that basically characterized the problem, your four buckets of problems. I think what the warrant case does is puts all of those problems together in one case in a way that you have to kind of figure out what is the germane issue, is it where the data is, where it's processed, who the data pertains to, what happens if it's data that it's a communication between an American and German, and it's stored in a Brazilian data centre whose law applies. Those are the unanswered questions, some of the unanswered questions. I think what we are trying to advocate for as a whole is that we start on a global basis or continue since the conversation started but we work towards clarifying processes that we would go through in the instances where we have these conflicts. We have talked a little bit about the idea of process standards or process architectures that get to the how you go through the process from when you get a request, however it gets to you, to where the decision points might be where you have to arbitrate between is it Brazilian law or U.S. law, and maybe that gets you ultimately to a place where you start on the international cooperation side to identify how between pairs of countries and eventually you might get a broader group and a broader convention that would result from that. But what is clear is not a workable solution is a unilateral decision from a judiciary on any country that my law is the law that matters globally and you will all fall in line because it's not practical, it's not implementable in may real way in the way the Internet works today. >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: Did you want to add? >> Thank you. I think that there's a important element that as to be taken into account here which is that there's a sort of pendulum swing at the moment. We were in a situation where the frustration that has been mentioned was clearly that there was no possibility of accessing this data. And what is happening at the moment is there's a pendulum swing in the opposite direction because trying to solve this problem we get into situations where there's an exextremity extension because it's understandable. In the case of Brazil and in the case of the data regulation implemented in 2018, it's accessible in a country is now sufficient to exercise jurisdiction which is important. The Microsoft case is also touching upon the question of extra territorial extension of sovereignty because if the U.S. government prevails in the court it may mean they have access to data stored by an American based country anywhere in the world. There was a question towards Human Rights but I think it's important for everyone to understand that the challenge of extra territorialty is also a problem for governments themselves. In as much as everyone is trying to solve it's own problem, the fact that another country is trying something extra territorially is also a problem. The judiciary is the best place actor to set the norm is clearly a negative answer because the Microsoft case is what I often qualify as a lose-lose situation. You can see there are other cases that touch ton extra territoriality, you get a case in France on the territoriality extension on the right to be deemed, there's a case in Canada, there's the Microsoft case. This question of the territoriality extension of sovereignty and the jurisdiction criteria is one of the most important ones and there probably is a need to move slightly away from the pure territorial basis. This is something that goes in the discussion there's the cybercrime convention. It is also being discuss in the approach by the U.S. groups that I was mentioned before, understanding that the exercise of sovereignty needs to be respectful of the sovereignty by the other actors and it's the way to find the balance. Generally speaking I think we are in a situation where if we are not careful enough the jungle of solutions is producing what we have labeled legal arms race because every single actor in this situation is trying to find a solution in a cumulative effect of all the decisions is not only making the problem harder to solve but harming every single actor in the long-term. >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: I think we had a question about Brazil and the interpretation of the Brazilian law which I know very little about but thank good there's two Brazilians on this panel here. Maybe week first turn to it academia. Because how do you implement a law if it's not entirely clear? >> I loved that Bertrand De la Chapelle used the expression of prisoners dilemma because I think it's a great one. I think your point related to judges is crucial. We need to train and understand the national behind the Civil rights framework in Brazil. First this law was intended to guarantee the rights before any -- before criminalizing the use of the Internet. So training judges in the whole system is crucial for sure. Second we actually have some pending cases before the Supreme Court, Supreme Court in Brazil now to discussing whether take downs apply, whether using this law that was actually enacted in 2014, if take downs actually are supported by this law or not so we have cases even in the Supreme Court right now discussing that. So I think and Christian also asked me if the law is clear I think in terms of the jurisdiction it's clear, it's clear that data doesn't need to be stored in Brazil but we have jurisdiction over the data so that's clear in the law however what is not clear is whether the take downs respect the overall intention of the law and some specific clauses in the law, and whether take downs should be the solution or not to cases whether the due process legal system and prosecutors are not -- >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: When there's a communication service that 100 people use, could that be in conflict with other laws or principals? >> Sure, constitutional rights and also the Marco Civil which is the rights framework for the Internet itself. So there are other parts of the law that talk about how important it is to allow for this freedom of expression. >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: Thank you. Do you want to comment? >> I had like to say that our framework, Civil rights, states very clear that providers have to obey our situation. It's clear for us. And there is a penalty about suspense the service with the decision is not obeyed. But all the prosecutors, the federal prosecutors especially, we know it's so difficult for the society to understand that and it's a problem when hundred million of users is out of the service because of a decision in one process. And we prepare technical notes and shared these documents with all the prosecutors in the country to say for the state prosecutors that it's not a great penalty for the providers to obligate them to obey the decisions because you have other penaltys that we think it's more efficient. As the financial block the provider in Brazil. Federal prosecutors ask the federal judge to block this account and we think that the providers are kept and it's more efficient to obey the decisions when you have a lot of money, millions of dollars blocked. So we think it's better solution then to interrupt the service. >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: Follow up comment from your colleague sitting here in the front. >> AUDIENCE: Good afternoon for all. I'm a federal prosecutor in Brazil. And I work not just to cyber crimes in Brazil but I also work with Human Rights. I'm like not just prosecutor but a citizen, very worried about the privacy of the Internet and the security of the Internet. What you would try to do and say we all Brazilians try to do with this law I think there was a huge discussion for all the stakeholders in Brazil to give their opinion, to give their base, their reasons to us to get in a law that's the Marco Civil Internet, the Internet Civil point. And what it's important to say here is that Civil Marc is not just a right for the prosecutors, the judges, or the authorities to get in and take information. It's a right for all the citizens because it means that no one, even the authorities decides against this and no one will be -- no one -- everyone has the guarantee that you just have the privacy, your privacy damaged by following some rules that's in the law. And about the privacy I'm finishing. I don't want to take so much time. >> We can bring a chair up here. >> Sorry, Chris. But I would like to say that like a citizen our privacy is protected. We have a law. We must work a lot with the jurisdiction everything. But we have of a law that guarantees that my son that was raped is going to be found by an authority we have reasons to search, we have just the criminals with this. So I would like to point this and really, really, I'm really finishing, Chris, just one minute because it was important for the Brazilian lawyer Nate said. And in the car wash the block that was in the financial made by the judge in the financial firm that was judge order that was not obeyed and the firm was -- >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: I'm sorry. You have ten seconds. >> AUDIENCE: We have the other punishments that all the prosecutors are trying to get in the firm and not in the citizens. >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: Thank you so much. I'm going to jump right away we have a few questions we received via Twitter here and welcome even more questions. We have a question from Ora Ruse who asks besides the criteria in who has jurisdiction is there any official collaborative and jurisdiction. And I'm realizing we have Europeans, north Americans, Brazilians speaking. But if there are common approaches maybe in Africa or Asia that he we haven't heard of, from someone in the audience maybe. Should we take this question? Okay. >> I think the quick answer to this is that it is a common problem that can only be solved by an appropriate discussion among the different stakeholders and among the different initiatives that are taking place. And so the strong message that we heard is no single actor or group of actors can solve this alone. The message to work together was very strong and as Internet and jurisdiction in the policy network we are facilitating a discussion. It is up for the stakeholders and the actors to move forward to connect with one another, to identify the elements that are common but I would say that this topic has been ramping up in the last few years, is becoming extremely acute now and has reached a sort of tipping point that Mike's me relatively optimistic on the likelihood of finding elements going to largely concrete solutions. If you want more information we have a booth. >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: Making go to Alexander. >> If we talk about an international official way of addressing this then you have to what is happening in the framework of s cybercrime convention committee, we have Asia Pacific countries there, Latin America countries there. Let's be very clear, it's five solutions that hi put on my slide earlier on. Some have them of been accepted but let's shape how this is addressed in the 50 countries but the other 30 countries that are about to join. This is not just something academic in a way. It's going to shape the reality in those countries. One point I want to underline regarding this discussion about other concepts, currently the solutions are focusing on subscriber information. We are not addressing the content data that may have to be addressed as a protocol to the convention but there is a lot of frustration about the concept of territoriality. Facebook has 140,000 servers or more in Sweden. I was recently in India, and in the conference just for the fun of it I established I opened a new outlook account. John Doe whatever. And I could choose the jurisdiction. By default it gave me India so I took another one, Isle of man. If the Indian authorities want to investigate this who do they go to? This is sort of frustration we have. Prosecutors don't take this lightly. They don't just go for the fun of it after providers or whatever. There are serious cases of crime, situations of life and death, you need to act quickly on that. >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: Thank you. I have one more question here from Twitter and we will ask if there's more questions. Someone here is asking from Twitter if the ITF should identify each of the key concepts, I guess jurisdiction is one of the key concepts we have been discussing. >> The IGF is not allowed to make discussion. The discussions are extremely important. Discussions like this, yesterday this is very important to discuss this but you have to come to solutions, we cannot wait another -- 26 years ago this was considered a highly urgent matter. We are still discussing. It's not something we started yesterday. >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: All right. We will take some questions. I see one question right here in front. And two in the back there afterwards. >> Hi, I'm from Brazil. My question is concerning the suppose we eventually make states manage to make a framework of cooperation for sharing data and cases of related jurisdiction. But what would we do concerning possible how can I say safe havens, states that are not into those cooperations and just serve as havens for companies, et cetera, or is that too early to think about it? >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: And I have two questions right there. >> My name is Jacqueline, I'm with InternetLab in Brazil. I'm sorry. Yeah another Brazilian. Shouldn't we be aiming as a task to determine whether a country can directly request user data? The reason why I'm -- I mean by directly I mean not having to go through (inaudible) the reason I'm asking is because it seems to me Brazilian judges are unconsciously applying a multi factor task. I read decisions saying I'm investigating a person in Brazil and also the victim of this crime that has been committed in Brazil is Brazilian. It seems to me that this solution that would acknowledge Brazilian jurisdiction in this case would resolve 80% of the cases and deal with the frustration of the Brazilian prosecutors. >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: The question about safe havens, I think the gentleman behind you -- >> AUDIENCE: I'm neither Brazilian or a lawyer. My name is Byron Holland. My comments are really from an operator's perspective. Although I've also recently been changer of the CCNSO which is the country operator group in ICANN. >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: And your question? >> AUDIENCE: It's more comment and suggestions. Would you like me to keep going or do you want to answer the previous questions first? >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: Go ahead. >> AUDIENCE: So as an operator we face these challenges all the time. As an individual I'm a strong proponent and believer of a free open global Internet although I'm subject ont to the laws of my own land. We heard the Brazilian prosecutor or sorry we heard Microsoft talk about the situation in Brazil where they broke down the front door. Metaphorically that happens to me as an operator frequently. Part of the solution is getting law enforcement to know that an knock an explanation is often very, very helpful and I think we are starting to see that in some environments that discuss the subject where law enforcement is talking about their situations but when the front door is broken down, explained rationally as a community are very open to helping law enforcement where appropriate. That said I will only respond to the laws of my own land so the multilats and those vehicles have to be in place in a mining full way because when law enforcement tells me to do something I don't and I wouldn't even if I know it's reasonable and just. And I think a very good example of that recently was the avalanche take down. 800,000 domains were taken down. That was a cooperative endeavor with interpoll, et cetera. There's thousands of examples where it can work but hard work to engage in before we find this beautiful solution. >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: Great, thank you. I think we have to take the questions now and thank you for that good comment about the need for a real dialogue between operators and law enforcement. If we can go to the first two first question about solving many of the problems we are discussing but avoid the problem of forum shopping maybe criminals pick the jurisdiction that is not covered, to have their data extracted. Maybe any quick comments? >> Under the question of multifactor test there's a lot of debate going on about this in the U.S. Our department of justice proposed a law that would enable service providers to respond directly to requests from foreign government answer not having to go through the M lat process. So this scenario you were talking about. And there's a lot to be said about this bill but a couple of key things that come ups we are thinking about