You are connected to event: CFI-RPC6 P Raw file. Internet Governance Forum 2016. Enabling Inclusive and Sustainable Growth. Jalisco, Mexico. 7 December 2016. Workshop 234. Linking connectivity, human rights and development. 09 :00. Raw file. Internet Governance Forum 2016. Enabling Inclusive and Sustainable Growth. Jalisco, Mexico. 7 December 2016. Workshop 234. Linking Connectivity, Human Rights and Development. 09:00. >> 1, 2, check, check. 1, 2, 1, 2, check. (sounds fabulous). >> 1, 2, 1. Workshop 234. Linking Connectivity, Human Rights and Development. 09:00. >> Executive Director of the alliance for ... (off microphone). Broad Coalition of member organizations from across Civil Society, public and private sectors, combination of research, advocacy and direct country engagements. AFI works with national multistakeholder Coalitions to enable affordable equal Internet access for everyone everywhere. Excellent partner of ours at the table, at the Internet inclusion events which are giving input into the global connect initiative which the U.S. Department of State can fill us in on a bit later, Manu Bhardwaj. Before going to Sonia Jorge I want to lay out the scene that I see and that led us here. We are here to extend the benefits of the open Internet, the economic benefits, benefits to human rights, realization of rights, as well as to prevent harms and inefficiencies. We want to embed respect for human rights, affordability and sustainability into the design of network systems, whether it's technical or policy. Speaking of technical systems, and we want to apply this to the whole stack from the underground cables up to the spectrum policy and the application layer. There is also urgency. We are not doing this in a vacuum. The global goals compel us to significantly increase access to information and communications technology, and strive to provide universal and affordable access to the Internet in least developed countries by 2020. By 2020, universal and affordable access to the Internet in least developed countries, that is 9C. If that wasn't urgent enough, this summer at the high level political Forum, goal 9 will be reviewed. The progress will be reviewed. There is a bit of urgency here. First I'll ask Sonia Jorge, what are the lessons that you have learned around the world over the past few decades, working with local communities, working to advance information and communications technology, what are the lessons that financiers and funders not to mention implementers should learn? What is the guidance looking like and what are the challenges? >> SONIA JORGE: Thank you, Peter. Thank you for having me here. It is a pleasure to talk to all of you. Very interesting topic. What I would like to if you don't mind, I'll step back a bit, and speak a little more to how we are working not only at the AFRI, because of the trends that are worrisome, not just in terms of lack of access but also lack of privacy and full digital rights agency in the space, we look at the entire ecosystem let's call it from a digital equality perspective. With that, we focus on two kinds of areas, one digital inclusion, as you said I lead the digital inclusion program within the foundation of which AFRI is one of the anchor projects. Then we also work on digital citizenship. Why do we think both are important? One, because from a digital inclusion perspective, for us this is important that all of the work and the thinking that we as a collective community do in this area focuses on ensuring that everyone regardless of gender, income, location, benefits equally from the Internet and the economic and social opportunities that can bring. That is an important point to remind ourselves from the outset. The other, very much so in line with our digital citizenship concept is that we need to ensure that the Web remains truly open, and that affords everyone the rights and information that they need to participate fully in civic life. The reason why I mention these two points from the outset is because they cannot be divorced from each other. The reason why for us at the Alliance for Affordable Internet access and equal access are so key is because ultimately we want everyone regardless of where they are, regardless of who they are, to enjoy the benefits of full Democratic participation in society, economic and social opportunities that they are entitled to have. It's important that we bring all of this together, and understand the intersections, so we can then address the challenges that we are faced based on the trends that unfortunately we are not only seeing, but as a community working on Internet need to understand how to address. Would I say some of the challenges in addition to what you mentioned, Peter, that has to do with of course finance and many other issues around affordable access, I would also call attention to a few other challenges that for us at the Web Foundation are important and are becoming increasingly a worry as we define our programs and work for the next few years. One is the fact that the digital revolution is creating not just new patterns of privilege but also new patterns of discrimination. I think that many of you here in the room can probably share with us how you see that is taking shape. But if we are serious about changing the picture of development of the Internet, we need to think from that perspective. It's not important, it is not enough to think about some of the questions that we are starting to pose. We need to start thinking about why the digital revolution is causing job losses, and wage polarization and not just productivity gains. There is always two sides of each question. We need to address both sides. Only when we address both sides are we doing justice to the full extent of the challenges that we face. Same way that privacy and autonomy of citizens, we need to ensure that it is not taken away from anyone, and that ordinary citizens can have the power to exercise their agency to make their choices and to fully benefit from the opportunities of the Internet. It's also important that we recognize the complexities of crossborder interactions and crossborder issues from policy, regulatory perspective but also from human rights perspective and from a social perspective. Lastly, amplifying voices of fear and hate can be a worrisome trend on the Internet today, one that we need to battle against, and increase many more voices of tolerance and rationality to combat that. We need to look at both sides of the picture. For us it's important to always ground ourselves in that reality, when we think about issues of access, digital rights, affordability, citizenship, what have you. Without taking too much time, please tell me if I should stop, Peter, what I would say is that it's really important for us to think about all of these issues from the perspective of what we at the Web Foundation see as three goals for our work, some around power, making sure that everyone has their voice heard, accountability so we can keep companies, governments, ourselves accountable in all shapes and form and opportunities, so that all of the work that we do brings those opportunities, especially to marginalized populations, not the privileged. Many of us are the privileged here in these rooms. Not those of us who are already privileged and can enjoy the benefits of the Internet but marginalized populations around the world that we work with, women, poor and rural populations, those are the ones we need to focus on to create the opportunities that the Internet can bring about. I'll stop there. And we can address more specific actions as the discussion continues. >> PETER MICEK: Thanks. I think that is a very comprehensive picture and it lays out the intersections and the very real problems that are already seen, new patterns of discrimination. Given this mass, kind of wall of potential harms, new harms and then added on to the traditional divides, these marginalized populations, perhaps during the last mile, perhaps in the last urban area on the political agenda, how does a company like Microsoft with global operations, Caroline, approach these massive problems but really try to bring a technical expertise and a overarching belief in the power of technology to bring these benefits, democracy, Democratic politics, or it's socioeconomic and really improving people's lives. But first let me give a introduction, who you are. One of two PhDs on this distinguished panel, Carolyn Nguyen is smarter than me, is a director of technology policy at Microsoft, she is cochaired the open Government partnership private sector council, has a PhD in electrical engineering, is it? (chuckles) please lead us. Go ahead. >> CAROLYN NGUYEN: Thank you very much, Peter and also for revealing the fact that I'm a geek to the entire world. (chuckles). But on a more serious note, thank you so much for enabling us to be part of this really important conversation. I want to applaud Access now for taking the leadership and putting forth the need for human rights ... do you hear me now? I want to applaud Access Now for leadership to make sure that human rights principles are incorporated in connectivity projects going forward as part of the global connect initiative that we will be talking about later. Thank you for laying out a comprehensive context for the issue, Sonia. I'm going to start with a couple things. One is the integration of human rights principles into the process. This is mentioned in your principles but it is also very much recognized as part of the WSIS+10 review, which extend the mandate for the IGF. It is very much about progress towards the WSIS vision should be considered with respect to the realization of human rights and fundamental freedom. As a technology company, we absolutely strongly believe that in terms of the potential of ICT to enable and strengthen the exercise of human rights, enabling affordable access as well as freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association. You mentioned as a technology company, so yes, we do operate in 120 countries around the world. As part of that, we recently released actually a policy roadmap called cloud for global good, where integrated within it are principles for establishing a trusted cloud and inclusive cloud and also a responsible cloud. Inclusive means it's built entirely into our mission. We believe in empowering every individual in the world to achieve more. Let me talk a little about commitment to human rights and specifically some of the affordable acts as initiatives that Sonia had laid out for. Since 2006, Microsoft has been signatory of the UN global compact, and it is very much about how we as a leading technology provider with global operations and presence in working throughout the communities where we operate globally can help to advocate, have developed responsible policies that will support human rights. The human rights issues that we focus on, in addition to appreciating -- we are strong believer in all of the human rights principles, but specifically on human rights issues or accessibility, ensuring online safety, freedom of expression, privacy as well as security, to the point that Sonia made, when you look at a technology company we need to take responsibility for innovation but also addressing and mitigating challenges that are posed by technology. This is where we strongly believe in being a part of the conversation and the strength of the multistakeholder process as we engage in these conversations, because it is only through working together that we can identify the challenges and issues, and as we work together to address to find solutions, to address them as well. As an example, let me take one of our affordable access initiatives. We have been involved in the last mile projects around the world. For example, one of the projects that we were involved in is in Kenya, the last mile access, in a remote village with no utility infrastructure. What we did there was try to work with the Government as well as the local communities which include the local Red Cross office, the local school, a local flower farm. The notion there is what are the issues. It is not just about putting down infrastructure but it's enabled them to be used in a meaningful way, in other words in a way that would enable economic development for the community. That is where the issues around solar power came up. We worked to, one solution to that is we use a container as a Internet cafe, where it is operated by a local systems integrator and as a story about how a young man would come into the Internet cafe, pay 3 or $4 for a month and come online, and start to provide technology support around the world, actually one of the things he said was to somebody who lives in San Francisco. So this is enablement and empowerment economically at the most basic level. Some of the approaches that we use are, there is a three pronged approach, enablement through connectivity, empowerment through education as well as transformation through employment. We work with nonprofits and organizations as well as UN around the world to enable that. I want to bring up, as a specific challenge, is that recently we also partner to address the refugees issues, in terms of enablement for connectivity. Refugees needing to stay connected to their family, needing to get educated and apply for basic things as settlement on line, so all of this is enabled through ICT. I want to end with the fact that we really do need to work with everyone in order to address the challenges that Sonia mentioned to balance but also enable the reaping of the potential that technology can provide. >> PETER MICEK: Thank you. That is excellent. I want to hear more about the flower farm and how it was integrated into this fledgling last mile system. But first, you did mention one of the elements in the room which is Government, which we do not have on this panel, except for the person to my right, from the United States. But I want to push to set the groundwork here, we know that governments are not monolithic, in fact sometimes they completely change. But we do see patterns, and there is a study in science in September 2016 that found that governments still play a key role in the allocation of the Internet and can intentionally or not sabotage its liberating effects. The study was called, digital discrimination, political bias in Internet service provision across ethnic groups. I'm not going to ask you to answer, to solve the problem that study laid out. But I want to hear about how people within governments can make real change and positive action, working on their own and with in partnership with Civil Society and other stakeholders. >> Good morning. About two years ago, when I came to IGF, I often would feel that there were voices missing from the discussion about connectivity. Some of the voices were from the technical communities, some were from the financing community. It became a real concern, because you can't create and craft solutions to these big challenges if you don't have the full scope of input and voice and expertise at the table. Enter global connect. We launched the initiative 14 years ago and the top metric which is a international metric and at the State Department we are always looking for international metrics for which we can maintain support. This metric sought to bring billion people on line by 2020. We decided to launch the initiative on the Sustainable Development Agenda was adopted, in New York, because we are trying to make a important point about how the Internet is a way to achieve a lot of the SDGs, whether it's health insurance, education, we try to give the issue we care deeply about ... that continues to be a big push. (audio is extremely muffled). Infrastructure is as important as traditional infrastructure, electricity, economic development. What we have found, all of us collectively, is that perspective is missing from key players at the multi-lateral banks, at finance ministers, at technical community, at high levels of political leadership. On the Development Agenda, we have work to do together to make the point that a free, open and accessible Internet should be a priority for everyone. The initiative has taken things to the work of strategic partners. Here I want to make sure I highlight the work that Access Now did and particularly Peter Micek who is here, when we launched the initiative we had partners like IEEE, World Bank, a lot of the industry players, AFRI but there was a voice missing and that was the human rights voice. When you launch a initiative, it is good to have a open mind and realize that there are things that need to be adjusted. When Pete and other folks came to us to say, what are we going to do to give visibility to human rights considerations, they were absolutely right and they put together a set of important human rights principles for connectivity and development that I encourage everyone to look at. We are promoting it through global connect. We are proud of the work that they have done. Through the initiative, we have put together principles that I think any, I would say between us, any Democratic country would probably have no problem getting behind. But for us it is important that we make sure when we talk about access we talk about meaningful access. That includes freedom of expression, that includes a lot of these considerations that are in this document. To give you a sense of what we have