this, one is what are the criteria that a foreign government would have to meet to get this sort of special ability to serve an order correctly on a company in the U.S. and what those standards are would be very, very important. One of the criticisms that my organization had of the DOJ bill it presents the different factors demonstrated respect for rule of law, adherence to international Human Rights obligations, and some other things, presents them as factors and not as requirements so we think that providers material too much leeway for a sort of potentially political determination of which country does the U.S. want to make this kind of agreement with and how can we sort of fudge the fact that they meet some of these factors but also not others. And I think another key question who gets to decide if the countries meet these standards? Would it be only the department of justice or the department of justice working with the state department where there may be influence of international relations or is it's something that should be put before the legislature as well and have congress be able to evaluate how the standard are applied, how these agreements are assessed and what decisions are arrived at. >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: Do you want to follow up? >> Yeah, quick follow up on the multifactor test. We had a session in Paris that was a short session on the future of territoriality as a criteria for jurisdiction. And this is a question that was raised very explicitly coming from the workshop sessions that people had earlier in that day. And there was a strong debate regarding whether a multifactor test is appropriate or not. Some actors are legitimately considering the current tests are too rigid and too simple. The Microsoft case being a perfect example on territoriality. But at the same time when the proposal of the multifactor test which as Emma was saying is part of the bill that was being explored at the moment in the U.S. was mentioned in that session, there were reactions considering that it is difficult to implement, that it is complex, and that in particular for instance including the nationality or the residence of the user is a very difficult criteria to evaluate. So there's a debate going on. I think on a personal basis looking at the discussion that the trend is towards sort of multifactor tests, that it's more or less the practice that people are having but there's still a debate in the moment in that regard. And the other element regarding the comment by Byron on the explanation by the law enforcement. What he's talking about is also very operateal in terms of what are the formats for requests, what are the informations that should be communicated to the operators whatever the operators are, to justify the request for data which such is by the way on a very important element of due process and trust building and so on. Also touches on issues of confidentiality. How much data with be shared with the operators on criminal investigations? So those two elements multifactor test and procedural elements regarding the format for request is some of the elements that are discussed at the moment. >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: Alex? >> ALEXANDER SEGER: Thank you. I'm afraid the territoriality principal this year in October celebrated its anniversary and I think its many years since it's done away with. It's not to focus on the location of data because that's a very volatile concept but to focus on the person in possession or control as the key factor. It's a situation when it's perfectly all right when it's acceptable, it seems like for subscriber information there's doubts from the Microsoft side regarding the issue of content. For a long time you will have dual principals. But I could perhaps anticipate what may happen in the future because you see it in other areas and in the European union, that countries may require for companies to be legally represented in that country and to have somebody there to be ordered then to produce and maybe simply a law office, law firm, a branch, whatever. I think this is something that could develop and you have data protection regulation and so forth, we may perhaps see this also in the criminal law area. >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: Please. >> Two things to follow up exactly on what Alexander is saying. I fully agree with the trend he's describing. One of the challenging is the scaling up of this solution which brings a lot of questions regarding small companies and also small countries. Because if you push the reasoning too far and you implement for any type of service the kind of rule that may be management for very large providers it would mean that the proverbible three people in the garage were actually developing a new application should designate a representative in every single of the 190 countries to handle those things. I was discussing it this morning with two people and there is clearly a question regarding the scaleability of this thing. It may have a threshold effect, it may have replication effect and I like to quote in those regards in philosophy there's the Kantian imperative that you shouldn't do something if generalized it would look back and mandatory representation in a country is on the threshold of that kind of problem because if you generalize it it can be harmful. But I agree with Alexander. It's a portion of the solution but we have to be careful in generalizing it. >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: I'm going to give a little homework for each of our panelists but you only have two minutes to do this homework. I would ask you, we are going to discuss this next year at the ITF I'm sure, so what are we going to be focusing on? What are the elements or the solutions or the elements towards solutions to be resolved in the next year regarding law enforcement access to cross border. Don't answer now. We are going to take one question and ask each of you to over three second to give your main points. We have maybe one last question. In the very, very back. Yep. >> AUDIENCE: Thank you. My name is (inaudible) and I'm from the centre of Internet society, India. My question is with regard to M lat reform, one of the main issues in terms of creating a multijurisdiction M lat process has been with regard to which are the jurisdictions which qualify to be on it. On the one hand there is -- there should be Human Rights standards that all requesting jurisdictions should satisfy. On the other hand if that standard is too high then it ends up excluding more jurisdictions and bringing that meaningless. So with that in view, I know in the past they have come out with a proposal and there have been over the last year multi proposals on ways to reform the M lat process. Is there any merit in looking at some kind of a staggered process which seeks to incentivize raising Human Rights standards in different jurisdictions so as to become a part of that network where there is a minimum threshold that participating jurisdictions should meet and beyond that minimum threshold develop different steps and within that framework they can get more power or rights. >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: What a good question. >> That ties in very well with what I think we need to be working on over the next year which is how to answer this question and the idea of a staggered implementation has a lot of promise to it. The question in the U.S. if we come up with an agreement with a country that enables them to circumvent the M lat process that means the demand from that government doesn't need to be reviewed by a court in the U.S. and it doesn't -- from the kind of Human Rights perspective of trying to maximize privacy protections for as many as people as possible, losing that probable cause standard is like a loss. It's not like going into a negotiation saying we will do away with the very high standard of protection that exists doesn't seem like a path forward to many advocates but there have been a number of proposals with the idea that if you can get more government with a lower standard to promote privacy, so isn't that a positive development? And I want to see if we can find out some way to move -- lift all boats to probable cause standard, figure out how to ensure when companys are handing over data it really abides by the standard which I think is pretty well reflective in the proportionality principal which were the coalition signed by hundreds of Civil Societies around the world. So yes, so I think looking to the necessary proportionate principals is a great guide. >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: What should we be doing? What should the companies and organizations be doing until the next IGF discussion on the same testimony next year. 20 seconds. >> Fundamentally there's a challenge to facility the interactions between the stakeholders and initiatives working on this, and the fundamental expression we put forward is to work collaboratively on on due process standard across borders. Due process is already difficult to do at a national level but the big challenge is establishing due process standards across border and that has a large number of underlying elements but as a hook that's the objective, developing framework for translational due process. >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: You, please? >> Okay. In order to reduce the conflict among different jurisdictions it's essential that the government, the society and the law enforcement from all over the world make discussions and meetings to establish as (inaudible) judicial requests. And to protect users rights it's essential that the legislations about Internet issues especially across border data requests be a result of very open and previous discussion about the stakeholder inside and between them. The federal prosecutors of Brazil thinks. >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: Thank you so much. Paul? >> PAUL MITCHELL: What both of them said plus at least within the U.S. and hopefully within other countries that governments should actually begin to relook at how their national laws interact within the digital age across the board. >> Well, I think I'm really glad to hear that Neide mentioned that it's important to have the participation of society in all this debate. And also I think we need to find ways in which we improve efficiency of the process to decrease the time that takes for judges and prosecutors to have the information they need and transparency for sure. I think it's one of the main issues at stake. >> In addition to the answer I already gave about how to strengthen privacy protections for everyone, I would also note that government transparency is crucial issue. This is not something that can be addressed solely by companies doing transparentty reporting. So it's something we would like to see continued to develop and improve in the next year. >> So the next IGF I probably also autumn. We will have a review of follow up given by existing recommendations that, review is under way by June next year the report will be presented to the cybercrime committee. I hope we will have consensus meng the parties of the convention on article 181 B regarding subscriber information so we have a legal basis in the Budapest convention for subscriber information. I hope -- I know because we already agreed that we will have a range of practical measures implemented by them in cooperation with service providers to include such cooperation who by the way can also participate in the negotiation of the protocols and by June next year I also hope we have a decision by the cybercrime convention committee to start negotiation of a protocol to the Budapest convention. These are deliverables we can hope as delivered by the next convention. >> CHRISTIAN BORGGREEN: So why don't we try and aim for that all together at the next IGF, we will be talking about how we all delivered solutions we are discussing rather than talking about how they should look in the future. It's lunchtime. Please join me in a round of applause to all the speakers here. Thank you so much. (Applause). (Session concluded at 1:33) 7 December 2016 WS 152: Working together: Collaborative Security in Local Contexts 15:00 Services provided by: Caption First, Inc. P.O. Box 3066 Monument, CO 80132 800-825-5234 www.captionfirst.com *** This text is being provided in a realtime format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) or captioning are provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. *** 7 December 2016 WS 152: Working together: Collaborative security in local contexts 15:00 (Standing by). >> MODERATOR: Let's get started, people. Welcome. Welcome, everybody. We are here at I believe this is workshop 152 according to the schedule. And we are going to talk about collaborative security. And asking our self the question how collaborative security or working together actually applies in the local context. And in order to shine a little light on that we have invited panelists with various backgrounds from all over the world, I may say. On the left-hand side of the table right for me and for you is Hiroshi Esaki from the University of Tokyo and also heavily involved in the wide project. We have got Nick Shorey, the senior advisor international Internet governance department for culture, media and sports, a UK government. We have Yurie Ito who is the Executive Director of the cyber green stut and we have the (inaudible) of the African union. These sessions are also remotely attended and I'm happy to say we have Hirofumi Hotta from Japan who will be moderateing remote questions and also we have Matt Ford from the Internet society. I'm going to moderate. So let's get started with the first slide deck. Let's pull that up. Because I want to give you a little bit of a background. When we talk about collaborative security what does that mean? So next slide. Collaborative security is something, is a concept, an approach that we developed that is really about the open Internet. If you say what is the open Internet again, then next slide, then, you know, I with a technical background really think about the ability to create infrastructure, create applications, to have a lose coupling between the IP layer but that's not that interesting. What is interesting is that the open Internet is an enabler for all kinds of social and economic opportunities. And there are some technical things of the Internet that you would like to maintain in order to bring these opportunities and preserve these opportunities. And that is on the next slide. What we did is we tried to capture as the Internet society what are the properties of the Internet that really make the Internet the Internet? We call those Internet invariants, it's a physics term. What we think makes the Internet the Internet is it's really a general purpose network. It's filled with multiple applications in mind. And actually there's provisionalzation which means anybody can create an application on the Internet without having to ask some central authority for permission. This whole thing has global reach and integrity which means if you put something on the Internet at one side it comes out of the other side and that works with a bunch of building blocks that people piece together and then create this end to end experience. It's accessible meaning that everybody can connect and expand the Internet. You can create new ISPs, you can connect to it. Interoperability and mutual agreement. There's a thing about interoperability and having some mutual agreement on how this works. It's amazing if I send mail from here in Mexico to my wife back in Holland that the ISP's involved don't have bi-lateral relations. There's some but the two end notes don't. There's just a mutual agreement to ship these connections around and that relies on having collaboration there. But when we talk about all these things there's an aspect we shouldn't forget and that's the security aspect because all these properties that I just mentioned have security issues with them. The open platform means that it's open for attack and intrusion. The fact that you have permission means that somebody can just develop malware and do bad things on the network. The fact that it's global reach means it can wreck havoc on the other side of the planet. It's hard to mandate security solutions. There is no security tzar on the Internet. Usually when people talk about security they deal with inwards risks. They think about what are the assets I need to protect and what are the things I need to do to deal with those things. But when you connect it on the Internet you are part of the Internet. And in fact you're action or inaction might impact the value of the network as a whole. If you don't have appropriate security on the devices that you ship, then those devices might impact the rest of the Internet and the recent denial of service attack is an example of that. So next slide. The Internet being open interconnected and interdependent network means that we have to create new approaches to security. And we try to capture those, that approach, by -- next slide -- what we call collaborative security. And it's an approach that is based on a number of values or principals. We talk about the Internet, we want to maintain confidence, we want to make sure people trust the Internet enough to be able to do their business and have their social interactions. So fostering confidence and protecting those opportunities that the Internet brings that's first and foremost the goal. There's a collective responsibility. Everybody who is on the Internet is part of the Internet and that comes with a responsibility. Any security solution is based on evolution and consensus. We cannot redesign the Internet from scratch and just turn it over one day to another. Evolution is the way that we go forward. By having consensus about the solution we actually can implement it. We have to maintain those fundamental properties of the Internet but also the fundamental values that we all cherish, fundamental values like human rights. And a very important aspect and that's the aspects that we are going to drill down to in this workshop is what I call subsidearyity. Taking local actions or actions as close to the problem as possible. That could be topical, it could be geographical. So topical, organise yourself around DDS or organise yourself around child abuse issues. Organise groups of stakeholders and experts around topics. But also organise yourself in your local communities with the relevant stakeholders around the table. That's subsidiarity where we say think globally but act locally. So with that introduction we have a number of -- we have the panelists who have lived this, who are living the collaborative security approach and who are giving a few examples of that. And I hope that by this workshop and your interaction, I'm asking for your questions and your feedback and your ideas, that we answer some of these questions. What are the various aspects of of this collaborative security approach? What works? What doesn't? And what does this approach mean for real petitioners, people who have to maintain the networks, maintain the security of the Internet as a whole for everybody who has a role in this. And there's a typo in my slide here but anyway, how do you get real consensus? Real collaboration on national and regional level? So those are sort of the questions that I would like to bounce around and so without further ado, Hiroshi has a good presentation of how this works in Japan. Go ahead. >> HIROSHI ESAKI: This is Hiroshi Esaki from Tokyo, Japan. As Olaf introduced, my global work in Japan more than 25 years, I think. Then the first slide is the collaborative work in Japan initiated in June and also the collaborated work by the G7 countries, the declaration of the digital economy in 2020 or in the future. First it's interoperable and secure cyberspace. We have free information to ensure openness, transparency and freedom of the Internet and fair and equal access. So digital economy while respecting privacy and data protection of cyber security. That is a quite important message declared. And also we commit to promote a stakeholder approach to Internet governance such as cybersecurity. In the government and private sectors, academia, all of us are sharing and agreeing those direction. Based on that we have internal discussion in Japan. The first one is the risk of the IoT based on the Internet, fragmentation of the Internet by IoT. I really hate this PC, that's ten dot one dot ten dot six. Olaf, that's bad, right? That's the private IP address. So the IoT people love to make this kind of implementation without any security consideration. They tend to provide a trap for the closed network silo, that's basically I always talking with them but that's a bad thing because the Internet is assuming all of device should be connected to the Internet or will be connected in the future. The third, platform using the open source forum, that is important message. Of course there's a quite variety of technology allowed the IoT so we in turn really encourage to have the interoperability among the different platforms so that's basically security by design. Ideas should be deployed in the IoT people from the beginning. And also this is yet another example we really experience during the years in a serious earthquake in March 2011. This is a story about ITS, a connected car in these days though in the past we mentioned Internet cars, collecting data and sharing that for you. The shared use of data, that is on the automobile around 1997 in Japan. Though all of the manufacturers say Honda, Toyota, they really hate it to interconnect their database or data, right? They love proprietary special service with the commerce. As a technical collaboration with them finally we share the same technology among the different manufacturers. Though this system was not integrated. But we had a quite serious earthquake and asked them please integrate those data in order to provide very accurate detailed traffic information for the disaster case, that's the recovery, that's a mitigation thing. Because of the same technology we successfully integrate that system but that is the reason why we encourage you all of the players share privacy technologies among them. And also that important thing is interoperability even though they hate it, they would not connect it to each other at this moment of time. In the future they would connect to each other. Also this is yet another discussion we are dwog the Japanese government with academia technological community in 2016 to 2020. We clearly mentioned the importance of the measures for the infrastructure. Then we have those four points clearly as described in the document, first is cyber security, need of the cyber security by design organizing on social infrastructure. That is not only the Internet but also the social infrastructure like transportation or train system or banking system, all of those social infrastructure. And also establishment of the system and mechanism security operating centre to share cyber security information best practice is required -- not required, I'm sorry, that is recommended. Because this is the Japanese government message, it's not recommended, not mandatory though they encourage to implement those kind of systems. The last one is community Internet governance conference Japan that is inviting all the stakeholders, tried inviting all the stakeholders from the different industries as well as to the vendors and the users, those ten points are the basic idea for the security for the Internet. Most of those are covered by Olaf, actually. That's independent discussion in Japan. Though eventually that's going to -- that is a collaboration on the local and global and we are thinking about the local perspective though that's going to be aligned with the global perspective. Example, you know, sharing the open transference of experience and knowledge of everyone is what is important and protecting and supporting the person who experiences cybersecurity incident as a victim rather than bad guy. That's quite important. We have to help them who has security incident in order to share those very variable information to solve the problem among by us. Thank you, that's my presentation. >> OLAF KOLKMAN: Nick, your turn. And you wouldn't be needing slides? >> NICK SHOREY: No slides. Okay. My name is Nick. I come from the department for culture, media and sports in the UK and I work on global Internet governance. I was really pleased to be invited to join this panel which is sort of focusing around these collaborative security documents. The UK government fundamental sports a free Internet and through multistakeholder mechanisms and we agree with the principals of reserving opportunities and building confidence, collective responsibility and thinking globally and acting locally. I think there's some direct correlations between this and the approach that is outlined in the UK government's national cybersecurity strategy which we published on the first of November. And I would sort of recommend everyone to go and take a look at that. This is our second national cybersecurity strategy. And we will cover the next five years up until 2021. And it seeks to build on the objectives, the achievements and some of the judgments of the first five years strategy which invests 860 million pounds over that period. It achieved a lot, it built strong foundations. And it's helped to we think establish the UK as a real leading player in cybersecurity. However the persistence and the ingenuity of actors and the prevalence of certain vulnerables and gaps need we need to do more, go further, work harder to really try and make the UK one of the most resilient and secure places to do business and for people to have trust and confidence in an online world. So we really strongly feel that a comprehensive approach, inclusive approach to cybersecurity is really what we need. So we are framing our work in the next five years around three areas, defend deter, develop. So I'll speak briefly about some of those. So one of the head lines for our national strategy was the creation of the national cybersecurity centre, the NCSC. We love acronyms. So the NCSC was launched in October and it was a unique opportunity to build partnerships and bring in some of the varied departments and agencies within the UK government to try and build a one-stop shop in an authoritative voice on cybersecurity. So the NCSC seeks to provide a unified source of advice and information assurance, and be that strong public face of the government's action against cyber threats working hand in hand alongside academia and industry as well. It's also going to be a public face in organization with reach back into to draw on the necessary secret intelligence and expertise we require in this space to ensure cyberspace is secure. A key part is increasing the awareness and collaborative work between the different sectors so I think what I would like to talk about today is just some of the maybe tangible actions that have been taken and looking to take in the UK that might help and support ideas and foster ideas in other places that people can take on board and look at them as opportunities to increase security activity in other areas. One of them is the cybersecurity information sharing partnership. Now this is a joint industry and government initiative set up to exchange cyber threat information in real time in a secure trusted manner and that notion of trust is really important to help increase the situational awareness amongst both government and different industry players to help us sort of improve and increase our realtime response to security threats. That's how we are trying to work with industry. We have also got a campaign for the general public called cyber aware, it was known as cyber street wise. Cyber aware is currently supported by 128 cross sets of partners including police, retailers. They were more likely to take up security behaviors as a campaign that we were trying to push out. And all of these elements we are looking to target sort of different sectors because a full approach to cybersecurity involves everyone and as Olaf mentioned in his opening remarks, taken a technical view of how the Internet is structured sometimes those that don't know the details and history of it but it's a useful approach of figuring out what we need to do in terms of security. Another is cyber central. This was a scheme for organisations against the low level common threats. When we talk about trust in security that's really, really important. I think you were mentioning about sort of IoT and silos and I think often cybersecurity debate is key feature of it is this notion that governments need to take direct control. It's born out of fear and sort of maybe a gap in trust that the network may be on itself. I kind of disagree. I think actually it's when we have a decentralized network it's far more security. You don't have a single point of failure that is much more cumbersome to sort of address. So but it's kind of these low level threats that often hit the headlines. You're talking a piece of malware. Those are always the new stories I read on the BBC but those low level threats really but their impact is almost disproportionate to the technical competency of such an attack. So cyber essentials is set up to show businesses and companies how to protect themselves against these threats to five technical controls, access control, boundary firewalls, gateways, malware protection, those best practices using what we have within government departments to try and help businesses across the sets of large and small and particularly the smaller businesses where they don't of the nature resources to outsource to private security firm to sort it out for them. To really try and make the UK fundamentally more resilient to a lot of these threats and overall increase our security. And I think just to finish up my points all of this stuff in the UK is great we are seeking to achieve but this is a global network and the UK has sort of data interests and we all use services based oversees so the UK is only as resilient as the weakest part of a network in many respects so we put in a lot -- we are increasing the amount of effort and work and funding we put into our international capacity building. And it great that we sat next to each other, the work we have been doing is a really great initiative on over the next five years we are looking to collaborate and tackle common threats and try and develop a common understanding of responsibility state behavior and develop the capabilities of our partners through sort of training, funding, workshops all this sort of stuff. And also the work that I ultimately do within the Internet governance space, making sure it's working effectively under pins this global trust. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. And you made the bridge to the CyberGreen initiative which I think speaks to that special little sauce of externalized risks that the Internet has. Yurie, go ahead. There's a slide deck that comes with this. >> YURIE ITO: Thank you. Do I have a switcher to remote? Okay. Great. >> Do you want to do yourself? >> YURIE ITO: I probably should do it. All right. Can I close your lap-top? Thank you. >> Cyber security collaboration in practice. >> YURIE ITO: Thank you. Hi, good afternoon. High name is Yurie Ito. Thank you, Nick, for smooth introduction. That was really good. So we hear about we heart this national level of multistakeholder and collaborative approach. What I like to talk about is focusing on a global level of collaborative approach and to promote that sort of collaborative sn sustainable cyber security approach CyberGreen, my organization is a small nonprofit organization 501(c)(3) in the United States. It suggests we should switch cyber security approaches to more environmental type of approach and I'll tell you what it is. So tradition cyber security is identifying your assets, what you want to protect. And you draw a border in the rest of the world and trying to protect your asset from outside of the border. What you do is measuring the risks against you, measuring and trying to understand the threat against you, but what we are suggesting is switch that mind set and then thinking already what type of risk conditions you have in your ecosystem that is posing to the risks to the others. So in a way it is a very -- flipping that perspective. What we are trying to say is trying to identify systemic risk conditions that you have that are opposing risks to others and identifying that, you know, we try to remediate those pro actively, we can collaboratively reduce the global level of cybersecurity risks. S so that's the concept of CyberGreen. In a way measuring the risks that you are poseing to the others it's a very much public health care approach. So for example the global public health care community trying to respond to the malware threat or malware problem, not just focusing on curing the symptoms. But they're trying to understand what is the underlining environmental problem measuring untreated swamp water in your ecosystem and trying to clean up or train that untreated water so that global level of the malaria risk is going to reduce and that's a very collaborative approach globally. You can identify where is the risk conditions which is causing root problems and then collaboratively remediate it. So just to give you a little bit of what we were doing I'm going to show some of what we were doing. The CyberGreen is again a small nonprofit organization. What we measure is the risks to others and why we focus on the measurements is the metrics based really drives the motivation to do something or drawing the right attention to the policy makers. Really need a good transparency so we focus developing the right scientifically right metrics, working with a lot of statisticians, data scientist, not only with cybersecurity experts but working with statisticians and data scientists to develop