been able to achieve in the past year and a half and in the road ahead, it's exciting that the State Department, our key partners have been able to highlight 65 global actions, $20 billion to promote connectivity. We felt there was a need for information about what other stakeholders are doing in connectivity and giving visibility at the finance Minister level, at the senior leadership level, there is a chance to get more funding, resources and attention. We announced this April when we had secretary Kelly and President Kim convened finance ministers and we had every single President of the MDB there and out of that came certain assumptions. One assumption that connectivity can happen just with the private sector, this is something we need to be thinking deeply about and what is our response to it because I think we would agree that there are important considerations for PP Ps and for ways for a partnership with the private sector through community centers, libraries and giving visibility to that is critical because that is a impression that people have, and a lot of these institutions and probably elsewhere. The other achievement that we have is every single bank fund, meets April, and October of every year and it is convened by the international World Bank, about the Internet, we got IEEE and Internet Society and all these great partners working together to give visibility to our cause about the Internet. Sometimes, why are you inviting me, why am I invited. We are like this is the whole point. The Internet is a critical part of economic growth. We need to be thinking about how does taxation of ICT products affect connectivity. How can you as a Minister encourage the banks to increase their funding. Right now at a typical bank they only do 1 to 2 percent of their entire budget in infrastructure for connectivity. We think it should be a lot more. 1 to 2 percent at every bank in the infrastructure budget is devoted to ICT and connectivity. This is something I learned going through the journey together with others. They were under the impression that the private sector will take care of this. There is no demand for ICT Internet. And we had to do work in educating, I'm proud of the work that we are doing on working group with M.D. Bs. Global connect, it is important to have impact in these types of initiatives. First approach, countries we help whether it's technical assistance or financing or aid or other resources from the U.S. or allies, we are inviting them to raise their hand, and ask for help. They have, Tunisia was one of our first global connect focus countries, where we are trying to help them reach ambitious goals in Tunisia. India has come forward. A number of countries are coming forward. We are trying to work with the private sector, with other stakeholders to highlight impact for this going forward. The State Department has been leading in all of the U.S. Government effort with all of our development agencies, all of our financing agencies and through that process I'm proud to tell you that we have, just in a year, have over $2 billion funding from USTDA from overseas private investment corporation from USAID, this is remarkable because some of the organizations do not do connectivity to this degree before. I would say overseas private investment corporation two years ago was not as active of a player. At the IGF it is critical to send this message, for us to succeed, it rests on your shoulders. The IGF sends a message it is not about a Government. A Government can catalyze, a Government's policies are important, create a enabling environment for growth. But to be successful is not going to be determinative by one single Government actor. It rests on all of you to help and lead the way, and I think the IGF is a important venue and we should work hard to make sure that we have all the voices here, all the experts here to deliver progress on connectivity. Thank you, Peter. >> PETER MICEK: Thank you, Manu. I want to make sure the remote participants are watching closely and come up with questions. We will throw it to you soon. Carolyn Nguyen will need to leave early. I want to get you the opportunity to give one last response and maybe respond to what Manu Bhardwaj said about assuming the private sector will solve all our connectivity and access funds, is that something you hear, does that resonate? >> CAROLYN NGUYEN: Yes, that is something that we hear a lot. At the same time that we are expected to fund everything we are not invited to be at the table. Thank you for bringing that up. The private sector can start to make some of the points but we do absolutely need involvement from the development banks and organizations who are able to fund multi-year projects, as well as make a huge difference in the trajectory, in the national agendas of governments. We can provide technology and some of the project management capabilities, but we are not able to do that. I think it does take the whole every one to be at the table to work towards these goals. >> PETER MICEK: I have two more speakers from Civil Society but I want to open it up. UNESCO would like to start. >> Thank you very much. I want to take advantage of presence of Carolyn Nguyen because you have mentioned the human rights chapter in the world Information Society outcome document. It is a important gesture from last year, advancement of the WSIS agenda, because in the Tunis and Geneva phase we didn't have this human rights chapter so explicitly as independence highlight part of the program. I'd like to draw attention to the text of the SDG, I mean there is a very explicit target and goals in the SDG as endorsed by UN last year. SDG 16 is call for justice and fundamental freedoms, particularly 16.10 is to ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms. That is a very important item we can really work on towards the development, from which means not only Internet should be human rights based but also development should be human rights based. From UNESCO, our member state has endorsed a new framework guiding Internet Governance which is called Internet universality, which you might have heard before, which called for four principles which cut across our discussion today. The first principle is human rights based which is fundamental freedom, freedom of expression, privacy, cultural, economic, right to education, security, etcetera. Secondly, the principle is about openness, the open standard, open technology, should be respected by Internet, all stakeholder including private sector, technical community, Civil Society, etcetera. The third pillar principle calls for the accessibility by all. By accessibility we go beyond the technical access. It is not just about connectivity technically. It is also about the literacy skills, ethical behavior on line which is a crucial role to so many and fourth principle, I agree with all of you, it's a multistakeholder approach, which means that to integrate human rights to Internet it is not any single actor which can solve. It is up to the collaboration and global dialogue and collaboration among all stakeholders, all actors. We need to cut across borders. We need to work together on this and target. That is two cents from UNESCO. Thank you. >> PETER MICEK: Beautiful. Thanks. Quick response from Rebecca, please. >> I'm curious, I know that in the States there has been some research that has been done on looking at digital divide projects and low income communities, to see if attention is not paid to privacy and freedom of expression concerns, what impact that has concretely on people's lives in these communities. I'm wondering if there is any, if anybody here knows of any research that has been planned or ongoing or has been conducted about the impact, what are the concrete impacts on people's lives, when privacy, freedom of expression, other human rights concerns are not taken into consideration in ICT development related projects. I'm curious how, what the state of the research is, what research needs to be done and who might do it and how that might help in getting people to implement some of these principles, and understand how this affects people's lives. And how it affects their ability to actually have agency and choice over their lives. >> PETER MICEK: That is excellent. Thank you. I think we need to take human rights out of the ether and talk about what it means concretely and on the ground. You called a question on research, I want that to be on people's minds. But we have two panelists with research in their job titles. We have Mario, Mario Viola, PhD and masters of research degree from the European university institute. He is research coordinator at ITS-Rio. I think we have been talking, Mario, about some of the policies that even after connectivity, even after there is mobile coverage, policies can still impact people's access and connectivity in a real way. Please tell us. >> MARIO VIOLA: Good morning to everyone. I think it's, I'll talk about from the Brazilian perspective. Brazil has strong legislation on protecting rights on the Web. But even having this strong legislation, it is not a guarantee that you have the protection of human rights and protection of access and connectivity to the Web which I consider to be rights in this legal framework in Brazil. Two case that we face in the last years, one is the data gap issue because Brazil is discussing at the beginning of the year they announce they put data caps and land lines and so on, something that we didn't have in the past. We used to have a limited access to the Web, at least land lines. Facebook and other applications, they are not included in the cap. But for land lines they are planning to put data caps. The national telecommunication agency they said that they support this idea but then there was a strong let's say call from the Civil Society against this idea. They were pushing the Government, and then representatives of the Parliament to back this idea. For the moment it was suspended, so there was a decision for the national communication agency and they decide to suspend for a while, to do some research, because at telecos they announce that the use of the Internet, of course some specific applications using video and so on were let's say consume a lot of data, but they couldn't let's say support this with true research but the national telecommunication agency said that they would conduct research to see if it's really the case. Then they will take again this decision on board. The other case which is still ongoing discussions, is the idea of blocking uncertified mobile phones. Brazil, it's quite common for, especially for low income populations to have let's say the smart phones that they enter into the country without the normal, following the normal rules and without paying taxes. What the national communication said is they would create a black list of numbers. They have been doing that. They have this black list, LNI, they collect the information. It goes to issues of data privacy and protection because they monitor those let's say low income population because they represent the major group using this kind of mobile phones. I would say it's a significant number, it's 40 million people using this kind of mobile phones. >> Uncertified. >> MARIO VIOLA: Uncertified ones. It's uncertified but it doesn't mean that they were counterfeit or, usually they buy these mobile phones in shops or on the street with receipts and everything. So they don't know what happened behind. They bought it in good faith. That is one of the main arguments. Then the Government has to do that but again ITS and other Civil Society organizations presented a petition and put again the issue of human rights because access to Internet and connectivity is a strong right in the Brazilian framework. We pushed for that. They decided to postpone, but this year in ITU meeting they announce that they will do that, well, they would create the database, now they create the database, they are going to behave. There is a black list. So there was a database because they use this information to block stolen mobile phones, because in Brazil, someone steals a whole truck full of mobile phones, when it leaves the company. So they were using at the beginning for that. But then they enlarge the scope of this initiative. Now they are monitoring but they are not blocking. Let's see what will happen in the future, is that they would postpone the idea, they now don't mention anything about blocking uncertain fiable but they announce they are starting measures to do that without creating a lot of impact. A important point in that initiative is that they do have a huge impact on low income groups because they are the ones that use the Internet and mainly they access the Internet through mobile phones. Mobile phone in Brazil, is quite expensive, about $250, you see that is the average in Brazil. You have a huge impact and huge discrimination for the moment, that is it. >> PETER MICEK: Thank you, Mario. We have a call for evidence based policymaking, looking at data caps, even on land lines and really interesting interplay between registration, identity and privacy in terms of using uncertified phones. I want to go just back to our final panelists, Chinmayi Arun the other research expert research director of the center for communication governance, assistant Professor of Law at national law university Delhi, a client fellow and it will be interesting to hear from you as India is one of the partner countries that was mentioned raised its hand to join global connect and to participate to come to the table. Given that kind of top level willingness, what are some of the challenges that you see that the policymakers should be aware of, when okaying these infrastructure projects. >> CHINMAYI ARUN: This is something that we have been bringing up repeatedly from the WSIS+10 review to our own internal Zero-Rating and net neutrality debate. What gets difficult in countries like India is when people see connecting, laying out cables and infrastructure the way you would do anywhere else, so what cc. G has been saying over and over again is that it's important in that kind of country to recognize marginalized people and the kind of effect that unthinking connectivity can have on them. This speaks to what Rebecca was saying, what is the impact of human rights. If you think about it, for example in the context of the Zero-Rating debate, here are people with no access to Internet will finally come on line, and little subtle part of this that they were missing is that the basics at the time, offered text based connectivity, and no video content, in a country in which most marginalized people are illiterate and consume content basically through videos. This is something that you mention to people living in other countries, it's obviously unthinkable, if you have not run into a lot of people that aren't literate, it is not reality, it is not the first thing you think of. But very simple. You spend a lot of money and a lot of infrastructure to connect people except that they can't understand what they are reading. Problem number 2 is that, I think that the probably applies to a lot of other countries, when we talk about connectivity, again I think everyone imagines the manner in which they access the Internet and we say here we bring every household on line, we make sure people have computers, we run cables. They forget that in feudal parts of India and there are many, we talk about patriarchal families in which women are not allowed to touch mobile phones without permission. We have got village governance bodies issuing edicts saying that women will not be permitted to carry mobile phones. Giving the computer to a household that is even remotely like that means that women are not able to access the Internet, or that their access is monitored. Google has done a study on this, so has UN women. One of the studies, I think the Google one, found that a lot less women choose to go online than men, and one of the reasons that they offered was that they felt that they didn't get private access to the Internet and so it didn't mean very much to them. The third which honestly we haven't studied but I wish that somebody would, if you were to bring a religious governance body on line it is likely to be from a dominant caste and the odds are it will be in a dominant area and you go to feudal India, it's likely that the caste system applies and even marginalized people don't have access because the upper class hold on to it. I feel that connectivity is a little more ... than most people suggest. >> PETER MICEK: That is our sense. We definitely want to throw it out to the audience, and the participants here in the room as well as on the remote. Sonia, please, quick intervention. >> If you have questions, fine, I can wait. >> PETER MICEK: We have one question ready. Then we will go to you. >> I have one comment. >> PETER MICEK: Please, yeah. >> I have sense of eagerness for providing connectivity particularly to economically challenged areas in search for development through ICT. I consider we should emphasize the need for creating spaces for people to decide when, how and why they need this connectivity. We presume that they need connectivity because we assume that we are the experts. But we are developing this, it is a human right to let them decide on their own when this is required, and for this we need a different perspective