replicative metrics. And this is who we are. You probably recognize them, the names, our CEO of the board chair is Dr. Pool Toomey, used to be the former president. Security approach here as Olaf and you mentioned as well. And in the traditional cyber security sometimes approach in a sensitive balance. And we are going to have to be careful about not just throwing the border and building the walls in front of you. And it's not really working. Cyber security is one of the domains that most invested at the moment or developed countries and financial institutions and everywhere but still we see a huge risk at the horizon and we are not managing it. We have to change that mind set that you can pro he text yourself, your asset on a cyberspace by yourself. You cannot secure up your organization or your internal network by yourself. We are going to have to work together to make the global network interconnected to be utilized by that malicious attackers. What we measure, the risk conditions. What is a risk condition to the healthy Internet? We collect the data, the services throughout the global network and then based on the metrics we are generating the health. This is the website. If you go to the website you would find all these statistics. I will give you a quick example. What we are measuring right now is sort of the risk conditions for the global (inaudible) those are the potential risk conditions that are being utilized. And we have been seeing that this year a lot. So not just you're facing too the risks that anybody with face an attack against your organization but at the same time the other risks that you have is your ecosystem, your devices and network resources are going to be used by attackers to be a part of the attack infrastructure, to be a part of the problem, that's your reputation risk as well. We try to raise that risk and helping the AS and ISP's and those devices deemployers how to remediate it. So global look of the recursive servers by last month. The darker red is showing the higher presence of the risk conditions. It's actually the Asia has a lot of open recursive services. And following after. But naturally where there's a large number of the (inaudible) there are a higher presence of the risk conditions. Now the regional look. We are providing the country level of the risks as well. So if you go to that website you will see Japan, the risk profiles like that, how many number of those services are in the ecosystem going down into the AS level who is the distribution of those servers, where are those? So as mitigators you can go to those specific AS owners and help them to mitigate. Why do we need to mitigate those services? Every reduction of vulnerable services reduces the position by 1,700 gigabit. It's really expressing the power that your ecosystem is posing to with or without intention. That's something when you reduce those mitigating, remediating those risks you are reducing those to the others as well. So by doing that type of pro active remediation it is not just for yourself but it is great for global good. So that is our approach. And we are providing mitigation help and capacity building and it's been really fortunate to have Japanese governments and UK government and Singapore government is supporting this type of for a global context. Not just nor yourself but for a global common good. We are trying to advocate this type of approach and using -- >> MODERATOR: Thank you, Youri. Flavia LeFevre the African >>: Thank you, her slides will confer what I will say t African story is very simple. We are still at the level of really building that kind of intimate infrastructure to be protected. As you're aware of the level growing very fast. We in Africa in collaboration with some institution have recently accessiond the status of cyber security in Africa and fortunately we have seen that threats coming into and out of Africa are actually not as important as what is happening in the other regions of the world. However, things are actually moving very fast until recently 1 or 2 years ago most of African countrys did not even have an Internet exchange point systems and in collaboration with ISOC we have implemented in 33 countries 30 Internet change points at the national level and we will go further for regional and continental regional. This is why you wouldn't see an example of cybersecurity collaborative kind of scheme that is actually happening however we haven't seen what is actually going and happening in Africa. The African union has taken the lead with most of our economic commission to make sure that we are putting in place in advance all certain eco system that will allow collaboration in a matter of cyber security. This is why having looked at what is happening in the world in general specifically in the global North if I may say that, we have decided first to have to put some kind of legislation that will encourage regional collaboration not only at the level have Africa but regional to make sure you are collaborating at the international level in cybersecurity. Our focus mainly now is about building the right capacity in each and every country to make sure that at the national level you would have national cyber strategy, national cyber security and the creation in each and every country connected with a regional set that will be created in each of the five African regions so this is what we are in the process of developing to make sure you are setting the ground and the ecosystem that will allow a very good collaboration in the matter of cybersecurity. The recent report we have had in workshops and cyber security have had with state department, United States state department, many of the cyber security workshops have been organizing with ISOC, with China. We do have with very good cooperation because of the equipment being provided in Africa is mainly coming from China and it's very important to see how the matter of cyber security from that point of view is being implemented and to make sure that security is being taken. So this is what we do have at this point of time in Africa and I'll be glad to answer any further question from the panel and from the floor. Thank you, very much. >> OLAF KOLKMAN: A few different -- I woke you up now. This is the benefit of having a post lunch, you all get some sleep. No. Seriously, I actually what I found something fascinating actually is that the culture of sharing does not only increase security in the cyberspace but also in the physical space. I think you gave a beautiful example of that in this culture of sharing creating better responses in cases of earthquakes and I find that somewhat fascinating that that culture that we are trying to get incorporated for addressing cyber issues also has impact on the space where we humans sort of walk around in. I also think that I heard different approaches, approaches from national governments working with the private sector or the private sector actually working with the national governments completely sort of private initiative Youri and then a regional body that says maybe we should get the nation states up to par so that we can actually start to build capacity. So various approaches. Is there something you would like to respond to on that observation? >> I think each country has a different background, different situation so that not a single solution would be applied here. So we have to find out the best solution or better solution based on our best practices. Some of the experience could apply, some of them could not. So sharing that idea, trying to implement feedback is quite important thing. That is the DNA of the Internet. We really respect running code. We really hate presenting meaning predefined medicine we could not use. We always think about running system and then feedback and best effort accountability of positive feedback in order to improve the quality, improve the function, improve the innovation, that's also important for the cyber security as well. >> NII QUAYNOR: From African point of view sharing is a must. We share everything. The other part is giving the level of development of the private sector specifically the cyber security, the power somehow to lead the situation and specifically from the point of view of government whereby the cyber security matter is on them. However, it is very important that they adopt the right strategy in terms of addressing cyber security matter. Because if you don't get the right one, if cyber security is shutting down as a measure, it's not viable. We need to make sure that the governments understands their responsibility properly in securitying the critical infrastructure without getting into that radical solution about shutting down everything. >> MODERATOR: So another question to you. It's a bit of a leading question because I think I know the answer to it. The African union created a cyber convention in 2014. Now there are already a number of initiatives globally and regionally in other parts of the world like work done by others. Why didn't you just copy that? That's a very leading question of course. >> It's a very good question. People say why do you have the African union convention on cyber security at this convention. My answer is very, very simple. The Budapest convention address only matters related to cyber with international development. All the members of the big western world have specific -- our convention not only covered that cyber part but also the electronic transaction specifically the personal data protection. Because personal data protection in each and every country has their own specifics. What is valid in terms of definition of personal data protection which is valued somewhere in the western world is not valid automatically in Africa. We do have our social specificities. If those spoeshl specificities, mind you, for instance, that 1/3 of the Africans do not have identity at all. Imagine tomorrow we are moving to eight identities. Imaging in the very complex social stratifications you use your data and abuse them, what is going happen? Those are not being measured. >> That's not directly related, but I'm working around smart city now. The cyber domain helping the physical domain. Basically cyber physical systems. So because of the computation power is going up, now meaning exactly the same definition of the physical domain could be defined in the cyber domain the next step we are going to do is cyber domain defines physical domain might be cyber domain defined first and the physical domain is output of the cyber domain. That could be in the cyber domain. Cyber domain is also the global as well as physical domain so those two domains could be working to each other. From that point of view the cyber security is what is critically important to the global infrastructure point of view. Also people flying around the world, you came from Africa, Europe, now your mobility is going to increase a lot because of the airplane. The cyber domain also have the global mobilitys so that is a really important because of the collaborated security collaborated work for the global because of us. >> So I want to get a little bit back to the practical matters around how you get to implementing these measures. And Youri, I think you gave a beautiful example of something practical providing transparency and by providing transparency hopefully inspiring people to take action. It is a private initiative if I may say that and I wonder how you maintain sustainability of such an initiative. In essence you're doing something for the public good but somebody has to pay your bread. How does that work? >> YURIE ITO: Thank you for that question. >> MODERATOR: We did preparation of course of the panel before. (Laughter). >> YURIE ITO: Oh you revealed that secret. Oh. So you're very right about this transparency is really the motivation, drives the motivation. When organisations doing good behavior nobody knows it at the moment. So what we are are trying to do is trying to raise that transparency now, sustainability matter. It is challenging what we are trying to do is motivating operators to do remediation which is a resource, you need a lot of resources to do that. And the impact is not only for yourself but impact is more for others, more for the global risk reduction. And to make them convinced and participate in this CyberGreen approach is a challenging thing. Now to running this type of approach and metrics generating statistics and keep our activities sustainable, I think it's a common challenge for not only CyberGreen but any global nonprofit operations trying to do the common good for the Internet is of course the funding. Not a lot of governments or organisations have a leading mind set that invests something good for common good. A lot of them are still thinking about how to security up your organization, your security but not a lot of advanced leading Champions standing up. Proactively making the Internet more resilient and safer place. And we need more understanding those and those leaderships to support this type of common good approaches. So that's one funding is a really big challenge for us. It needs a lot of resources. We are working with about 16 technical people, statisticians, data sourcing people, data scientists, developers, analysts. We need a lot of good, really good full-time resources. Of course the infrastructure cost as well. >> Her organization is working together. Actually one of the good words by Japanness ancestor was economy without moral is crime. Moral without economy is silly talk. By so that is the DNA of the Internet. >> OLAF KOLKMAN: Can somebody tweet the please? >> Economy without moral is crime. Moral without economy is silly talk. But that is the famous Japanese old guy saying the structure of the local government. Anyway, this is the DNA of the Internet also we show the practical fact, we are fine. Then that's going to be applied to the other area. DNA improvement doesn't have a lot of money request by the government. Very small. Collaborative investment by the ISP's, operators, or academia, we are fine. >> YURIE ITO: I want to respond to that. The incentives to being a good citizen and doing the good behavior for the global good, those are something that needs to be acknowledged and encouraged. There's nobody acknowledging that and that's a problem at the moment. We need to acknowledge an encourage those good behaviors for common good. >> Right. >> YURIE ITO: And branding power probably. >> OLAF KOLKMAN: And transparency -- >> YURIE ITO: And give economic incentives to doing good. >> OLAF KOLKMAN: I want to turn discussion completely open and my idea is to get 2 or 3 questions from the floor so that the panel can respond to those. If you have a question, please raise your hand so the kind moderator over there can... >> AUDIENCE: My name is (inaudible) I'm here at this time as an L IGF delegate holding a workshop tomorrow on the same topic as this but wouldn't go into that here. The four people in the panel the differences between the context where you start collaboration already so big so how do you actually go to get that bridge that starts with the comment saying we don't have 1/3 of the people in Africa have online identity, how do you match that with the rest of the world? Where do we start gaping this bridge that we have that I see in front of myself and this panel? Thank you. >> OLAF KOLKMAN: Other questions? Please raise your hand if you have one. If you don't, then we turn to the panel immediately. Oh, I see a question over here. >> AUDIENCE: I would like to ask you in the case of Thailand the fundamental problem is coming from the government. Normally to have the website like we have 70,000 schools with very poor infrastructure on the websites and they become a source of the cyber security problems and several local registration, 80,000 of them sending a report already about how the government becomes part of the problems or how the CyberGreens move into this aspect with the governments and how to fix that issue. Thank you. >> OLAF KOLKMAN: So in that specific example is that a capacity problem? You would think? It's awareness. Awareness, I heard that. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions before we turn to the panel? Ms. Bennett. >> Louise Bennett. In your talk you mentioned the need for security for design in the Internet of Things and we are seeing many attacks that come from D dos using the Internet of Things. As someone who comes from the physical security industry before I was involved in the (microphone feedback) in the online industry, in fact most Internet of Things that are connected, the imperative for the person producing them is to produce them as cheaply as possible. That means essentially without any security. So how are you going to deal globally with that vulnerability? >> (Away from microphone). >> OLAF KOLKMAN: The panelists now. Three questions, how to bridge the difference in I would say capacity, how to bridge the awareness, how do you share -- you think that's sort of a summary of the question. And at the fundamental, how do you deal with that awareness among say government public actors who have websites that are broken, infrastructure that is not well, perhaps even well-intended actors. And then in the case where the economic incentives are completely not there because the speed of the market and there might be awareness but speed of the market is more important, how do you deal with global problems around IoT? This is all the last question is almost a workshop of a week, I think. But let's hear the opinion of the panelists. You can take anywhere of the questions if you like. >> From my point of view with regard to the first question is as Youri said we need to change our mind set. Cybersecurity is not local, not national, not international. It's a global issue because of the boundary and mobility that is coming with that. Personally and this is what you are operating for in Africa we need to set the rules in terms of international, regional and national cooperation. We need to exchange our mutual experience. Because the network tells us that the network is as weak as its -- as strong as its weakest link so we don't think that probably I have protectd myself well but I still protect it. The cyber security strategy has to go beyond your own infrastructure and reach all those who are actually could be a source of threat for you. So exchanging experience, building mutual capacity, is actually the motto we have to go with. >> Regarding the first question I think show them the system first. Then they realize they don't have capabilitytys or capacity. Encourage them, that is a good situation. You can solve the problem. Then we provide them with enough information and opportunity to share in that thing. That reason why the during the G7 ICT summit we encourage of the very high speed national education research network in global way, that the purpose is you people who are working the University are sharing state of arts, Internet technology, while operating by them self. Important thing is operating by them self. They realize real practical security issue by them self. So that is same as the second question. Students could realize very bad environment, right? So unfortunately Japanese students didn't have such experience, doesn't have such experience, meaning they are spoiled. They never think about security. They assume Internet is safe. Though your country younger people Internet is now not safe. That is the quite important capacity building, experiencing those things is quite an opportunity to include everything but the same thing applied to the IoT security part. The thing I you know let people or industry people think about security was show them hacking in front of them. Actually I go into the state of arts famous complex in Tokyo, our colleague went there. In about 20 minutes they hacked all of the system in front of the vice president. They controlled the lights and HVAC. After that they changed their minds, they have to tackle with cyber security in their own buildingss. But that is the important thing. Show them the truth and go. >> OLAF KOLKMAN: I'm going to push back a little bit because that is higher education in a -- I would say hyper developed economy. The situation that was just described in Thailand is low education in I think we can qualify Thailand is not a hybrid developed economy. >> Though even in the elementary school some children can hack, have the skill. We can find those. >> OLAF KOLKMAN: Do you have any ideas about this? Use the microphone. >> As you were saying, we plan as part of that guideline is to make sure that we are introducing the issue of cyber security right at the level of even pre-school. That is a plan. And I think this is the advantage that Africa has over a lot of regions because we are starting fresh in everything we want to introduce, we will be developing the curricula at the school but specifically there will be design programmes for policy makers to make sure those issues will be addressed properly. We need to have a cyber culture, cyber education. >> OLAF KOLKMAN: Education being a part of this and building a culture around this. I do want to touch on Louise Bennett's question. How does this apply to IoT? I think that's sorts of the question much perhaps you have ideas yourself, Louise. Some, we will get back to you because I would like to make this a little bit interactive. Nick, please. >> NICK SHOREY: I've got a couple points on the previous one so I'll take them in order. How do we bridge that gap? Well, as I sort of mentioned earlier, the UK recognizing that our own interesting are predicated on the security of the global Internet. There are many factors external to the specific debate that we will sort of impact and influence sort of development of Internet in this country. When I look at it I see a real opportunity. In the UK we have a developed digital economy and infrastructure around for years and years. But at the same time a lot of that infrastructure is quite old and there are some core vulnerables that are more difficult to address because it costs a lot to sort them out. And actually I think there's a real opportunity for us to share the lessons that we have learned in that best practice with the developing nations and as they come online they kind of skip one of those evolutionary cycles. So there's real opportunities to learn the lessons from more developed countries like the UK and we feel that's really important, that's why we are investing millions of pounds in capacity building and trying to build that education, build that awareness, understanding how you need to utilize IXPs for real benefits. I do see real opportunities as do you that. It's a difficult and complex thing. In terms of the second question talking about the government security, it's a massive issue. UK government, we are targeted constantly from sort of actors of all backgrounds. I work quite closely with HMRC, they're our revenue and tax department. They bring in the tax that allows the government to work so they're kind of important but they're constantly under attack under threat. We have identified this is a real issue and so that's why it's part of the defend strategy. We are going to be implementing this thing called active cyber defense where we are going to work hard to take specific measures to increase the security of UK sort of government infrastructure. As we are moving to increasingly digital government sort of set up. We would be happy to talk with you offline and share sort of a about it more detail about what we are doing and there might be opportunities for to you take some ideas back home. And the last point about IoT. Really, really fascinating. We had a workshop in government just last week looking at this issue and I believe the U.S. government recently published stuff on IoT as well. How do you address the vulnerabilities? It's going to be hugely challenging because you're absolutely right. Increase the devices, get them to market as quickly and cheaply as possible. One of the concerns I have is the same time you have an increased sort of device on connected to network. The rates of obsoleteion of the devices is going to happen as well. As the next lateist things come on board and how we adjust our thinking to take account of sort of even more devices that are still connected to network that aren't going to be serviced by the company because they have moved on to the next model, that's going to be a real challenge so I think that's something we need to consider there as well. I think maybe the answer is stepping back and making sure that we get everyone involved around the table, so that's network operators, that's sort of application developers, hardware, and take that sort of approach because when you think about IT devices what is the best addressing network addressing sort of approach to use for IoT? Some are more secure and less secure. Some might be easier, some more difficult. But we need to take that full discussion there and make sure that security is that absolutely fundamental part in developing that. But I think it going to be a real challenge, not just that again but divisive market to say how you managed the lifecycle of that product both while it's in use and after it's finished it's commercial time but it's still connected. >> OLAF KOLKMAN: So I want to sort of look into that. I see some examples where people trying to have that conversation with multiple people around the table or in the standardization world their ideas innovations that might help. A recent example is the MTIA starting a multi stakeholder approach which what is Nick just talked about. Of course there are people who call for regulation, ban these things from the shelf type of thing. There are -- I think this is a debate that we will see spin up even more as it is now and I think by having the people that actually can make the impact around the table there might be something that we can do. And those people might for instance be the retailers that sell these devices and retailers might have a role in saying we take our responsibility here with respect to that global network. So that was with my moderator's hat off. Yurie and then Hiroshi. >> YURIE ITO: My answer for that bridging the gap and also the IoT probably have a common answer from my perspective. I think we should start looking and analyzing who has a greater power of the greater power or greater ability to mitigate the risks. Right now when we talk about cyber security it's really about the devices deployer or user's perspective. I think we should shift that responsibility to the vendors a little bit or device's vendor. They have a greater power to mitigate it. After the device has been shipped and deployed it's really difficult, it's tough to have end users or our grandparents to fix the devices. We are at the ISP level even. It is a costy thing. Now think about that IoT device. The new devices or any type of devices. If the devices are shipped in a relatively safe configuration that helps and that's something we should understand in bringing them to this type of table and discuss about and how to improve that. We are thinking actually to start building the metrics to measure that device and the vendor's behavior, vender's risk posing metrics so that's one of the approaches. And I see the community is moving into that direction as well. >> Very shortly with that important thing is procurement process. Good example would be in the U.S., NISD, GAO and effectively regarding the procurement process. Procurement process defined the technical specification requirement which should include security function and everything will be changed. Reason why when I work with building people, key person is landlord. Who is making procurement? They don't have enough knowledge to specify which particular technical requirement procurement should have. That is quickly changing the floor of the system of procurement as we are given. Regarding the regulation part, transparency is an important thing. In order to evaluate technical specification we may get them to show the fact precisely and transparently that would be regulation could help to determine such a technical situation by the same owners. >> OLAF KOLKMAN: So we have about five more minutes. And I would like to ask the panelists for a few words, let's say maximum 1 or 2 sentences, sort of summarizing what their next step is going to be in securing the Internet. >> For Africa is capacity building, capacity building and capacity building. >> OLAF KOLKMAN: Clear. Yurie. >> YURIE ITO: Back to what you said, act locally and think global. >> OLAF KOLKMAN: Nick. >> NICK SHOREY: I think the big challenge we are going to face in the coming years is making sure we are all on the same page and I kind of refer not to the people in this room because I suspect if you're hear you probably believe in the multistakeholder model. I think the challenge we face is recognizing the benefits of collaborative security, identifying ways to articulate those in a variety of mediums and a variety of channels and then working together to make sure that is understood to ensure that collaborative security and open Internet continues to be the core basis by which we work. >> HIROSHI ESAKI: When you come home, back please ask every single IoT business player what is going to happen when your device is going to be connected to the Internet? What is going to happen to your device when it's going to interconnect with the other system. Please ask them very clearly. >> OLAF KOLKMAN: So with that I think we have several perspectives from people who put their money where their mouth is, I would say. Who put this in practice. And I hope that this is inspiring and I hope because I think what Nick said is a little bit true. We are talking a little bit inside our bubble. I hope you would take this message back home, take your own action and show how your action increases security and pull people along with this model. I think that is sort of what I heard as a call from the panelists. With that I would like to thank the panelists and thank you for listening along and for the good questions. Thank you. (Applause). (Session concluded at 16:25). Services provided by: Caption First, Inc. P.O. Box 3066 Monument, CO 80132 800-825-5234 www.captionfirst.com *** This text is being provided in a realtime format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) or captioning are provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. *** 7 December 2016 16:00 Dynamic Coalition on Innovative Approaches to Connecting the Unconnected (Standing by). "This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.". Services provided by: Caption First, Inc. P.O. Box 3066 Monument, CO 80132 800-825-5234 www.captionfirst.com *** This text is being provided in a realtime format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) or captioning are provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. *** 7 December 2016 16:30. Dynamic Coalition on Innovative Approaches to Connecting the Unconnected (Standing by) >> MODERATOR: Welcome, everybody, to the main session on the Dynamic Coalition for innovative approachs to connecting the unconnected. In this audience there's no need to explain the importance of increasing the reach of the Internet, increasing the number are of people online. My name is Christopher Yoo. And Helani Galpaya I understand she is not feeling well. She will attempt to join us. It is a very important week for many of us but very taxing in many ways. We are joined by three wonderful friends who are leaders in their own right in connecting people to the Internet. Anriette Esterhueysen, Karen McCabe and Alex Wong. And I thank all of them for being here and I would like to thank all of you are for being here as well. I'm delighted to have the chance to share this with you today. If you would start the slides, please. So the wonderful thing or the reason we are really driven to do this is the build on the work the Internet governance forum has done. It's been extended by the national and regional IGFs that are doing great work. In many ways they are the people responsible for getting this vision started and getting people working towards the idea of broadening the reach of the Internet. At the same time the Internet society is making grants to make all this possible and local chapters instrumental in sharing information and making and building a sense of community. There's wonderful new initiatives. Alex's organization and Karen's organization that have been helpful. In addition there's the community networking community which really is one of the most vibrant parts of building up the Internet and in fact one of the things we are going to do is I'm going to show you some of the case studies we learned and most of them are going to be from the community networking community. Many of the people who have done those projects are actually going to be either here in the room with us or doing participating remotely with us through remote connections. And governments, businesses, many, many actors and it's really consistent with the multistakeholder separate of the IGF. The problem is so large that we understand that we cannot simply rely on universal funding to bridge this gap. We need the community networking community to be part of this. We need where it's sustainable business models are possible we need private investment to play its role in making this possible. Interesting observation there's many, many innovative experiments going on. There is no place where you can get a catalog of all of what those initiatives are. And more importantly, no one is collecting data to empirically validate what is working and not working. Our goal is to try to generate and when they do collect data they do so in a different idiosyncratic way each project is unique, there's to basis for comparing consistent metrics across all the different projects. Our goal we have to be very realistic in the sense that data collection is hard and expensive but to make some attempt to get some traction on ideas of what is working and not working and also to share the