of what is development for the the people. Thank you. >> PETER MICEK: Thank you. >> Thank you, that is a interesting comment. The comments resonate to what I mentioned early in the session. At the Web Foundation we have done extensive research through our women's rights online program, not just to uncover exactly what the reality is for women's access to the Internet, much of which is very much grounded around failure to of course not only embrace but to respect women's rights as human beings. A lot of our research not only is grounded on those ideals, but the questions that we asked through our research surveys and other types of research that we do, are really to uncover what are the kinds of experiences that women and girls are having in different geographies and how can we think about policies that can address that. I wanted to mention that, in fact my colleague who leads our women's rights online program is here. You should ask her many questions, because she is the guru on that. A few things, our research is very clear in showing that women are 50 percent less likely to use the Internet than men. But what is interesting, besides the sad reality of this disproportionate access, is that the barriers that prevent women from coming online are quite serious. It's not just about know-how. Those are important education, some of the things that you were saying, but there is cultural issues and social issues that are preventing that to happen. That is where the rights discussion comes into play. That is why as I mentioned early on my intervention that it is important to really ground the whole discussion on digital inclusion and digital citizenship from a digital rights approach so we can look at all the dimensions of rights, when we bring access to people's realities. When we are giving access to a person, being a woman, a girl, a boy or man, what are the different dimensions of access? And how does that interaction with access to the Internet change their lives? So we are exploring a lot of these questions in fact in our research. Rebecca, you were asking, we are definitely not doing research in the U.S. because we focus on the global south. In the future we would like to look at some of the marginalized communities in the U.S. and other parts of the western world, only because in fact inequalities in many of those communities are increasing, instead of diminishing. That is a issue. But what I wanted to mention and share with all of you is that the work of the Alliance for Affordable Internet and our program at the foundation is very much about uncovering these realities and turning these lessons into what can we do at the policy level to address that. Our focus at the work at the alliance and WRO program is about turning our knowledge into action. Not only our scorecards from the gender audit that we just did issued five point action plans on what each of the countries that we cover can do to actually start changing that picture of where the gender digital divide is, but the work of the Alliance for Affordable Internet is fully focused on policy and regulatory reform to address these challenges, to address these gaps. And we work in a whole array of issues and areas in all the countries that we support directly, through our country engagement program, very much based on sound evidence and research that we conduct and our partners conduct many of which are here at IGF and do fantastic work that we all benefit from. But our work through our multistakeholder national Coalitions at the country level are about finding policy solutions, policy solutions that in many cases are around infrastructure sharing policy and regulations, in some cases around how universal access strategies need to be focusing on public access solutions, public access through libraries, public access to schools, public access through other new innovative approaches to public access, how can we think of a spectrum policy approaches that will not only be open to but actually support innovation for spectrum use, something that Carolyn Nguyen is very much focused through Microsoft as well but how can we benefit from, for example, wi-fi approaches to community access and community development. There is a whole community here at IGF that focuses on community networks. I'm sure all of you are thinking about these ideas. But the point is, we use our research and these findings and uncovering these challenges so we can also address them from a policy perspective. I challenge all of us here in the room through our work as we leave IGF to move beyond identification of those issues. A lot of us have done really fantastic work to identify where the challenges are. We need to move into action, and putting our efforts into solving problems. We are challenging ourselves to do that for sure. I hope that you can join us in that journey. >> PETER MICEK: Excellent. Thank you. At the end of the table, thanks. >> Hi, thank you very much. I'm part of the university, research fellow in privacy, I'm happy to read in principle 6 it's about privacy because privacy in big part contributes to the construction of one's identity in both individual and collective way. However, users are not always concerned about digital data, because they don't know the privacy threats of the online world. How should we connect uses in order to achieve a policy world social environment. >> PETER MICEK: Thank you for referencing these principles which I'm happy to promote as a nonobjective moderator. A few more. Let's take a few more questions from the audience. >> I thought it was Tuesday and it's Wednesday. I'm a member of the European Parliament. I'm in the women's rights and gender equality committee. I'm interested in the stuff you are doing. I work in cultural education. I'm doing stuff around citizenship and countering hate speech on line. I have a educational and development degree, I know about work putting the computer in the world and some of the work that I'm doing in Europe, in fact Microsoft has been supporting a literacy project. But I've been struggling with thinking about human rights today, having just come in fact from Brazil, where I've been doing some work with indigenous people there. I've been struggling with, when we talk about human rights and the reality of people's rights people trampled over, it's not nice reading. Development issues where people are really suffering from poverty exclusion, marginalization, effects of climate change, effects of globalization, effects of -- I'm a socialist so I lay my cards on the table now, effects of big business and profit driven agendas. When you encounter the reality of that, and do I that in my every day working life as a politician because I decided I wanted to be a voice for people who didn't have a voice, it doesn't make nice reading. A lot of people are not necessarily inclined to engage those difficult painful issues. Often we talk about our successes. But we are not so comfortable talking about steps backwards because I don't think we are even, I think the way the world is at the moment in terms of women's rights, I was at CSW in New York last year, and we were struggling even to maintain the status quo. We weren't even making progress with the text. I think it's a challenge for us here when we talk about human rights and development, about it's not nice reading and it's not what companies want to hear. How can we still be telling the truth and really pushing for progress, real progress. >> PETER MICEK: Please, quickly. >> Connectivity, I've been doing research in South Africa, not only gender issues, but there are people, from the evidence, people are sacrificing food for connecting. In the community where I live, there has been ... is global connect in those 250 billion U.S. Ds going to be included but with the agenda you have ahead of you in the next four years, how are you going to have activities in action. I would like to hear from you. (audio is extremely muffled). >> We have three minutes left. >> I agree with what has been said. The Internet is extremely disruptive and some of the actors are talking only about how it generates growth. I think we need to talk about how it distributes the growth. Usually the Government actors that are invited are the ones who spend the money and not the ones who collect the money. We should be seeing who is taking the bigger part of the cake that is growing and to see how taxation can redistribute that. >> You are asking all the questions that I left to answer, I will not dominate but I have to speak to all of you after. I mentioned quite a bit about our work on gender issues and I'm happy to talk to you. We have to run to the next session, where my colleague is presenting. But two things. The picture is actually not good. It is getting worse. That is the concern. Getting worse for the same reasons that all of you are mentioning. That is really why, as I mentioned earlier for us, as we think through our programs and how we are going to work in the next few years, we need to actually bring that reality much closer to the core into the center. We need to, it is our responsibility, all of our responsibility, to highlight that picture, that is not so nice, that it's hard to read but it's the reality. One thing I have to say, not to put a plug to the World Bank but I have to say the recent World Bank, world development report, digital dividends that focus on wider Internet work, was actually really, I thought, a breath of fresh air in highlighting some of these not so nice picture that we are all facing, having to address. I thought it was courageous of the author especially coming from the World Bank to take that stance. I urge you to look at it. Some of the things they highlight is exactly the increasing inequalities that are taking shape, the trends of increasing inequality, the trends of increasing discrimination, the trends of increasing issues and problems at the labor market level, from gender perspective, many different dimensions of life. I think that is a good way to, they placed it in a way that I thought it was very useful, that many of us can understand. It also allows us and empower us to speak to all the stakeholders we need to speak with, because part of the reason that I was saying all of us have a responsibility but we all have a responsibility to be able to speak to each other in a way that is productive, and that can move the action. On the issue of taxation and others, IFRA works extensively on all those issues. Happy to share with you more. There is a lot on our Web site you can look at. We have a good practices in policy and regulation document. If you look at those for the issues we highlight there, we have specific advocacy plans that we focus on and taxation is one of them. But it is not just about reducing taxes in our sector but bringing about a fair taxation environment for the entire sector. >> Thanks. I want to turn the last word to the representative of the United States Government. It is worth noting that U.S. will soon have a leader like many in the world who is on the record disparaging women's rights. >> We are lucky when access now came to us early and raised human rights considerations with respect to global connect, making sure that we did our best to highlight these important considerations, and with stakeholder groups like the banks or governments or agencies human rights is center on their mind, however we have amazing product like this, we have the ability to highlight the issues for them, both of the conferences we had for global connect so far, in April and in October, with Pete, we were talking to individuals from New York in the financing world. We are trying to bring different stakeholder groups together, to see if we can find a way to accelerate progress. These guys had no conception about human rights in the stage. We had folks talking to them about why these considerations are important. All the global actions and we have highlighted I'm very proud of, a lot of them are being done by major governments, some of them are being done by the World Bank. I think they all have taken into account these considerations. We cannot, all we can do is convene and highlight the importance of and be there proactive with respect to how important the issues are. That is what we have done. I would end with one thing, which is the ITU state of broadband report came out a month or two ago. In it, it says that we have not ... in terms of coming online. We have a lot of progress to go. That is not a acceptable metric for us, 4.3 billion each year it is going to take a lifetime to connect the rest of the world. (audio is extremely muffled). What is it that we can do to accelerate progress in the space, and work as a community, to, because just to make sure that given all the high level attention we have from CEOs, from Government leaders, it would be a shame if we didn't make progress here. >> PETER MICEK: Everyone thank the excellent panelists and thank you for your participation. (applause). (end of session at 10:05 a.m.) 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.  *** Raw file. Internet Governance Forum 2016. Enabling Inclusive and Sustainable Growth. Jalisco, Mexico. 7 December 2016. Workshop 272. Sustainable Accessible Goals for persons with disabilities. 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.  ***. Workshop 272. Sustainable Accessible Goals for Persons with disabilities. (I think it sounds okay. Did you change something?) (okay, thanks). (yes, I do. I hear a lot of people in the room, it sounds better to me, thanks.) (it does sound better.) (it wasn't just one microphone though, I don't think. When the person in the audience spoke, I think it was a different mic and I couldn't understand anything. Workshop 272. Sustainable Accessible goals for Persons with disabilities. Workshop 272. Sustainable Accessible Goals for Persons with disabilities. >> ANDREA SAKS: We have had to do a little bit of juggling, to get everything on, but we are on now. We will just have that in a minute. So welcome, everybody. This is a sustainable accessible goals for persons with disabilities. I'm Andrea Saks, the coordinator, we have several people (overlapping speakers) we have a introduction session where everybody says who they are quickly who is participating in the workshop. I won't do the room because we have a good attendance. I'll start with Francesca. Would you like to say who you are? >> FRANCESCA CESA BIANCHI: Yes, good morning, everyone, Francesca Cesa Bianchi, Vice President of institutional relations of JCT IT which is the global initiative for inclusive technologies. >> ANDREA SAKS: Gerry, would you like to speak, please and introduce yourself? >> Good morning, I'm Gerry Ellis from Dublin Ireland, software engineer, also a consultant on accessibility and use ability under the name field of benefit. >> Good morning, my name is Gunela Astbrink, representing women with disabilities Australia. I'm also on the Australian chapter of the Internet Society, and have been working in the disability and accessibility field for 25 years. Thank you. >> ANDREA SAKS: Judy, you have a mic all your own. (muffled audio). >> JUDY OKITE: Foundation for Africa, also certified accessibility. >> ANDREA SAKS: We still have technical difficulties. One of the things that we have done is the DCAD meeting will follow immediately afterwards. As soon as we get the connection been this computer that I'm sitting in front of and the screen you can see the presentations and we can't start until that happens, correct? They are still trying too get this up. In the meantime I'm going to read you the sustainable accessible goals for persons with disabilities agenda. The opening remarks we have done. Number 2, Internet digital accessibility and the SDGs. 2016 scorecard by Francesca Cesa Bianchi, Vice President of institutional relations will be the first presentation. Then the next one will be the goals of accessibility as a sustainable criteria for public procurement by Gerry Ellis. Then the next presentation will be the use and nonuse of ICTs by persons with disabilities, in small island developing states by Gunela Astbrink, who represents Women with Disabilities from Australia. The next person is going to be accessibilities in the 21st century by Judy Okite, free software and open source foundation in Africa. I'm going to come in if there is any time left to talk about relay services for persons with disabilities, mainly people with hearing disabilities and voiceless problems to be able to communicate internationally via the telephone and the Internet and then it is a wrap-up. Until we get the presentations up we are stuck. Unless somebody wants to wing it. Francesca, please. >> FRANCESCA CESA BIANCHI: I can give you a introduction of G3ict, what it is and it will be best to have our slides, because I have some numbers to crunch, and I think probably if you have, look of the presentations. But I can manage even without it. G3ict is global initiative for inclusive technologies, is a initiative that was formed in December 2006. Within the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, by the United Nations General Assembly. And this year has been, we just celebrated our 10 year anniversary, actually, last Friday, which was also the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 10 year anniversary. Our initiative is created to promote the disposition of the convention or CRPD, on