learnings we have in different communities and initiatives to make it's possible for all of us to moved forward and share information with each other. And we are depending on these other communities to give us the information, give us the insights, because we are only going to go as far as the people who participate with us and help us with the vision is going to take us. We are trying to take advantage of all the wonderful things people are doing in the communities and to make them work. Once we have that information we are going to make it available on the website. We are going -- every initiative we can find will make a good faith effort to complete the process. There are times for confidentiality reasons individual projects have been reluctant to participate we respect that but we are trying to be as comprehensive as possible and develop every case study we can find. We have identified more than 200 potential case studies and completed the narrative portion of 20 of them. Right now they're available in PDF forms. We are trying to search them into a searchable database. We have an invitation to share your story. We would like to get the opportunity for anyone with an innovative story they would like to bring, please share it with us. We are creating a blog telling the stories before the case study is released. And the final stage will be the synthesize the information and disseminate it. That's the warm up. Here is the fun part. I'm going to share with you a half dozen stories of the things we found and they're really in my opinion inspireing to me about people have been able to do. There's a company organization, this is a community owned and funded initiative to provide broad band in one island. It was started by a health care professional who had the experience that many community networking institutions do. They approached the operators and asked them if they were interested. They were unable to do so. They approached governments. Finally they decided to build it themselves even though they were not engineers they developed the expertise based on the commitment. They piggybacked on a satellite connection for the emperor of Japan to provide 15 mega bit service. It's the first service for this entire area. And the real issue there is telemedicine because of the gee graph of Vanuatu it takes them two days to get to a hospital. It provides connectivity for 2600 people. The cost is $6,000 done by $2 contributions. And they attended to deploy the 2.4 giga hertz. And it provided Internet links outside the island for the first time. This is an amazing story which I think is something that can be learned that we need -- that other projects can benefit from hearing. Nepal wireless networking project. I should apologize. The people who obviously did this project no far more about it than I do. So if I make this our attempt to represent part of it. We need your help to improve the case studies. If I make mistakes I will apologize in advance. They will provide the first connectivity to 200 remote Hamlets using TV space then and community wi-fi. And interestingly as we talked about smart cities there was an earthquake that was both a tragedy but created an opportunity. They are creating smart villages. This has been a tremendous success, online payments and e commerce and allowing smart villages to thrive. Third example that I didn't think about when I began this project, refugees and undocumented migrants, even if they're in places where there is Internet service available they don't have the permanent addresses and credentials and payment systems to take advantage of them. Through a series of donations to spaurt the base stations they're supporting 50 kilo bit per second in two locations in refugee camps in the Netherlands supported by devices to make them functional. What is happening now is providing connectivity. We cannot report the number of connections because they regard that as essential not to reveal that to protect the privacy interests of the refugees. There are current discussions to expand it to other countries which are also being affected in Europe by the refugee crisis. And this is supporting 12 different nodes using solar powered stations. It's providing connectivity for 3500 people and most importantly the charges are 50% lower than the incumbent is charging. One of the insights we have had is it's important to train to make it sustainable you have to train the community members to maintain these sorts of nodes because many of them will go up but when they encounter problems if you have not done the capacity building it's often unsuccessful. The solar charging stations are an essential part of the revenue model because service is done at a low cost. Everyone needs to charge their devices and that's how their making the financing work. Democratic remember of Congo. This is an island in the middle of a lake in DR Congo run by a king who has authorized the use of a major kiosk that provides connectivity for devices but really provides critical information for this community, one for travel safety they need to know the travel conditions whether it's safe to cross the lake and they need to know the security status of various parts of the Congo and they are able to do this providing the first Internet access to these 10,000 people in DR Congo and provide vital information they need. And these small devices is providing uncensored access. This is a very inspirational story. And providing connectivity to 16 rural communities. In the first instance they have a very interesting approach, they really are looking for the communities that are willing to commit and contribute part of the money to connect to the Internet, they're asking for an initial investment of $1,500. They provide support for an open source software solution to make it run. It's supporting access to banking, health care. Rise a matic success allowed them to go to the regulator. It's been a tremendous opportunity. Wireless for communities in India, again connecting over 120,000 people in a country number one in the area, two in the area of cell phone connective. It's reaching travel communities, and they have a project targeted of women entrepreneurs. They understand the need of capacity building at the local level. All the traditional things associated with this and it been a tremendous success. These are just the tip of the iceberg. There are other case studies in fact wireless for communities has an agenda component. I'm supporting UN women in part by wearing the orange shoes to curb violence against women. Disabled communities, seniors, youth access, illiterate communities which are some of the most challenging to serve. There are are learnings that I think that many people in this community already know about but many people outside the broader community don't know about. And even the people who do know about this can use the case studies we provide as a way to educate people as the tools they need to carry the message about the innovative ways we can find to connect more people to the Internet. What comes next, we are looking to help from the community particularly because many people are pro actively involved in these projects can help us improve the work we are doing. We are interested in partnering anyone who wants to partner with us. We want the improve the existing case studies but identify new case studies and we are willing to take up the hard work. We like to leverage other people's interest and willingness to work on this project. It is our goal to develop metrics not just in the traditional ones about cost and the number of people connected but in terms of the outcomes that matter, education, gender divide, digital divide. And our hope is to consolidate this information in a uniform format and make it available to everyone, pull that information together and disseminate it to the public. What can we ask for you or what can you do to help? This is to join the dynamic community coalition mailing list. Every time we get a case study we will push it out to let people know the results we are finding. We need though let people know that we are doing this. Bypassing the word along to other members of the community that would be vitally important to us to help us do that work. If you see work that we have done that we can improve we would welcome all that feedback as well. We are just excited about the project. We think it's important. Every partner we talked to finds it fills a niche that expands and we are delighted to talk about it with this community. Thank you very much, what I would say is we will now -- two co conveneiers. The next I will turn it over to is Michael Kende. >> MICHAEL KENDE: Thank you. First congratulations. I remember talking to you about this I think a year ago and you built it up from scratch so congratulations. I'll say a few words about why I think this is going to be very valuable. So I think stepping ban and looked in history growth rates of Internet year on year growth rates of Internet access are slowing down quite a bit. In Africa in 2008 it was 51% year on year growth according to ITU and now for the last year's numbers it was 15%. For other regions it's 10% or less. So that's okay in Europe where you're nearing saturation at 80% for are the growth rates to slow down and hit single digits but Africa has 22% Internet penetration so slowing growth rates at that level of penetration is quite worrying. So I think what it requires is a shift in approach. Many people are talking about this. I'll give a little background in my view on it. But in the last ten years infrastructure was the real focus for development. Africa at one point I think 2009 east Africa had no submarine cables, it's was all satellite. And barely any DSL or any kind of fixed. So people were focused on international connectivity, IXP's all this infrastructure. I would say this approach that was needed was in a sense you could say very linear or I wouldn't say easy but it was well-understood. The government there was a set of sector reforms that the government could undertake. Liberalizing the sector, privatizing or cooperateizeing the incumbent. These were well-known and for the large part they worked. Once those reforms were made the private sector stepped in starting investing, putting in the infrastructure sometimes with international organisations or governments putting in the submarine cables and the last came through the mobile networks. This was a pretty well understood approach and successful in many countries now 90% of people have a mobile broadband signal. Three G signal. And that's basically because we all know mobile phones cellular took off and then the upgrade from voice to mobile broadband costs about 10% of the original cost so this was well-understood technology. It was pretty-well understood. Now you have this issue where 90% of people in some countries can get access, have a signal and maybe 15 or 20% are taking it so it opens up a whole new set of issues and there's basically two sets of non-users that need to be addressed. The first are the ones that are covered by mobile broadband but they're not taking it for whatever reason. And here you have to look at the demand side and surveys of these people who aren't taking it are saying they're not interested and they don't have the skills or understanding of how to go online. So that's the one set of people on the demand side. And then there's other 10% who have no infrastructure, who have no possibility to get online and then you need new supply side approaches. Clearly the market has the ability to go into those regions but because it's high cost low demand they haven't chosen to so the traditional networks aren't extending to those areas. Then you get into hard issues that aren't as simple as the infrastructure story. You have to think ton demand side about creating local content, training, language issues, trying to create innovators to create this local language and getting them motivated with monetization that requirements payments. One region of a country may not work in another. There's all these other access technologies that Christopher just described that are are taking the place of the incumbent or mobile operators going into the regions. So that brings me to the value of the case studies. Since there's not one approach that is going to work, if you can have a depository of things that have been tried in similar regions you can start to draw that and learn from that, not make the same mistakes and move into and start to address these demand and supply side issues. I think those the real learning, both as a depository and once you have 2 or 300 case studies start to draw from that and learn those conclusions. I think that's the power of where this is going to go. And as part of the initiative that Alex is about to describe we are thinking of doing a similar thing on this policy side so what are the policy tweaks that can take place to help these networks emerge as well as lowering import taxes on smartphones. So we are talking about doing a similar case study learning approach on policy issues. Overall I think that's why this is going to be a very valuable effort and play a big role I think in meeting all of our goals of getting everyone online. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. I had like to introduce Rajan Mathews. >> RAJAN MATHEWS: Thank you, Chris. We are very excited about the Dynamic Coalition for a number of reasons. First when you look at the number of sessions here at IGF on connecting the next 1 billion, it's quite astounding. In fact so astounding that I overheard a group of folks talking over lunch saying if I hear one more session about connecting the next 1 billion I'm going to not attend the next IGF. So I think we are getting to a point where we have to get this whole discussion in the multiple fora coalesced around critical issues around what it takes to deliver on the ground level and talking at it from the particular context of India, one of the things that we have noticed is when we talk about connecting the next 1 billion it is clearly an issue for India because we have about 1.3 billion folks. Add last statistics we had about 250 million people who were connected to the Internet and most were in the urban areas and 63 to 65% of our population resides in the rural areas so that imperative is still there. It's to connect the 650 million to 700 million folks by 2020, that's astounding figure and much of that lies on the shoulders of the operators because they're the ones rolling out the infrastructure to provide connectivity. And the issues that come up are issues where our policy folks the government and the regulators find that there's very little academic rigorous analysis with good data to back up a lot of the positions that they are making. For example a case in point we all had the celebrated case of Facebook trying to do 0-rating in India and the issues that kept going back and forth based on what was going on in the U.S. and Brazil and in some instances from the EU. We didn't think that was the appropriate context. There was an implied understanding of what net neutrality ought to be taken from the FCC guidelines which add as its construct common carrier requirements and title to all of which were totally foreign to the Indian context. So again the need and the focus that needed to move to looking contextually at what it means to connect the next 1 billion. So I think this is why we are so excited about the Dynamic Coalition so that we from the operator's side are working to make sure that data is available. Obviously there's a tremendous amount of information available. And again in the context of India when you look at the rest of the countries of the world there are at least five networks in play. Unfortunately or fortunately depending on what side of the coin you look at it we have one network so most countries have a very, very penetrated land line network, high penetration of fiber, you have a wireless also connected in and highly penetrated, you have satellite, cable, private networks, government networks. In India we have one predominant network which is the mobile network. And so all of the demand for connectivity is going to ride on this one network. It imposes tremendous stess on the network and opportunities on the network, why? Because things like education, things like Governance and a plethora of other matters will have to ride on this particular single-threaded network. We have challenges in terms of spectrum. Let me give you data context. We pay because of the necessity to buy spectrum in open auction 30% more vis-à-vis global pricing than what is paid in the U.S. or Europe or anywhere else. We pay global pricing for our network elements all of our network elements. So 30% more per spectrum, global prices per network. And our average revenue per user is $3 compared to $75 internationally. So you can understand what the dynamics and the pressures are in terms of what we need to do. So we have to be careful in how we parse regulatory and policy issues that's why it's important to have credible, factual, rigorous data that is looked at academically so that the policy makers use it to do their business effectively. The big impact as I said we believe that some of the regulations just recently in the last six months, 33 papers on various subs of regulation. Some of which impact the ability of people to access the Internet and consumer interest as well as commercial interest. Again, we need that rigorous analysis and we also need this compatibility in terms of saying what is working, what is not working. Because the one thing that we find in India is that if it's not scalable and if it's not affordable, it's very little chance this is going to take off. And it's clearly one of the dynamics we are looking at. So thank you Chris and we hope that the Dynamic Coalition has as many participants. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you, Raj. We represent three of the multi stakeholder groups, Michael from the technical community and Raj from the business community. There are many issues we discuss at the IGF, there are many points of view on all of them but hopefully the goal is to collect the data where we can put this on -- talk about the disputes and the issues and understand them as well as we can in a concrete context that will hopefully improve the quality. And whatever our opinions are on individual issues we will hopefully share the commit tent to the idea that all the debates will be better formed by getting proper data and extend that farther. I'm proud of the other three people I'm going to turn to. If it's okay with you Alex I'll start you with as our next person. >> ALEX WONG: Thank you, for this purposes of the panel I'll say we represent the business community but we are actually an international institution representing all groups. The work we have been doing, I'll tell you I'm not an Internet engineer or implementation expert. What we are good at doing is raising an issue, creating a common language and convening people who are the experts in these areas to work together. This project we started off a year and a half ago was because we felt like many issue in the world these are all solvable. All the solutions are out there, more or less. So what we have been doing is together with many of the people on the panel and others in the room we actually have gone through a long process to create first of all a framework which for all of you will be very common sense. You need to address this issue through four dimensions. Our dimensions are infrastructure, affordable, skills and awareness and content. Other organisations that many of you I'm sure have slightly different variations but it's to have a common language and a message to give other leaders that it's a multidimensional problem. Secondly we have now working with many of of the partners both business and Civil Society and academia we want to work with governments to try to bring everyone together to address the issue inside the country. So move beyond the talk of the next billion to action. And in that regard there's two things that I would want to share and why I think it's great to be part of the coalition and tb here at IGF. There are so many people working on these solutions and there's a need to bring these all together. The best way to bring them together, it's nice to have the conversation here in the conference but it's going down to a country or state. And let's try to resolve this. So one of the major activities we have been trying to do is work together with many organisations out there globally to come together as one as much as we can, I call it the Coalition of the willing, to work together when we decide to do something in a country. That's a work in progress and we will continue to always be a work in progress. The second thing is let's now go into some countries to actually work and try to get these solutions exposed and understand what are some of the policy regulatory challenges that need to be addressed. And we have kicked off our first programme in Africa, we did just kick off something in Argentina as well with our first meeting a few weeks ago only and we are looking to do something in India. All this plays to why I think it's important to have this conversation at IGF and why it's important to be part of the Dynamic Coalition because not one single actor is going to be able to address the issue. We have to create the framework that everyone with work together. I've been excited to learn more of the grassroots or the community network activities happening. We have to create the frame works that empower the people on the ground to take charge. It doesn't have to be a top down solution but we to have create the right framework and environment that allows human beings to do what they're best at which is to innovate and be entrepreneurial. We were brainstorming the work that Christopher is doing. We need dynamic partnerships to figure out the right solution for every situation. We are looking to see hue we can put forces together to do a data case in one of the programs that we are doing at the world economic forum. So stay tuned on that and hopefully we can contribute to the project Christopher is mentioning. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you, Alex. I understand the ambiguity in characterizations. The point is there's labels. There's a lots of people, Anriette is as technical as anybody in this experience and it's hard to put anybody in a single bucket. Next, Karen McCabe of IEEE. >> KAREN McCABE: Thank you very much. We started the Internet initiative at IEEE a few years ago, 2014 to be exact. The initial charge was about connecting technologists to policy makers so there was more informed information to the policy makers when their making their decisions, understanding technology and the impact of those decisions. Through course or journey of the effort we have come across and been connected to so many great people and partners and ideas that have been fed into the initiative but also outside the initiative. IEEE is a large professional association. The strength that we bring to this challenge and into the dynamic coalition is that technical experttise that we have under the umbrella of the IEEE so through the course of this past year we have been holding two types of events, one is technology events. And the other is what we call our advancing solutions events. We had two in DC because we were trying to align them with the World Bank meetings. It's important that we address the financing issues around these as well. We also had a local one in Delhi in September. Alex outlined the 4 or 5 sort of parameters or the structure of the Internet for all initiative. Many of our initiatives have different framework or similar frame works so we sort of look at it holistically but from 4 or 5 dimensions, one is of course technology, one is infrastructure, one is policy and regulation. And of course the capacity building part of it as well. So we have been working with ISOC, the World Bank and people centered Internet. There's also a critical element of this is having a human centric approach to this as well. And at those events we have been learning more and more about different types of projects and that's I think how we got connected to the great work that you're doing, Christopher, and the coalition is doing. As we have those discussions on how to advance those solutions to go beyond discussion which is also critical, I know there's sometimes criticism about the talk tanks about a lots of these issues, you have to have those discussions and that dialog to raise awareness and get connected. And now take what you've learned in that information and the connections that you've made and start moving that into action. I'm pleased to see here at this IGF, I know you mentioned, that there's so many sessions on connectivity. But I think it's shows the criticalty of the issue but also when you attend some of those sessions you see the movement towards action and I think it's really a very positive sign and a good sign as we try to address the challenges that we have at hand. So with that I know we went to get into a dialogue and of course with the audience participation to get that engaged here. But we really are supportive of this and we find our self very much aligned so sum of having enough information and analytics to make an informed decision is so critical. And how we can learn from each other to expedite the solutions moving forward is what we are focused on so thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. It's a personal thank to you Alex and Internet for all and Karen for IEEE who allowed knee participate in some of the work they're doing. They're both leaders in this area. It's been a tremendous contribution. It was Karen to first attuned me to the idea of thinking about the international development banks and other potential audiences for this type of work who vitally need this information who are prepared to make investments but need data to base those decisions. And that was a dimension of the work I had and it's part of participating with partners that made that much more a bigger project for me and I think a higher impact one. And without last but not least final speaker will be Anriette Esterhueysen of ABC. >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUEYSEN: Thank you. We are an international network of member organisations. We were established in 1990 and emerged in the late 80's from community networks, organizations that were providing services. And using appropriate technology. Operating at a local level. Using technology for example that worked really effectively. And also that both those networks on the basis of an integrated approach to connectivity as being parts of political participation, social change, content creation and harnessing technology to give communities more agency. I'm rather skeptical when I see innovation being used in this context. And APC members when there was commercial Internet available we went through a massive transition, APC members who were service providers either went out of business or reinvented themselves on capacity building training content creation. It's amazing to see how they are now emerging as leaders. And what we have been doing in terms of access and connectivity what is we feel can make a difference so broadband policy, more transparency and fiber, we have worked on white space, and trying to influence regulators in approaching spectrum from a more dynamic spectrum. And community network and infrastructure sharing is another area we have been advocating for. And more diversification of Internet service provision markets. And just a look at the IGF and the whole debate of the connecting the next billion of the IGF is one we are are critical of. It was a drive to build a nice international corporation to achieve people development to access to technology. It's disturbing we went from that to the fortune at the bottom of the pyramid to connecting the next billion. We went from this paradigm to one which really has been in my view about recreating more consumers. And one which has been critique of this and you would have people talk about the important concept and capacity, it really has been primarily about the next billion consumers. Mostly for the mobile industry. And of course this has made a massive difference from the point of view of increasing connectivity, financing the supporting back law but now is the time where we step back and look at what it is we really want to achieve. And that's why I think this coalition is so important. Working in access since the 1990s I'm relatively skeptical at this moment in time of global efforts. I think what I see is top down international initiatives, actors, governments, saying you've got to deal with connecting more people. I think there's a realization it's important. There's fear on the part of governments on what the Internet can do in terms of political stability, cultural change. But I really think that we can only reverse that through local action. Action from within countries. Pressure from communities themselves, from businesses, and from all diverse multistakeholder spaces in the country. In my experience I find that governments and regulators actually are quite irritated when these global efforts come and tell them they need the Internet and they connect their people to the Internet. I think they know that and I think where there are barriers we need to find more effective ways I think of addressing those barriers. I'm not saying we shouldn't collaborate at a local level but I have a degree of skepticism about that. We talked about community networks but public access I think is the other important way of providing sustainable access which has always fallen prey to this next billion approach. That might be something for this Dynamic Coalition to look at. Just a few remarks and data. Yes it's absolutely important. I think it is necessary, I think regulators actually are struggling to get data and many country's operators are not providing regulators particularly on issues of quality of service which has become a massive problem in terms of mobile and mobile data. Regulate yours often struggle to get the data from operators. I think it's helpful to have data at the global level, we also need data at a local level and the data needs to go into a system where it can be used in for example forcing regulators to intervene in interconnection for example and that has happened very effectively. It's a pity Helani is not here. There's incredibly valuable research and that is influencing regulators. So I think that's the challenge. Having the data is not enough. It needs to plug into a system where it can be used for influence. It's also very political. The data needs to be independent. I think in our sector we have a lot of market research which is produced by industry bodies which then starts operating in the public policy space and can influence policy makers so they treat it as research when in fact it's not necessarily independent research. So who pays for are the research also can be quite important. Who validates the research? That could be quite a challenge with your initiative. And I think you need to think about that, once you've connected the data and the case studies how does the validation take place, is it the users of those networks on the ground that validates it or is it a demonstration type exercise that can show how many exciting examples there are. And yeah I think the issue, we also need to balance how much we spend on collecting this kind of data on doing case studies with money that could be spent on actually supporting deployment. So getting that balance right but I think you're trying to do that in the way you're working and working cooperatively with the operators. Yes, finally I think innovation. I think as I said I'm happy that we are calling this innovation and innovative approaches because they're buzz words but it's recognition that has been the dominant model of approaching access is failing and what we need to do is revisit models that link demand and supply, that look at content and capacity. And that look at diversity of type of operators. We have the Internet is one of our newest sectors, it's one in which there's the most concentration and we have so much monopoly, there's so little competition in social networking platforms, and access through the mobile industry we are trying to achieve competition at a national level but amongst model operators there's very little competition between ISP's for example and mobile service providers. And I think that's why the community networks is such a good model. It's not just about community networks, it's also about small and medium ISP's. Let's look at this as innovative but it's also an approach that's emerging from recognition of some of the older more traditional ways of doing development and of achieving community empowerment and social change actually do work best. So... >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Anriette. I always learn from you when ever we speak. I find myself in violent agreement with everything you say this. Is really -- we are looking at local projects and the idea is to distill that information and turn it into a usable forum. You're letting us tap into deployments and gives us tremendous insight into pushing that forld. About public Anna Nicole Smith access we are looking at publicly provided services and our goal, our determination is really to go into each project with no providers not to assume there's one model that we are going to prefer another. I saw you had this discussion in one of the meetings about community networking. Even within community networking there's many ways to do that and part of what we are learning through this process is finding out what those varieties are around start to share that even within different communities to make that come out. Cost is no question. The data is going to be hard. I have no allusions but how difficult and expensive it is to collect. Particularly when we try to translate it