the accessibility and information and communication technologies, which is now closely related to the SDGs. We work with the support of UNDESA, ICT industry, organizations of persons with disabilities, governments and standards development organizations, and we operate through four divisions, one of which focuses on policy, second one on institutional advocacy, third one on innovation, and the fourth one on training and certification of IT personnel. We recently acquired the International Association of Accessibility Professionals, and so we will work more and more on training and certification. We have, this presentation is mainly about the relations, correlations between the convention, the CRPD and the SDG. I want to remind the impact of the convention now has been ratified in 166 countries. The convention is really blueprint for digital and Internet accessibility. In my slides I had a map of where I was showing the pervasive ratification and signature of countries around the world. But it's 166 countries that have ratified. Every year, G3ict with the support of DPI which is disabled peoples international, we publish a report which is called CRPD ICT accessibility progress report, which we work with different, with DPI but also with regional organizations of persons with disabilities. For example, in Latin America we work with the network of persons with disabilities. Let me actually move forward now. We have available the slides. Let me see if I can. That was the introductory slide, G3ict and how we are formed. This slide is a map of the world with the 166 countries that I was mentioning earlier with countries that ratified the convention and sign or just have not signed or ratified the convention. So you see very few countries that have not yet ratified or signed the convention. The following slides is actually what I was explaining right now, it is our report which I'm basing my presentation on, which is called the CRPD ICT accessibility progress report. So this survey actually is done biannually. This year we finished and published the findings. We surveyed the 107 countries that have ratified the convention over 166. And how the methodology is based on inquiring with advocates and panels, local advocates which are either accessibility experts or legal experts. We collect 57 data points per country, measuring the country commitments, the capacity to implement and the actual outcomes for persons with disabilities. This is consistent with the UN DP human rights monitoring framework which collects commitments to capacity commitment and outcomes. I'm going to talk about four points, key facts that are measuring the advances of legislation and policies around the world, impacting the digital accessibility. Then I will show four key facts that are examples of various levels of gaps and success factors. Measuring the advances of legislations means that the first factor that we actually found is 83 percent of the global south countries and 80 percent of the global north countries have constitutional article or regulation defining the rights of persons with disabilities. This is really testing the global impact of the CRPD and result after ten years. The global south countries are empowered with global north countries. In fact they are slightly ahead as you can see from the results. The second factor is that 48 percent of global south countries and 67 percent of global north countries have a definition of reasonable accommodation which includes regulations regarding the rights of persons with disabilities. Again this is really a impactful result, because only ten years ago there were only a handful of countries, mainly UK and U.S. say that had such definition in their laws or regulations. But now a majority of countries have, now do. Reasonable accommodation is really a core foundation to exercise the rights to equal access on the basis of nondiscrimination. Fact number 3 is 33 percent of global south countries versus 67 percent of global north countries have definition of accessibility with article 9 of the convention aligned, which relates to accessibility, by including ICT or electronic media in the country laws and regulation. Global north countries are ahead, 67 percent due large part to the ... we have anecdotal evidence that we gather through country programs that suggest that the number of global south countries are at the forefront of ICT accessibility commitments and actual results. Fact number 4, my picture is hiding the number, but 47 of global north countries, have a definition of universal service obligation in telecommunication legislations, that include persons with disabilities. Considerable but this shows opportunity for further progress, and advocacy activities in the Telecom field, which can basically fit in particular among the global south countries as you see are 17 percent versus 47 percent. I was trying to see, there was a person taking a picture of the slide. I didn't want to change. Here are actually the four key facts about measuring capacity to implement and success factors. Fact number 5, 74 percent of global south countries and a hundred percent of global north countries have nowadays a Government body which is specifically dedicated to persons with disabilities, and again this is important because it shows how the influence of the CRPD and the actual impact of the CRPD and the existence of these Government bodies demonstrate how disability rights have become part of the mainstream political agenda of the most governments among state parties. Another positive factor of the CRPD and is the fact number 6, 66 percent of global south countries versus 93 percent of global north countries have laws, policies or programs to ensure that persons with disabilities and their representative organizations are consulted in the development and implementation of legislation. Again this aligns to article 4 of the convention which is largely implemented by states parties, and also disability motto which is nothing about us without us which has a considerable impact around the world. This is the fact that shows that. Facts number 7, 18 percent of global south countries provide financial support for DP O's and NGOs working on digital access for persons with disabilities, versus 56 percent of global north countries. Here there is a huge difference, 18 percent for global south, 56 for global north. Which shows how still financial support is needed, how global south has, do not have access to minimum resources, to emphasize the responsibilities effectively in important domain which is ICT accessibility and how organization of persons with disabilities do not have the opportunity fully to develop expertise, to be in good position to influence policymaking for ICT accessibility. This is a impactful result, which is followed by fact number 8, which is 7 percent of global south countries versus 36 percent of global north countries have statistics, accessible for the general public about digital access by persons with disabilities, and again it's here a question of resources, and in order to have progress we need to have statistics and data on accessibility. So we are actually, this is a area where we are working strongly and we have published a number of model policies which G3ict has issued with ITU with specific recommendation bilateral ICT accessibility and how especially the global south countries have to collect more statistics and data. Finally, yes, thank you, Andrea, finally, I want to tell you a bit more about the digital accessibility outcomes for SDGs, for persons with disabilities. I want to let you know that the 2030 agenda for development includes 17 goals, as we heard yesterday, 169 targets and 230 indicators. There are 7 explicit references to disability in the SDGs, targets and indicators. Since time is short, I would like to, I'll keep my slides on numbers regarding education and employment, though they are very important but I would like to go to the SDG number 11, which is most of interest to you here, which is about creating accessible cities, providing universal access to safe inclusive accessible public spaces, and here our surveys indicate that the accessibility of Government Web sites is still very low, because only 81 percent of countries do not provide meaningful access to Government Web sites to persons with disabilities. This is, I just wanted to conclude with this and to encourage, yes, more statistics on this. This only related to accessible Government Web sites but also to accessibility of commercial Web sites, and how only 82 percent of countries have, I want to say 82 percent of countries have none, none, top ten commercial Web site are not accessible. I want to conclude with that. I look forward to the other presentations. >> ANDREA SAKS: Thank you, Francesca, I'll be cutting people a little short and I'm terribly sorry because of our late start. I have a thing here which says three minutes and then one minute. When you get close to the end, I'm going to have to do that. I will cut mine short to make sure everybody has it. The next person, we need to change to another presentation. I'm going to read the agenda from my iPhone since nobody can get on their laptops at the moment, though we have this wonderful one here and I have assistant. The next speaker will be Gerry Ellis of feel the benefit, the goal of accessible sustainable criteria for public procurement. Would you like to go ahead as soon as we get your slides up, one second. I think we are going to be okay. Let's get him going. Gerry, where is the clicker? Fabulous. You have a assistant. We all have assistants. There you are. It's up. Can you push the button so he can speak? The microphone. >> GERRY ELLIS: We are on, good morning, everybody. Gerry Ellis from Dublin. Thank you, Andrea. Thank you, Francesca. Hopefully mine will follow nicely from yours talking about public procurement. First I want to talk about people with disabilities and maybe the size of the market of people with disabilities. My first slide is on global economics of disability. A report is produced every two years, the 2013 report called global economics of disability estimates 1.3 billion people with disabilities in the world today, that is around population of China. Add to that 2.2 billion further who are emotionally associated like family and friends, and you get a very big market. So for instance if there is one wheelchair user in a family it's likely that that entire family and not just the wheelchair user would prefer accessible products. It is important to include those associated. Between them, these people control over $8 trillion of disposable income annually. If that is not big enough market for you, I don't know what is. I'm from Europe. So next slide, I'm going to talk maybe locally in Europe about what the market is like. European Disability Forum represents people with disability at a European level. They estimate there are 80 million people with disability in Europe. That is increasing because people are growing older, living longer and we estimate that about 80 percent of disabilities are acquired by people during their lives and are not born with them. As people grow older, that number of disability, people with disabilities will increase. The European Commission estimate that 14 percent of all GD Ps, not just technology but the entire GDP of Europe is spent by public procurement, in other words, spending by governments. I'm going to concentrate on public procurement and talk about that. Next slide. European level is a new standard which was developed by the three European standard bodies etsi and sendlec. European standard public procurement of accessible ICT products and service. It talks about public bodies in Europe purchasing accessible ICT. It's complimented by three technical reports -- so there is information and background information there to help people to implement it. It promotes interoperability of accessible products across Europe. It is not just one country, not a small group of country but across Europe. Australia, the other countries are looking to implement this as well, Australia, the lady on my left will talk about this, Australia implemented this standard verbatim. Mexico is considering doing it. Mexico has already signed a memorandum of understanding around accessibility of Web sites and public procurement. Different countries around the world are looking at this, not just Europe. Next one, please. In the United States they have what is called Section 508 of the rehabilitation act. This is used by federal Government only. Not necessarily state Government, not necessarily local Government or not necessarily by industry, but by the federal Government alone. It is very similar but it is different in many places. It specifies requirements by federal Government for the acquisition of accessible ICTs. So similar to the EU and that is why I wanted to compare the two of them. It promotes the interoperability of accessible products across the United States at a federal level. It has an excellent tool which helps states to implement this called a by accessible wizard, so any federal, state employee can use the wizard to say is this product that I want to use accessible. It's a very good tool. Section 508 is about 18 years old now. It is in the process of being revised. The final rule on the accessibility of ICT went to what is called the office of the OMB, yeah, the Office of Management and Budget. That is what it is. Office of Management and Budget. It went on the 24th of October, and it's expected to be implemented by the end of this year. We will see whether that gets in before our new President arrives. We will talk, next slide, please, there are strengths and weaknesses in both of these standards. They are both interoperable across wide areas of population. So for instance, European standard is operable across the whole of Europe. The American one is operable across the entire United States. But neither interoperable across the Atlantic for instance or across the rest of the world, because there are slightly differences between them. That means that industry has to have one set of rules that adheres to in the States and maybe a different set of rules in Europe, maybe a different set of rules in Australia. That is difficulty for industry. As we talk about later how we can improve that for industry as well as for people with disabilities. The other weakness is that they are not enforceable on industry in general unless they are selling to Government. If Government is buying from industry, great, they have to make their projects accessible. If not, they don't. A lot of stuff is not sold through Government and it is not enforceable. The particular one especially for Andrea's sake we will talk about the EN has a particular problem about realtime text. We say, there are strengths, there are weaknesses in both of these sets of standards. And we already said Section 508 is 18 years old. So the rest of it needs to be revised. It is in progress. We will get there. But it is not there yet. What is the solution to this? Each alone is better than nothing at all. But how will it be if we could harmonize them, right across Europe. We have already seen that EN301 is being implemented across the world. If we can get that harmonized rules, implemented right across the world, that would be much better for people with disabilities, because the bigger the market, the more affordable these products are going to be. It's no use having accessible products if people with disabilities can't afford them. Go to market right across the world, the more likely they are to be affordable. But also, industry will gain because we were saying earlier with the problems with fragmentation, if we have harmonized standards across the world, industry also gains. So they can no longer throw this thing at us, it costs too much, if the population of people with disability, if the market is large enough, remember we talked earlier about 1.3 billion people across the world, industry will be delighted. Last slide here is a number of references. And these presentations will be made available after the workshop. So all these references will be available to you. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for talking and thank you for the organizers for inviting me here from Ireland to speak to you and look forward to meeting some of you after the workshop. Thank you. (applause). >> ANDREA SAKS: We had a hiccup with the slides. Your last slides were not shown. Don't worry. Gerry is blind, and he memorizes all, everything. I couldn't do that. He didn't know that his last slides were not up. But we will make sure that it's posted on the DCAD Web site, as well, so that people can see everything that you wrote down and everything that you did. We will get the right ones on, which is now -- we just lost this. I lost my agenda. It's terrible (chuckles). We have done Francesca. I have an assistant here. We are going to do that. We are going to use -- we will use this one. That is not it. We are looking for Gunela's. I'm having trouble finding yours. Just a minute. (pause). Gunela, would you like to, you just start. Carry on. Gunela Astbrink from Australia from Women with Disabilities. Just go. I will be timing you. >> GUNELA ASTBRINK: I'm sure you will. >> ANDREA SAKS: We are doing all right on time. Don't worry. >> GUNELA ASTBRINK: Thank you very much, Andrea. Good morning. I thank you very much for the opportunity, and the support to be able to travel here to be part of this workshop. I will be speaking about use and nonuse of ICT by people with disability in small island developing states. When we talk about small island developing states, we are talking about often small island states in the Caribbean region, in the Pacific region and other regions of the world, for example, off the African coast, and in the Indian Ocean. Concentrating on the Pacific region which is a extremely large area, small land mass in the form of small island countries. Relatively small populations, and the majority of these are small island developing states. There are a few that are developed. We are talking about 22 countries with territories. That is a large number. Some of the small island developing states might have 10,000 people, that is their population total. Infrastructure costs are high and remoteness is a big issue. I have a map here which shows 22 countries in the Pacific. And the map indicates numbers in the ocean, and often all you see is the number, because the country itself is so tiny, and the map also shows Australia and New Zealand and Papua New Guinea as a contrast to the small island developing states. The status of ICT in the Pacific, there is actually growing ICT usage in the Pacific, through satellite services and submarine cables which are bringing faster and more reliable broadband services. But there is widely varying usage in different countries, and costs of course is one of the big factors. Computers are incredibly expensive and out of reach of most people. Internet usage is mainly through smart phones, but can people afford smart phones, that is the question. I mentioned remoteness before. Some countries such as Vanuatu, 75 percent of the population use mobile phones now. It's a high usage level. But again, there is a difference between the sort of phones people use and if they have Internet accessibility through the phones. People with disabilities in the Pacific are really doubly at disadvantage, there is cultural and social economic factors, there is a huge lack of educational and employment opportunities, and of course, huge affordability issues. I'm going to go into more detail about Vanuatu. I note a project by the ITU, a pilot project in Vanuatu, together with our partners in the Pacific disability Forum, which is the main regional disability advocacy body in the Pacific, and the Government of Vanuatu. We heard previously from Francesca about the low level of data about usage in global south countries. Fortunately, we are able to do a survey of usage by people with disability in Vanuatu and we believe it is the first of its kind in the Pacific. This helps to bring evidence for improving ICT accessibility. We didn't do the standard, here is survey monkey link, go to this Web site. We didn't send out E-mails. We didn't even do letters in the post to people for a variety of reasons. We have low literacy rights. We have low levels of usage. So it's no point in reinforcing that, there is going to be a lot of people who are not going to be able to answer the survey. Instead, people with disabilities were trained to conduct interviews in both towns and villages in a number of islands in Vanuatu. I should say, Vanuatu has a population of 275,000. So it's a medium population size, when we are talking about Pacific island countries. So 200 people with disability were interviewed, and it was quite a lengthy task, with a number of issues to deal with as we went along. We have some preliminary findings. We are still crunching some data. Many people we found had not heard of the Internet, and it wasn't like asking have you heard of the Internet. We asked, do you know about E-mail, do you know about Web sites, and people didn't. We also have to realize that 50 percent of the population in Vanuatu are subsistence farmers living in remote villages. Many people with disabilities didn't have a mobile phone and if they did it wasn't a smart phone. It was just a very basic phone. Importantly, mobiles with long battery life are important because of limited access to electricity. Another part of the project is audit 28 Government Web sites to check on accessibility. This is important because Vanuatu has a strong Government focus and actually there is a policy that states that by 2018, 98 percent of the population should have some access to the Internet. That might not be personally Internet access but through schools and health clinics. There is a push by the Government to have a lot of information on Web sites for people. But the findings indicate that the Government Web sites did not meet W3C Web content accessibility guidelines 2.0. There is a move, however, to improve Web accessibility, as new Government Web sites are developed. Some of the outcomes from this pilot project includes what is called the right to information Web accessibility guidelines, this is clarification and support of WCAG 2.0, with recommendations for Vanuatu Government agencies. The guidelines follow totally WCAG 2, but give some planning indications of how Government developers of Web sites should move forward. These guidelines were developed in consultation with the Civil Society disability network and other relevant agencies. The information unit of the office of the Government Chief Information Officer was the unit that developed it. It is really under freedom of information, where there is now legislation in Vanuatu that any member of the population should be able to access Government documents if they need to. This was launched a couple of months ago. We will see where we go with it. Another outcome is at the Pacific disability Forum is supportive of ICT accessibility, and now have received funding to extend the project and being run by the Pacific Disability Forum to survey more countries about usage and nonusage of ICT. And the countries include Papua New Guinea, Cook Islands and Fiji and demographically, they are very different, different in size, geographically in a lot of different ways. So, looking at ways forward, and this can be relevant for a number of small island developing states, and many other countries as well. Obviously, multifaceted approach is needed. And support for gradual cultural change, while still recognizing traditional values is important. So moving away from that people with disabilities can't contribute to society, moving away from hiding away people with disabilities, but still respecting traditional values. There needs to be disability awareness-raising for Government and NGOs. And disability inclusive development. In Australia, for example, Australia's program has very much a disability inclusive focus. And Australia has a focus on providing aid to Pacific island countries. Obviously, the implementation of policy, legislative and regulatory mechanisms are important. Practical measures, obviously there is a need for accessible Web sites. We heard again from Francesca in the statistics on the low level of Government Web sites that are accessible. We need accessible facilities, products and services and subsidized cost for mobiles phones so people with disabilities can afford them, training in ICT usage for people with disabilities, something that we would very much like to see in the future in Pacific island countries, and inclusion of people with disability in planning obviously. Their disabilities movement motto is nothing about us without us. So thank you very much. (applause). >> ANDREA SAKS: Thank you. I want to say we might have our partner in crime, Deirdre Williams who might be listening in. I've explained to Judy that we might not let her do, just for a minute, do we have a remote -- yes, I know we would, Deirdre, can you read out what -- do we have a mic? We have to give it back to Judy. We are really managing with kind of crazy logistics on technical stuff. I've got every staff person in this whole building in this room helping. So we will be all right. Vladimir is going to read what Deirdre has to say. >> Hello., I was interested to hear what happened in the Pacific. (sorry, that audio was very muffled, I couldn't understand). >> ANDREA SAKS: Could you repeat, maybe not the mic so close to your mouth. >> Sure, a comment from Deirdre Williams to everyone, a comment for Gunela, apparently Kenya solves the problem of electricity by using slower charges that doesn't happen here in the Caribbean, I was interested to hear that it doesn't happen in the Pacific. >> GUNELA ASTBRINK: Thank you very much for that question and hello. There are some activities in some Pacific island countries to do with solar charging, for example, in schools but they are more isolated projects than something that is available generally, I would say. There probably is a push to do more, but I think it's more at the pilot stage. It varies tremendously from one Pacific island country to another. Thanks for your question, Deirdre. >> ANDREA SAKS: I knew you would be there listening in, Deirdre. Do we have any other comments while you have got the mic over there? You got the mic. Are there any other comments, Vladimir? We might as well -- >> I will read out a comment made by Deirdre on your response. These were small personal charges. >> GUNELA ASTBRINK: I think Deirdre means that individuals have personal solar charges, and I'm not familiar with that happening in the Pacific. That is certainly something that would be very good to follow up on, and to learn a little bit about how it's done in Kenya. Thank you. >> Sure. Can send you information by E-mail. >> ANDREA SAKS: Thank you, Deirdre, for coming in on that, I knew you would be hiding in there. Thank you, Gunela for explaining and carrying on with that. I have one of my wonderful DCAD members who, by the way, single-handedly with the help of Kyle from the Internet Governance SA helped with getting people funded here. She organized it and a lot of people who are here today would not be here today without Judy Okite, who gives the next presentation who organized it even in the middle of the night because she is comes from Kenya. She is going to give a presentation now. I am in so many devices, it's ridiculous. Judy has presentation, is accessibility in the 21st century, and she comes from an organization of which she pretty much, it's free software and open source foundation in Africa. Now we have to get your slides up. How do we do that? I have my assistant here. Go to the next one. Judy Okite, down here. You have the clicker. Ready? Hang on. We will be up in a minute. Just me. There we go. Please, would you like to give your presentation, Judy? >> JUDY OKITE: Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes, my name is Judy Okite. I come from Nairobi, Kenya. But I can easily be found online. I'll quickly look at accessibility for persons with disabilities in the 21st century. If we look at history of where we have come from with the computers, over the years, we have seen evolution and changes that have happened in the wild when it comes to computer. For example, we use the mainframe computers, back in the 1950s. At the moment, we have very powerful small tablets, small smart phones, which are much more powerful even than PCs that we have. Currently the talk is about Internet of Things. What is that? The ITU defines Internet of Things as a global infrastructure for Information Society enabling advanced services by interconnecting physical and virtual things based on existing and evolving interoperable information and communicating technologies. Yes, a total mouthful. ITU telecommunications standardization sector now has a study group on the Internet of things. Of course with this definition only, of course none of us can truly imagine how big and influential Internet of Things will be, but what does this mean for persons with disabilities. This technology also could include assistance to not only information technology, but independent living in a physical accessible way. Some of the things that have been discussed in this area are the emergence of smart homes, self driving vehicles, personal data sharing, etcetera. However, there are crucial questions that need to be asked including but not limited to, with the application of Internet of Things, smart homes be accessible to person who is blind or deaf, or a person who has mobility issues. Will developers be more accommodative to the needs of persons with disabilities and not just business minded. Will self driving cars or services like Uber taxis have ramps for wheelchair users. Will there be extra cost for users with accessibility features. Will there be security protection to prevent exposure of personal data, of persons with disabilities. The potential of implementation of Internet of Things in developing countries is not clearly directed to help persons with disabilities. Could this be wrong, could it be right? A question for all of us. In developing countries, persons living with disabilities fall under the percentage of the poorest populations, for Internet of Things applications to work they need to be mainstreamed with not only accessibility features included, but also affordability. The penetration of the Internet beyond the other areas is still -- urban areas is still low and expensive in developing countries. The real and biggest question is, is the development of technology in the 21st century further widening the gap for persons with disabilities and hindering inclusion? They have tried to track the take up of technology among persons with disabilities and specific needs and of course we have heard about that from Francesca. However, we still need to consider whether this is totally comprehensive enough and inclusive to give an accurate credible global overview of persons with disabilities, ability to, their uptake of technology of both ICTs and its application. We have to find credible and accurate data on this. This needs to be done with regards to the needs of persons with disabilities, more especially in developing countries. This will be the right time for scholars, policymakers, standard writers and implementers of new technology, etcetera, to increase their efforts to gather this information more completely. Accessibility will greatly influence the uptake of Internet of Things technology if it was designed to benefit persons with disabilities in the developing countries. In conclusion, accessibility is about equality. It is about justice. It is about dignity and inclusion. This presentation raises pertinent issues, questions, whose answers lies in each and every one of us. Because we all play a very important role in the development of technology today. If you play a role and I play mine, I can assure you that the next presentation will be highlighting on the milestones. Thank you. (applause). >> ANDREA SAKS: Judy, I want to tell you something about, it's study group 20, in ITU T, question 2 has taken up accessibility. I had the pleasure of working with two Korean delegates, and the first accessibility draft recommendation has already begun. Some of the concepts are, opening the door or having your fridge tell you that it's open and closing it, or taking your smart phone and putting it on a table, so it goes on your TV screen. Lots of different ideas are coming out with these two gentlemen, and I was very excited. So it is happening. It's expanding from question 26 of study group 16 which is multi-media and human factors has now been moved into that. That is the ITU update. Later we will hear a little more from the representative, Bruno, in the DCAD meeting which is coming immediately after that, about the ITU and its involvement in accessibility. Gunela, did you want to make a comment? >> GUNELA ASTBRINK: Thank you, Andrea. Yes. I participated in the Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things yesterday. And put my hand up, and said, remember, remember people with disability and accessibility, and really how important it is that smart homes, for example, have features that are accessible and using intuitive design, universal design. The response from Google representative was, yes, yes, we totally agree, and accessibility is good design. So the message was out there. And also, because of discussion about the different Dynamic Coalitions working together, this might be an opportunity to, for this DCAD to work with the Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things on these questions. >> ANDREA SAKS: Thank you. We are joining forces on the Dynamic Coalitions, and we are discussing that. What we hope to do, of course, in the future, through like for example, I'm pretty tied to the ITU, is extend accessibility clear across, so everybody talks to everybody else, and that is what the other organization that I chair, the Joint Coordination Activity on Accessibility and Human Factors, and it's not easy because not everybody tells me everything, unless I go bang on the door and say, what are you doing? So we can track what the ITU is doing. This is what Judy is talking about, I believe, is that we need to track what is going on with the different developers, because standards can be written but they are voluntary. Right? Okay, it's the implementation where there is the letdown. This is one of the big problems. We can write all the standards in the world. But if nobody implements them, then we are still lost. I wasn't going to talk about this. But I might as well. Deirdre is probably our only remote, we put in remote moderation only for Deirdre. Does anyone in the room want to make comments or talk to any of that before I get into my presentation? Because I don't want to change -- we have a comment. Would you like to say something, please? >> Yeah, just to say, maybe it's useful, I'm a member of the European parliament, and I'm one of the link M.E. Ps on the UN council of disabilities, on the culture and education committee, Julie Ward, okay. I'm really appreciating the conversation, the presentations. I don't have a question really. It's helpful for me to be here and listen, to be reminded of things, to have things clarified, and also to network, so that people know they can lobby me. I encourage groups to lobby me, come and talk to me. I have to work across a lot of different issues, but I'm currently working doing some stuff on the audiovisual media services directive, with particular issues for people with visual impairment. So and also, I will be on the Africa Caribbean Pacific delegation in Nairobi in two weeks time. We should meet. It's great to be here and make the connections. We are not doing everything brilliantly. >> ANDREA SAKS: Well, you will be. >> I've always just, I've done a lot of work over my life with communities of people with disability, and I know how difficult it is to do the things I get up and do every day, like the barriers that are faced, and the campaign, nothing about us without us is a really important campaign. If I've got one question, it's how can we raise it up again, because it was, if you put it into our Twitter hashtag it doesn't come up anymore. We have to revitalize the campaign, because it was effective. People heard about it. But there is always that kind of media fatigue, isn't there? Maybe that is something we have to address. Maybe that is -- >> ANDREA SAKS: Thank you, Julie, I will grab you, you will never b allowed to disappear. Nothing about us without us came from the deaf community. I'm going to actually start a presentation and I don't know, we have to get mine up here. I'm going to give the clicker to him. I'm not going to mess up. It is that one. The deaf community is where I come from even though I hear even though I'm losing it through age related disabilities. The deaf community has fought tooth and nail to be able to use the phone and still not quite successful in all areas. I decided I would do something about relay services. I can't show you all the slides. But I will start with some of them. I mentioned my other group, which is the Joint Coordination Activity on Accessibility and Human Factors. The ITU was the very first Internet, well, it's the only international, it's not geared to America, like IETF, it is not geared to Europe like ETSI, it is a international organization, creating international standards. The ITU finally consented in 1995, the very first accessibility standard, and it was for a text phone for unification of the protocols for textphones so the textphones in different countries could work back-to-back. Every country that has had a long success with Textphones has started a relay service. But I thought it might be interesting for people to know is that the deaf community really was the actual impetus for the accessibility movement in the ITU and pretty much throughout the world, because they did solve their problem themselves. Can I have the next slide, please? History. We can get rid of that one. I've already said, and there was also a time that blind people couldn't use the Web. We have deaf/blind people too. That is why they are important. Then there are persons with physical disabilities who can't pick up the phone. Some of these things have been solved with having a phone that you can speak into, and technological assistive technology being able to access the phone. But it does not solve the problem of the fact that some people cannot actually call to another person and vice versa. In the beginning, and this has been the '60s, you will see that my name is the same as one of the middle gentlemen there, and that is my father. He was one of the people along with the other gentleman, which is Robert Weitbrecht sitting at a very old clunky telex machine and Robert Weitbrecht who is a deaf physicist used to talk ship to shore on a telex machine long before he decided to adapt it to the telephone, and Jim Marsters who was a deaf other thon don'tist and my dad who was a deaf businessman. All these guys were totally deaf. You can see, we will show you some of the equipment. You can see, clunky stuff. Way back in time. It was in the '60s. You will see the first relay service or the only relay services, that existed before we got on the phone. There is a person in there, who is sticking her tongue out. That is me. I'm about 3 or 4 years old. I was defiant from the beginning. Anyway, that was a relay service. All these little kids don't necessarily have deaf parents. But you get the idea. They did the banking, they did the doctor appointment, they did the arrangements for whatever was going on. It was very debilitating and humiliating though the deaf community accepted it for an adult to have to deal with a child. Next one. I'm not going into great detail but I mentioned the telex machines, and there was a group called, at the time, teletypewriters for the deaf, that was created by all these deaf men to take the old surplus, the ones they were going to throw away, into their systems so they could recondition them. From one end of the country to the other, they shipped them and changed parts. They were from two cultures. Now we are pretty familiar that most deaf young people can sign and speak, but in those days, there was two division and they never met, aural deaf whose parents had money to train them to speak and the deaf community that did not have that that went to public schools, which in the United States for example means the schools that are funded by the Government, had to learn to sign. That was their main mode of communication. They got together, managed and reconditioned these machines by themselves, to work with a modem, which eventually came to the ITU with all the other modems of all the different protocols to be joined up. I described the modems there and what they do which you can look at later. You can see a bunch of people there, that redoing them, and they are working with Western Union, and I give the telephone pioneers total credit for teaching the deaf community how to do this. Next slide, historical event of the three guys, who did that, in 1970 they began to modernize and use some of the better looking teletypes that were more proficient because they were newer but too expensive. We have the Textphones that came about which were portable and that you could take with you. There is another slide, next slide. You can see them when they got smaller. If you look at a iPhone, they look absolutely enormous. Some of them could take more than one code. Now we have something called realtime text which Gerry, alluded to. Which I'll get into later. What you do when you text on your iPhone, or on your Skype, is not realtime. You have to actually type and transmit with a button. These worked on realtime. Character by character, and because in those days, we didn't have any controls on who talked first, we had a polite way of speaking. Go ahead, it's your turn. Which we would type GA, or I'm stopping, I'm finishing. Stop keying. You had to have this communication back and forth, so we didn't jam the communication back and forth. But it was realtime. Therefore, you had a live person on. When you send a message in Skype or on your Textphone or on your, sorry, your iPhone, you don't know if somebody is there. Skype you do, because they are online but they could be -- I took it to the UK and that was a crazy situation. One of the quotes that I'm going to say from this slide is, sir Brian Carsburg, Chairman of OFTEL in England, in 1970 said and I like this quote a lot and I'd like to see this come out in the world, disability communication should be regarded in the same way as rural communication, in other words, the people in the city pay for because it's a higher population, higher revenue generating, pay for the more expensive setup in the country side, where people don't have quite the generating ability of finance for the communication companies. This was the beginning of globalization. He is starting to know my stuff. I have my assistant here. Different things happened. We did get permission. I'm not going to go into too much detail but we did something fun. We did the first deaf trans-Atlantic call. This is in 1975. We made a high level call from the UK, with a member of Parliament who was deaf which is Jack Ashley. Ambassador Elliott Richardson from the States, we were in the UK, we had Casper Weinberger, Republican but a nice guys, and another deaf man who worked in HEW, health, education and welfare. We did it live. We were able to show that deaf people through technology could communicate in realtime. Let's go to the next slide. I'm going to skip a couple things. It gives a little more information of how this all started, and because of the time element and I want to start a live discussion here, we are going to move on. But it gives a little history about how many, it was really tiny. But again also in the UK, it was a deaf group of people who got it started, and kept it going in the UK, not the hearing world, not the telephone companies. They were called at that time the break through test. These are the different codes and protocols which we don't see. People don't realize, there were nlt any satellites then. We had a trunk, a cable, underneath the sea. It is just another world now. Anyway, so we will go to the next slide. Faxing, it's a ITU standard, V21. That came in and was very useful. The first trans-Atlantic call that we did that I briefly discussed was broke the docket against AT&T, no, go back. Broke the dockets against AT&T which prevented data across the voice band network. Now that is not a problem but then it was. The deaf community gave the hearing community the Fax machine. And I don't think anybody knows that. We will go through the other thing. We are getting into the ITU area. We did the first trans-Atlantic call. The problem is everybody in their different countries wanted to do different things. That is why we had incompatible Textphone that is couldn't work. Everybody thought their country should work on their own stuff and not make it interoperable. I give a list of who did what. The naughty boys are listed but we won't go through that too hard because I knew many of them and argued with many of them. But we now have international Textphones that work if they use the V .18, which is that first standards, and the English platform does accommodate that. But where are we now? That is the ITU. Just for fun, that is me, and you have seen my gray hair with my Butch, I don't look like that anymore. But that is me and the guy next to me is Gary Fereno. Go back. He is conscious of the time too. I got in there illegally because nobody knew that I was coming and I was invited by the next guy to come. It wasn't supposed to happen. That guy stuck me on the U.S. delegation in five minutes, once he understood what I did. That was a accident. I've been at the ITU ever since. This talks about the different protocols. We are going to keep going. This is important. Gunnar Hellstrom comes from Sweden. He did a standard called total conversation. That means, voice, video and text, all in one situation. That means that using a phone together or whether it be a iPhone but a relay service that has all three components, where somebody can actually communicate directly with someone else with the same equipment, that deaf people, deaf/blind people, people with physical disabilities can communicate, because there is something there for everyone to be able to do that. I'm going to explain what a relay service is in a minute. You are going to see an example of a deaf/blind woman using the system with a blind refresher keyboard, which enabled her to read what is going on, and enabling her to send what is going on to the relay service. A relay service is a human being, not a machine that sits in the middle, that is funded, FCC has a funding program, BT in the UK, funds it through the universal service options. The same applies in Sweden. There is even a relay service in Russia! Which I just found out about the other day. They are beginning to happen throughout the world, Australia has one, New Zealand has one. But they are all separate. They don't all unify. You can go through and there was regulation that wouldn't let the people who had voice problems, who couldn't speak, communicate with another relay service, with people who had hearing problems. There have been all kinds of funny things happening because of fraud. It is not globalized. I want to make sure we don't lose the time here. Anyway it's also important for emergency services, and this is called total conversation. Next one. Now, next one, we know about the UN Convention. We wouldn't be here. Next one. I'm posting this also and putting all this information there, so people who may not know as much as the people in this room about these things. International standards are voluntary. I've spoken about that. I won't continue with this slide. Next one. But it did mention realtime text. Realtime text over IP is not yet totally standardized, and we are about to do it. We are about to get, we are working with different people. I know the players are going to take the new version of it, so it will go over the Internet, so that we can use, everyone can use the phone with one exception. It will reduce the different kinds of relay services, which means speech to speech, the older person who became deaf in life doesn't like to be regarded as a person with disabilities because they just can't hear. So we have machines that enable them to read what the relay service, the human being in the middle of the phone call, that they can read what the person who can hear who is calling them is saying, and that that person can speak for themselves. There is that kind of relay service. There is also text to text, and that works very well for deaf/blind people with refresher, Braille displays. The other thing, the most important one and that in a sense is the Internet. And sign language has to go over the Internet. The problem with that, is that there are so many different kinds of sign languages in every country, and dialects. There is no international sign language. International sign language does not exist, international sign does. It is created at a event, at the time, by interpreters, who use it at the UN, at the ITU when we require it, to be able to take different signs from the different participants who speak different sign language, and communicate to the group as a whole using different signs after quickly clarifying what might be universal. At the end of that meeting, that sign language disappears. It doesn't exist anymore. The thing is, we have to deal with translation, we have to deal with global interoperability. If we have the Internet to do that with for the sign, we will find that sign language will eventually homogenize to the extent that we have to have translation. The situation also could be applied to people who do not have a disability, who would think a relay service would be really great because they speak French and somebody speaks Swahili. So there is a application for the rest of the world, and once people grab onto that, and the rest of the world takes on an original device or technique for persons with disabilities into their own and captioning, which we have here is a classic example of that. Now, how many slides have I got left? Actually I'm almost done. That is great. But realtime text is important, because that means that a person can be live, talking on the phone, a deaf person, with text, the deaf/blind person, with text, that will become a voice activated, that can be done with software which is being worked on also now, where it can be spoken to the hearing person, who then speaks back into the phone, and then it types back on to the deaf person's telephone, or it speaks to the blind person. It can be done. It has not been standardized yet. It is going to be worked on. We have got loads of people interested in and involved in that. I'm taking it through the ITU hopefully very soon. So the next slide. And we only will need sign language relay. Universal design is what I mentioned which Judy was speaking about designing from the beginning, which Gunela was speaking about, which Gerry has been speaking about and which Francesca has. It has to be designed from the beginning, not at the end, where you do expensive refits and you try and make something adapt to something else. We need a international beginning to look at international relay services for all these groups, and for the fact that realtime text needs to be standardized. Now, let's see what else we have got. 28. Without international standards, there is no cooperation. There is no doubt about that. Without people understanding accessibility, we don't get anywhere at all. The next thing, oh, this is one of my pet little messages. The problem, in people making new devices who don't take into consideration persons with disabilities, they can actually create new barriers. One of the classic