into the challenge you're giving us and I think it's to turn it into real outcomes, that's reflects from the global community's commit tent to SDGs and the way those SDGs reframe the way we talk about this. You know as well as I do getting data on the that when the academic community hasn't even agreeed on the way to measure that in a way that is relevant is challenging. Our attempt is maybe into better than to say here are some ideas that really seem to be bad, here's some ideas that seem to be good and here are some we don't know. I'm humble about what the first effort is going to be like. What our goal is to start a dialogue where we start to develop those metrics and data gathering as a first step but hopefully not the final step. And you mentioned LIRNE Asia, I agree with you they do great work. We spent an our talking about the data collection and we are going to try to tap into the expertise of ever scholar to try to learn more about this. I love your idea about demand side and supply side are linked. What we have discovered is the debate tends to frame particular policy initiatives as stand alone initiatives. In fact they often have to go together with other things in order to be effective. And that one of the lessons that Mike was talking about if just frame things this term of making Internet more available and cheaper without understanding the other aspects on the demand side you can built great networks and not get the kind of results we are all committed to doing. There are policies linked together that we had no clear understanding before now and we may not be able to quantify what the linkage is but it's going to start the process of a dialogue and we are going to let the research go where it goes. I wouldn't name anybody but I know from talking to organisations they're funding initiatives and some don't work. They sort of bury the ones that don't work because they don't talk about them. I'm not going to shy away from talking about every story because I believe we need to learn as much about the stories that didn't turn out as well add we would like as the ones we read about all the time because that's part of the data we fwleed to make this go forward. I always want to get dialogue from the people in the community and I'm acutely aware we are the last event on a day and so I will without further ado as promised I would give the first intervention to remote moderation. Sharda. >> Hi. My name is Alexis I want to say thank you to everyone (Away from microphone) network. I didn't know anything about it when I first started so it was a painful process for us. I really appreciated what Alex Wong said (Away from microphone) I saw first hand. And also Anriette about what the data (Away from microphone). >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. >> Just wanted to introduce Alexis, she's the Peace Corps volunteer. She's currently joining us. And as someone who had the chance to speak to her I want the say it's a pleasure to have someone from these communities be able to join the Internet governance forum and represent the spirit of this forum which is to go as global as you possibly can. >> MODERATOR: I see people in the audience who are the storiess that are inspiring us and providing the lessons that the rest of us can learn. And I'm hoping that the generosity of our friends in Vanuatu in sharing the story will make it so the next person facing this problem will have a better experience. It's critically important to make that happen. >> Hi. I'm an ISOC ambassador. One thing seeing how the IGF's focus on, something we are not talking about at all and it's really critical is how data in other parts of connecting the next billion or connecting those that are unconnected, how it's going to affect energy and climate change. There was a study that came out earlier this year that says if we don't change our current data habits eventually all energy that we produce is going to go towards storing data, towards these kinds of aspects. So something that I hope this dynamic coalition can work more with is how for instance and multistakeholder solutions. For instance it's not just about powering devices which is still an issue in many parts of the world but it's also how are we going to power the data, how is it going to be renewable and how is it going to be sustainable but also think about other things like resources. In order to get online somebody needs to have a device. That device takes energy to produce, it takes carbon to produce, it takes rare elements to produce. Where are those devices coming from? Are they coming from recycled parts, from the global North that are then going to global South? Are there new devices? How are they getting access to those? We need to be much more considerate of how energy is going into all of this process because I'm really worried about the future state if we don't address this more effectively. >> MODERATOR: I think that's an important consideration. Some of the stories and it's not quite parts of the chain you're identifying that I've found inspirational there's an organization eco net wireless operating in Zimbabwe. They are facing a challenge. They are going to off grid locations empowering 3 G cell towers with diesel. I know there's many duplicates efforts going on and when someone cracks that nut we have to make it work. This is the stage we are collecting the metrics on any of the SDGs. We are probably not going to be able to develop workable metrics for every SDG. If we are radioing at upstream impacts from device manufacturers, if we are going to take the approach of letting the data talk that's going to be a challenge but we are open to the possibility of exploring it and seeing if we can develop those kinds of things. Anyone else? Please. >> AUDIENCE: James. On the same point, if you're looking at energy costs, you need to consider that holistically, you don't want to consider the energy costs just within the Internet infrastructure because chances are connectivity is going to substitute for some other energy use. If you can get information wirelessly and remotely maybe you done have to drive to your library and the energy cost doesn't care whether it's for the Internet or something else. If you can look at the data on that look at it holistically. >> MODERATOR: Absolutely. Part of the energy cost, one of the case studies we did in Papau New Guinea before the wireless happened the only connective they would have is climbing a mountain and get weak service from 25 kilometers away to ordering supplies. They would have to walk two days and walk back. This is one of the benefits in ways that we have to think about all together. >> Can I also comment on this? Sorry. You know commenting on the energy the renewable energy sustainability issue is a massive challenge. We are beginning to see and I think you see in the mobile energy there's more renewable energy in infrastructure and building of towers and sustaining energy so the connectivity cost itself quite a lot can be done and is being done. You need to look at holistically and if you look at the device manufacturer, the fact that we have cheaper devices, they're not recyclable, the computers are designed to stop working after two years, open hardware by the way and I think that's one of the exciting things emerging from the community networks sector is the idea of open hardware. From a sector wide perspective we are doing really, really badly and I'm not sure what will change it. Cheap phones make a big difference in people's lives and giving people access to connectivity but it also comes at a huge cost of environmental sustainability. We are only scratching the surface of that discussion. >> MODERATOR: In the end I don't know that we will come up with answers. Hopefully we will come up with data that will improve those answers. Please. >> AUDIENCE: I'm from Nepal. Little things when we do with social activism, there's a benefit to the community people. In Nepal we have one person, he started a small community level wireless network system. So it went very well and they are using a wireless system for their social activities. And it is giving their livelihood very smoothly going up. So what I'm saying is when talking about the big industry is like in Nepal so one of the most revenue collector is from the Europe, the company, that company earns lots of money and are taking the way from Nepal. But when we talk about the small entrepreneurs we don't have that much money to fund them so what is the dilemma in between these kinds of processes? They are not willing to do a kind of support this kind of small initiatives. >> MODERATOR: I can speak for some of the case studies one of the things that emerges from some of them, some and not all of them, is that the addition of connectivity is unleashing the kind of small scale entrepreneurship you're talking about. There's an initiative again not on connective side, capacity building which is oriented towards entrepreneurship of women. We learned a lot of interesting things. Some of the training they do is not just in centres, they do interactive training on apps. They're creating an online bulletin board and communication system so even after the training ends they can maintain a sense of community, they can share information, developmentors, and have access to a lot of a broader community because capacity building on the entrepreneurship side requires just as much lateral support as capacity building on the maintenance side. We are learning from the case studies a lot of germs of ideas of places we need to explore, we see there's many different ways people are doing things that are begging for a bit to examine them more closely oon see if they can work as models and make people aware whether this is the practice they would like to build in their systems. Anyone else? I'm talking too much. Please. >> AUDIENCE: Louise Bennett. I would relieved to hear you saying you're going to publish case studies that don't work. I come from the scientific community and one of the big problems is repeatedly I see people doing things that I know of been done before and haven't worked and it really one of the things that has been very good in the last few years in the UK our research councils have demandd if they give you money, even if you don't succeed in your research, and it's not in a peer review publication, you must publish your results. And they're doing that in the U.S. as well. I think it's important because people don't want the publish their failures but you learn as much from failure as from success. I think asking all the funders to say please say what has happened and if it didn't work why it didn't work. So someone doesn't make the same mistakes is really important. >> MODERATOR: So one of the virtues I feel about being an academic institution that's part of my values. This project will make a good faith effort to publish every case study. If we can't get cooperation from the people doing the project, that's a different -- and there maybe selection bias in that. I know my publishing this I will lose friendships perhaps in parts of the world but it's too important to do. So any questions, we are going to look at everything and publish everything and let the data go where it goes because the bottom line is I don't care where you are in this community we can't afford to be wasting time and effort on bad ideas. There's too much work we need to do than to short change ourselves in that manner. Go ahead. If there's no one else I'll allow him to have a second question. >> AUDIENCE: Thank you for are that. Michael, ISOC ambassador. Just to follow up, I do want to say there are solutions and they are actually multistakeholder in nature. Coming from multiple avenues some from the private sector some from the government. I wrote a lengthy article about climate change in the Internet that I published a few months ago. I'll be happy to share it on the list. The point is especially when I get excited about something that I think it's not being addressed, to end on a positive note there are these -- the solutions are out there and oftentimes going back to the whole reason why this DC needs to exist is we are not communicating about those solution as cross communities so the more we can raise that awareness, it will be implemented in a sustainable way. >> MODERATOR: There are solutions and sharing with them is important. We are happy to work with anyone to develop any of them. That's the idea. We really do need a community. I'm acutely aware we are getting rapidly close to the end of the day. Is there any other remote participation? I want to make sure if they have taken the time to do that. What I would like to do to close this event is swing down the table and start can Anriette. Anriette? >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUEYSEN: Not much more, as long as we apply I think important positive look at failure and it is indeed great that you're looking at that. I think also to apply critical thinking. I think in the multistakeholder space we it's quite inspirational to be in such a diverse space and work with this collaborative spirit with other stakeholders but we need to retain critical perspectives and critical thinking. And I think that applies as much to this theme as it does to any other theme in the IGF. >> MODERATOR: Michael? >> MICHAEL KENDE: So one thing thinking about the energy issue that you raised is how the Internet and empowering entrepreneurs kind of creates its own solutions so I'm sure you know about the stories of the you can buy these solar panels and then use your phones to pay off the panel and if you send a little money you can use it for an hour, if you send a little more you can use it for a couple hours who charge your phone. There's a number of them around Africa. So it creates its own solution so it solves the charging problem, creates more power for the household so they don't use kerosene or anything else bad for the climate or dangerous for their house. Eventually in 3 or 4 years they own it. So those are entrepreneurs taking existing solutions and createsing new things on the top of that. >> MODERATOR: Karen. >> KAREN McCABE: I read your paper and it inspired me. As I amongstd IEEE is a large organization and we have a lot of work. Personally it did resonate with me. So from the energy piece I know we talked about the climate impact of that and the use of smart energy but also a lot of the focus when we look at connecting the unconnected is on ICTs and we need energy and we need power in order to make the ICTs work so I think this ecosystem not to put scope creek into the project goes beyond ICTs in a sense and sort of have to start looking at some of those other impacts also from an environmental perspective but also how do we get energy to realize the deployment of those ICTs so that people can have meaningful access and can grow socially and economically. >> MODERATOR: Raj. >> RAJAN MATHEWS: I think one of the things we have been looking for is sound economic principals that need to be applied to this because there's new thinking on the economic models that need to be used. I constantly hear the old tried and true Orthodox methodology. By way of a case studies the department of telecommunications mandated a reduced carbon footprint for renewable energy and it was solar panels. If we had done that five years ago we would have looked at a massive write offs on our box because of the crash of prices for solar panels. Good objective. So we need to look carefully at these things. >> MODERATOR: Alex. >> ALEX WONG: I think the case study, the reason why I think it's great, many much you probably think about we should collect case studies and then you get to the point I got this, who is going to make it's searchable, how are we going to make it accessible. We don't have the resources. Right now Christopher has the resources. Let's make his teamwork. Give him the raw materials so we can keep his team busy. It's like a free labor resource. It may not last that long. I'm not aware of that many other initiatives where they're trying to do this. Of course we have to keep doing what we need to do but if we can support that I'll do what I need to support that. It's a depository that we can build off of in different markets and in different situations. >> MODERATOR: I appreciate that Alex, thank you very much. It's one of the advantages of being in a University. A lot of the leaders and people doing this are aspiring graduates, people trying to put this into the backbones of their dissertations. It's a time -- we are scaling back into the undergraduates for whom this kind of labor intensive detailed work is a tremendous learning experience for them so the hope is to leverage a unique role that universities can play into a reality that we can do something good for the people who are going the work as well as the community as a whole. We will conclude our event. Please join me in thanking the panel for participating in a very stimulating discussion. (Applause). (Session concluded at 17:52). Copyright © 2016 Show/Hide Header