problems at the moment is spectrum. Spectrum interferes with hearing aids. As we go into 4 and 5G, it buzzes in a kid's ear who has a hearing aid, it interferes with technical equipment that is in a school. They weren't thinking about spectrum when they created spectrum and expanded the different, spectrum has been here forever but where they were making new mobile phones. There is a big thing going on in the ITU R about spectrum and interference with hearing aids and also Bluetooth and ZigBee and some of the others. When people create different products, they have to take into consideration how they impact persons with disabilities. Industry, all standard organizations, have to work together. They have to understand that when they do something, they need to do a reality check. At this time I'm going to say we have something on the ITU Web site, it's called the accessibility checklist. When you do a standard, check the checklist. Then you might be able to avoid some of these pitfalls. I'm going to stop because we actually have some time to have an interactive bit, if anybody wants to do that or any questions. I'm Andrea Saks, I can be reached any place any time in any time zone. Thank you very much for that time. (applause). Now, does anyone in the audience, I'm going to pick on somebody, because we have got some time, yes, we got something coming from remote. Okay. Great, Vladimir. Let's have it. >> Thank you. There is a comment and question from Deirdre, Deirdre Williams, to Julie Ward. In the Caribbean the focus has shifted away from persons with disabilities in the last ten years. To the extent that a friend of mine who uses a wheelchair describes himself as a transparent by which he means invisible. >> ANDREA SAKS: That's to you. Give Julie the mic. >> Thank you. One of the things that I work on is invisible disabilities, there are many people with invisible disabilities and impairments. It's very concerning that, in fact, visible disabilities should now be considered invisible or transparent. I was very struck by the statistics that she gave at the beginning, sorry, I can't remember, is it Gerry? That Gerry gave. Something we have to get across to everybody really, no matter which country we are from and what gender we are, is that the likelihood of all of us experiencing some form of disability or impairment is very high. So when we make policies, when we create, when we invent things, when we are creating policies, when we are making laws, when we are spending money as governments actually we always have to think that it could be us. It could be us. And your statistics also show the impact on families is really important. Just a bit more of a response to the person who phoned in. We are actually seeing an increase in hate crime towards people with disabilities. I think that is another thing that we should be addressing here, particularly in the context of the Internet. The world, people are scrambling for resources. And what powerful people, organizations, corporations do is divide and rule. So I'm very concerned to hear this comment. But I think it's part of a very worrying trend that we have in our global society at the moment, about others, about people who are considered to be different and other, whether it's color of skin, religion, the language you speak, ability, disability. I think there is a real, real problem with this idea of otherness. And perhaps this not seeing the disability is part of that. I mean, what everybody wants in the world is to be equal, and to be seen as the person, not the wheelchair. But it doesn't sound like this is the issue. It sounds like not seeing the disability means that the society is not dealing with it, yeah? Okay. I hope that's a useful response. >> ANDREA SAKS: It's a useful response, if everybody manages to get old, they will have a disability. So your comment is apropos. Since I'm well on the way, I will tell you that I'm losing my sight, I'm losing my hearing, I got a bum knee. It will all happen to you if you are lucky enough to get to be my age. Anyway, I have to close this particular meeting. Gerry, did you want to say something? You just tapped the mic. You got a minute. Because then we have to give everybody potty breaks. >> GERRY ELLIS: To repeat, Andrea's, as you grow older, you will acquire a disability, the alternative is to die. Which would you prefer? This relates to every single person in this conference. One thing that I think is worth mentioning, and it's very strong message that comes out of the UN CRPD, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, is the difference between impairment and disability. Impairment is what happens to you. Disability is how society accommodates or doesn't accommodate that. The example I give is if you put me and you put Julie Ward in a very dark room, I'm less disabled than she is, because I'm used to being in the dark. Even though I still have a greater, I have a impairment, I'm still just as blind, Judy is just as sighted. But my disability is less than hers in that situation. I think from your point of view keeping that in mind as you look at the European disability act will be of benefit. And the other thing that I, quick one that I would mention, there is a term in the accessible media, in article 21A if memory serves me right, which says equitable access. That is a wonderful term. Please keep that at the front of your mind. Thank you. >> ANDREA SAKS: Thank you, Gerry. One second. We have the next meeting. We are keeping this room. This is what I want to say. DCAD's meeting, Dynamic Coalition on accessibility and disability, will be meeting immediately after this, well, at 12:00. We can keep this going. But I want to say, to give the captioner a rest, to say thank you to our captioner and thank you to all our tech people today who helped us get it all together because we are a bit more complicated than other people. We did really well. We got through all the presentations. Julie, don't leave. And we can certainly talk here for a few minutes before we start at midday. And let people have a little bit of a break. Thank you, everybody, for coming. Thank you to my presenters who are brilliant, who they know that. And this has been a very very very good session. You should all be proud of yourselves. Thank you. (end of session at 11 :50:00 a.m.) 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.  *** Raw file. Internet Governance Forum 2016. Enabling Inclusive and Sustainable Growth. Jalisco, Mexico. 7 December 2016. Dynamic Coalition on accessibility and disabilities. 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.  ***. Internet Governance Forum 2016. Dynamic Coalition on accessibility and disabilities. Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disabilities. Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disabilities. >> Hi, everybody. Just to let you know we are having a few technical difficulties in getting the documents compatible with the technical system here but we will be done and be with you in one minute. Diego, we will start. If you can put the agenda up on your bit so I can see that and then I will start. I think we are going to start. We are okay. Are we all set? Are we set? Okay. Welcome to the Dynamic Coalition on accessibility and disability. I have to my right, I have Bruno Ramos and I have to my left Markus Kummer. I'm going to turn the floor over to Bruno, please. >> Thank you very much and welcome to everybody here. My name is Bruno Ramos, I'm the regional director of the ITU for the Americas region, ITU has three sectors, and the headquarters is in Geneva. Also we have some offices in the field. So ITU has six regions, dividing the world in six regions, I am the regional director for Americas. So it's not only Latin America, including Caribbean, and North America also. The idea is to divide in regions just to try to see the specificities in each region. I think it's very important, because as Gunela said in the previous session, we have specificities, for instance, in the small islands in the Pacific, also we have the Caribbean in the region in the Americas. I know you are all from different regions. But I can show you some specificities that we have here. First, I'd like to thank Andrea for chairing this, and also I'd like to say that the Secretariat of this session would be Kaoru Mizuno. I thin Kaoru Mizuno is connected. Kaoru did a lot of things. Andrea knows her. So thank you so much. The idea right now is to have an agenda. First of all, we will say some remarks, and the introduction of this DCAD, okay. I don't know, I will try to avoid a long introduction, but Andrea will say that when I have to finish. After that, point 2, we are going to have a report on IGFSA General Assembly. Marcus will do this report. The agenda number 3 is to review the accessibility of IGF 2016. So for instance, venue, accommodation, transport, physical accessibility, food, remote participation, registration process, etcetera. I think in this topic number 4 to be very important to participation of you all, because for sure it's not our work, but we need to listen from you what we can add and also for IGF 2017, maybe we can improve some topics related to accessibility. The topic number 5 suggested update to the DCAD accessibilities guidelines 2015. I don't know. I will try to show very quickly also. Gunela will talk about and Gerry too. So for sure, all others DCAD members that want to talk. The point number 6, accessible screen reader, Gerry also will talk about it. Closing address by Andrea. Do you agree with the agenda? I'm going in the sense to introduce Z cad is the Dynamic Coalition on accessibility and disabilities. It was formed in 2017 in Brazil in Rio de Janeiro. Since then DCAD works to facilitate interaction between relevant bodies and to ensure that ICT accessibility for persons with disabilities and those with specific needs is included in the discussions around the Internet Governance. DCAD aims to help and create a future where all individuals have equal access to the opportunities to ICTs. We have 50 members made up of representatives from organizations of persons with disabilities, UN agencies, international organizations, policymakers, industry, academia, Civil Society and experts on accessibility. As one of the outputs from DCAD, it's been developing and updating the DCAD accessibility guidelines, version 2015, that Gunela and Gerry will talk about, which were submitted to the IGF Secretariat to improve the accessibility of the IGF meetings. The guidelines cover accessibility considerations, venue, technology, provision of information, remote participation, facilities, registration, transport, accommodation and staff training. We have this to know, if you have time, you can access the Web Page of the ITU, so you can find this, the last version of this guideline just for you to follow the discussions here during the presentation. I will talk very quickly about some ICT accessibility issues. So we have Internet digital accessibility and SDGs, so developed global developed by Francesca Cesa Bianchi, Francesca is here. So goal of accessibility that Gerry presented on sustainable criteria for public procurement in the last session and persons with disabilities using telephone and Internet, that Andrea presented. I think it's important to say to you that this kind of meeting here is to try to get from you the contributions that we can improve what we are doing. So as the Secretariat for this our work is to help you on put together the organizations and also the UN agencies, in order to allow you to include your ideas in some methodologies, in some real actions to try to improve what we have today related to persons with disabilities. So I don't know if you have some questions. I think it's a very quick introduction on the DCAD. But I'd like just to get my part of the floor here to talk about one specific very important thing that is occurring here in Americas region, if you allow me. I took office in the ITU three years ago only, and in 2014 I tried to talk to the member states of the ITU, not only the governments, but also the sector members, academia, associates. So ITU has not only member states, governments as members. So we have more than 700 sector members. We have around 140 academias, universities, and we are trying to improve that. We have some projects to try to include the academia, the universities as members. The last council of the ITU, if I remember well, decided to have a special fee for academia, only $2,000 a year to be a member. So this is some kind of a thing just to include academia and researchers in the work of the ITU. So I tried at the time in 2014 to find a specific topic that the ITU should try to add value, because in the ICT telecommunication and communication area, we have a lot of topics, Andrea touched on the T sector, standardization sector of the ITU so we have many study groups. We have many activities, we have now this new IoT group so that we comment this in the last session also. We have groups for television, that is dealing with also some specific topics and captioning, etcetera. But in the region here, we didn't have at the time a specific action on accessibility. We thought in the time in 2016 we would have this big event, the first time in South America, the Paralympics games. We thought that maybe it would be a very good target to us, because we were in 2014, just to work three years to do something and to send to the Paralympics games some protocol and real proposals from the region, just to add for the global way. So we tried to do that through an event, annual event, named accessible Americas. The first Accessible Americas was held in Brazil in San Powello in November 2014. The last one in November also in medlynn, Colombia. And interesting, the last one last week in Mexico City here in Mexico, with the total support of the administration of Mexico, the federal institute of telecommunication, also the regulator and also many, many NonGovernmental Organisations. I'm saying that because during this event we presented a paper at the end so I will share with you the event. So many topics, relevant topics for the region, and I think we can also apply for the other regions because during the event, the Secretariat we tried just to get the information from everybody, and tried to put this in paper as a best practices that the region is doing right now, all the countries we are in the same step, we have the same problems. Maybe putting this in the promotion -- legal policy and regulatory frameworks we get all this that the countries are doing right now, Brazil, Mexico, U.S., Canada, the promotion of public access that we have also a lot of activities in Argentina, in Brazil, Canada, Colombia. We have also a part of mobile communications accessibility, some specific activities in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, USA, a part television video program accessibilities is another topic, so also a lot of activities. Another topic, Web accessibility. Relay center. Okay. Andrea told me just to talk about this relay center. The relay center, it's, it takes advantage of several ICTs in order to provide different communication services to deaf, hard-of-hearing and persons with language disabilities. We have this in Colombia. Since 2001, this relay center has involved and currently provides relay services by means of a chat, either through text or video. Online services of translation from and to sign language to a device with Internet connection and speakers. Number 3, a Forum to enable Colombians because this is specific for Colombia, to appropriate ICT both through sign language and written language, and the fourth topic is training to be a sign language interpreter. So this is an example, that is a document that I will share with you, so we have a lot of, a lot of activities. Maybe we can try to get best practices from here and try to promote what the region is doing and also maybe we can present this for the other regions, that what we are doing right now here. So trying to promote and try to see that all over the world, we have a lot of activities on accessibility. Maybe we need more visibility, we need more promotion. So that is exactly what we are doing here. So continuing Web accessibility, you have a light of activities in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico. So just to know the participation of this event last week here in Mexico, we had more than 20 countries, including the Caribbean, so the Caribbean was presented by 7 countries including the organization, the CTU, Caribbean telecommunication union, that works in telecommunication in the Caribbean. If I remember well, we had Santa Lucia, Haiti, Trinidad, Tobago. I will say to you but I don't remember very well, but I can after that send to you these things. So, six, accessible ICT public procurement also, we have in Brazil and Mexico procurement policies. So for instance, Mexican public function Ministry in charge of all procurement policies has signed a memorandum of understanding with G3ict, to incorporate accessibility obligations in the Government procurement policies. So Brazil is specifically the San Paolo Government has also been working closely with the organization. And after that, maybe you can give mer information to us. Okay. ICT accessibility projects, so we have a lot of some projects, and in conclusion, just to say to you, some good practices were identified as source of inspiration to be shared among the region and among the world. The Government, the first one, the Government must be an example of Web accessibility, and must consider that social media plays a key role in spreading information to the public. 2, establish commitments and milestones towards Web accessibility of public entities' Web sites. Commitments must be progressive because it's impossible just to go to the end. 3, provide guidance and support of achieving accessible social media by Government entities, private entities, academia, NGOs and all related stakeholders. Toolkits, good practices, tips, and examples of know-how in accessible social media are important to be shared. 4, strength, collaboration among all involved stakeholders in all activities and projects developed for persons with disabilities, keeping in mind nothing about us without us. Number 5, universities are important allies to be considered in mainstreaming and education of accessibility issues. It's one topic also that, why, it's not only for accessibility, but other topics in the ICT area that we in ITU, we are trying to invite and try to get more universities in our, to be our members, just to give us more this spirit of research and status on the new projects that they are developing. 6, active participation of persons with disabilities and groups representing persons with disabilities is of essence. IT operators and informationers have a key role to play in promoting the development of accessible services and equipments for persons with disabilities and for fostering entrepreneurial innovation in the area of ICT accessibility. Recognition and awards are recommended to promote ICT accessibility as an incentive to leverage the rights to communicate to all. Promotion, promote open sources creation to make accessible applications and reduce their costs, and thus make them available and affordable for persons with disabilities. When open sources is not an alternative, Government could negotiate a nationwide license. And the final one is audiovisual contents are a way of expressing and generation awareness on ICT accessibility. So these are the conclusions of these forums. We have a very, a lot of content in this final report. The final report will publish in our site in the ITU also. So and if you need any information, I am available for that, and also Kaoru Mizuno and other people that work in the Secretariat of the ITU. And for me, I think it's very important to show that the work in the ITU is the work of the members, as from the Secretariat we help you. But we are not doing everything. We can help with our expertise, using some people that is giving us a lot of efforts, as Andrea. But we need from you that the members, the countries, NonGovernmental agencies, NonGovernmental Organisations, to give us what you want, and we can work together on that. So, this is what I'd like to say to you, and this finishes my presentation, initial presentation. It's okay? I did well or not? >> ANDREA SAKS: Yeah, you did very well. I'm quite impressed with what you have done in the Americas, but I've got some suggestions. >> BRUNO RAMOS: I know you have. I know you have. You sent me a message yesterday, it's something between us. Let's go to the second topic of our agenda, and I'm going to give the floor to Markus Kummer to report on IGFSA General Assembly. >> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you very much. It's my pleasure to be here. I'm not a member of the DCAD nor am I an expert on accessibility. But I think I am considered a friend of the DCAD. I do remember when I was head of the Secretariat, we organized the main session on accessibility in Sharm El Sheikh, several people around the table were part of that. I think it was an excellent session. Allow me to say a few words on the IGF support association. It may be seen as a commercial for an association, but I think it's worthwhile for you to take notice, and I think by strengthening the IGFSA you will also strengthen the DCAD. But let me start with the beginning. We were set up two years ago with the aim to support the IGF, to promote the IGF and to also provide financial support, additional financial support. As you know, the IGF is funded through voluntary contribution and therefore in constant need of funding, and we felt there was a need for additional funding sources, and also we helped fund the national and regional IGF initiatives. One of our objectives is also to provide fellowships, but so far we have not found a sustainable way of doing this. And this year, we managed to fund five members of DCAD to come here to the meeting in Guadalajara, the funding was not from our own budget but we received it from a donor who wished to remain anonymous and we would like to thank this anonymous donor for that. And as we go forward, we have to see whether we can provide more fellowship, but right now in the General Assembly, we decided to reserve a budget percentage of 10 percent for the IGF Secretariat. If the IGF Secretariat asks us to fund something, then we can do it within our budget. But we have some funds left from this anonymous donor, and we keep that in trust. And one possibility could also be that other donors may wish to contribute to that trust within our budget, so that going forward, we can also provide additional funding. I would be remiss if I did not point out Kyle Schulman who is sitting there in the back, assuming the role of remote moderator. He did all the logistical handling. He organized tickets at the hotels and all the problems that came up with hotel rooms and Judy can tell us more about the problems, we think. He did ask the hotel to have rooms that are accessible. They said yes, we have. When Judy arrived, they were not. This is I think one of the problems you are used to, and it's I think also important to signal to people who are not members of the DCAD, these very practical level, just you cannot take a yes for an answer. That can be very frustrating. We do apologize but that was outside of our control. I have here a flier of our association. We have a booth in the IGF village. Kyle is at the booth. You are more than welcome to join the association, as members we ask for a modest membership fee of $25 a year. But I think you have a very good return on your investment, if you strengthen the association and you can provide more support in the future. So with that, I thank you for your attention. And I apologize in advance, that I have to leave the meeting, as I have various commitments, simultaneous commitments. I have to go to other meetings at the same time. But again I wish you a successful meeting, and we have then the main session on Dynamic Coalitions tomorrow, where Dynamic Coalition will also provide input and other bigger audience there of people who are less familiar with these issues. But once again, I think these are very important issues, and Andrea very eloquently always points out that many people, most of us are at least at one time in their lives, maybe temporarily, faced with accessibility issues. I was so three years ago when I had an operation, I was on crutches, and I faced exactly the same problem in a Paris hotel. I asked for a hotel with shower only and it was a bathtub, and it's just, I mean it sounds banal, but it brings up the issues you can be faced with. With that, I thank you for your attention. And I wish you an excellent meeting. And wish you success going forward. You are really doing an excellent job. Thank you very much. (applause). >> Before Marcus leaves the room as one person who was sponsored can I publicly say how grateful we are for the contribution from the anonymous donor, and from Markus and Kyle and all the wonderful work you have done. Thank you very much. >> ANDREA SAKS: I'm sounding like Cary Grant. Judy, Judy, Judy. Judy. The E-mails that were flying between Kyle and Judy were just phenomenal. I felt so relaxed, I didn't have to do it. They did a great, great job. I want to publicly say thank you to both Kyle and to Judy for all the work that they did. Thank you. >> I admire Judy for having kept a sense of humor as well. (chuckles). >> I'd like to add, what Gerry and Andrea said, we really appreciate the support, and encouragement to come here and participate. So thank you very much. >> BRUNO RAMOS: Thank you so much, Mark us. Number 3 point of our agenda, review accessibility of IGF 2016, about venue, accommodation, transport, physical accessibility, food, remote participation, registration process, and, okay. So I pass the floor to you. Judy, do you want the floor? >> My name is Judy Okite. A few observations, concerning accessibility 2016 in Mexico. This morning, when I was talking with Gunela, I told her I don't remember a wonderful IGF like Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan was accessible, the people were friendly, they were available. And I'm still looking for citizenship for Azerbaijan. (chuckles). Looking at the accessibility in Mexico, my goodness, let me begin with transport. No, let me begin with communication. There wasn't communication as expected. We kept requesting, who is in charge of persons with disabilities in Mexico. We did not receive this information until we got here. By the time we got to the airport, there was no transport. So I had to take a taxi to the hotel. I got into the hotel, the request was for an accessible room. The night that I got there, it was not available. So I had to wait until the following day at 3:00 p.m. for the room to be available. Now, to my surprise, I just said when it comes to accessibility probably everybody understands it in their own way. An accessible room is not a big room. There are amenities that make it accessible. The washroom, the toilet, in that accessible room, is not accessible. The bathroom, the shower, the floor is very slippery, so I have to throw a towel before I take a shower. So that I don't slip over. The bed itself is like ten inches high. So you kind of have to jump on to it. When it comes to accessible I wouldn't say really that the accessible room for me is accessible. Coming to the transport to the venue, I had requested for a small car, because I cannot do a step into a van. So I kept sharing this information, but it wasn't being understood. So yes, this morning, I made sure that I was outside so that they can actually see that I can't get into it. So they had to get for me a small car. So that had to be done this morning. Yesterday, when we got here, there was accessibility information desk, yes, they got us, well, the first person we met did not have an idea whether there was a wheelchair. So yes, at some point, we got the wheelchair. Unfortunately, the person who was assigned disappeared somewhere. So I cannot use a wheelchair and wheel myself. So I kept asking for help from people, like hello, could you wheel me to this next place, and the next person to that place, and I was telling Gunela this morning I don't think I'm going to take a wheelchair today, because it makes me more disabled when I'm not able to move from one room to the next. What I'm supposed to talk about? >> ANDREA SAKS: You are doing fine. Just keep going. You ended up telling, we need to tell people how you do get around when you don't use a wheelchair. And also elevators and stairs, things like that. Go for it. >> JUDY OKITE: Thank you. I do use a walker to get around. So getting to the registration yesterday was quite a challenge. They had to do the registration outside. Yes. So when it comes to registration, it wasn't accessible enough. I don't know how the others managed to get there. Because one, it's across the street, yeah, so they had to, I had to request a taxi man to get me across the street, to do that. And then also the accessibility, walking to the registration, wasn't accessible either. Yes, there is the lifts, yeah, that are kind of hidden. If you are not sure where you are going, you can keep going around. I think Peter can say something about that. The washroom at the venue, it's not accessible. It doesn't have the handrails. So yes, it is not about the big room. It is about the amenities, how can you use them. Thank you. (applause). >> ANDREA SAKS: I want to say something in addition. Once I get here, and once Judy gets here, and when we talk to people, we can have what we want. We need to have a training situation, where, I don't know how we should accomplish this, but when I got here and there were problems with the technical stuff, they were great. I want to give them a round of applause, because they, we have difficulties. (applause) but they had the right attitude. They are willing to work. The problem is education. We need to do more. We have done the guidelines. We are going to talk about those in a minutes. I'm beginning to think we ought to, what makes a accessible venue, what makes a accessible room. There is more work for DCAD to do on that kind of thing. Maybe there has to be an advanced team that comes from the ITU who I have trained and who Judy has trained, and who Gerry has trained and Gunela too, everybody. So that we know the pitfalls, I think maybe that is one of our next projects. If that is okay, do you want to say something about -- >> I accompanied Judy yesterday morning, when Judy was arriving and registering and getting through the, to the front of the venue. It was so frustrating, because there weren't any people who really knew what to do. At one stage, we were surrounded by four or five people, saying can we help you? But they really didn't know what to do. When we asked repeatedly where is the wheelchair, they couldn't find it. And so the training is vital. I think if that can be done beforehand by people who know, and everyone is different. Judy's requirements are very different from Gerry's and my own. It's understanding the diversity of the disability community too. So there really is training, number one, required. >> ANDREA SAKS: Thank you, Gunela. Mr. Tambelae, I'm going to spell it for the captioner. Demebele, is a French speaker. And we did make people aware that he was a French speaker. He does read English. So captioning is vital for him. And he understands my wacky French, thank god. So we need, when we have someone with a disability who is representing his country, who does speak another language, we are requesting somebody also who can speak that language. Though this particular event is done in English, we do have translation, so we do know that there are people here who can translate, and with persons with disabilities, who need to find different amenities as you call them, we need to have somebody assigned to someone like Mr. Demebele to make his life easier because he is a wonderful human being who works in ITU D, as the Rapporteur for the accessibility question, question 7 in the D sector. He has a lot of information to give us and has not been able to perhaps be willing to participate, because he is reading this now, because of the fact that he would prefer to speak in his own language. So when we have an accessibility event, like we have today, it would have been helpful if we had a person who is a Francophile to assist in the translation. That is accessibility too. I personally have found everybody though when I come to them as an individual and explain the problem, they really have accommodated us here. It is the advance work that we need to work on, and the training, as we have all been discussing. Thank you. >> BRUNO RAMOS: I think someone wants to say, because we didn't finish this topic about venue accommodation, transport. I don't know if someone wants to say something? The floor is open. >> GERRY ELLIS: From the points of view of a blind person I might make some comments. One of the things that you have to do before you come to a meeting like this is register online. The online registration process is totally inaccessible, because it has a Cechua, which is a visual thing which cannot be done by a blind person. That is one thing. The other thing that I would, two points I'd make is we have been talking about training, whatever. It's important for IGF to work with local organizations of people with disabilities, the hotel can say a room is accessible but if a local person came to that room six months ago, Judy would not have been in a position that she was in, because they could have told him no, it is not accessible, use a different hotel. The third thing I would say, it's not just the venue itself that needs to be accessible. I would find it utterly impossible to come here without my assistant Patty, because I would be in my room for the entire 6 days that I'm here. There needs to be an accessible restaurants in the area, accessible bars or whatever it might be, to sort of, you can go out and get the entire enjoyment, and bring the whole thing, you know, enjoy the whole thing, as well as just in the room. If I came here as a blind person there is no way I could get around this venue, it's huge and massive, even with Patty we are having difficulty sometimes finding places. It has to be the whole, accessibility of the whole process, the time you register, remote participation, night meetings in advance, the whole process right through and not just the vision of the day. >> ANDREA SAKS: Regarding the restaurants, Gerry, when we went to a meeting, Francesca and I a few years ago I was with a blind person, I got adopted as a guide, which means it was fun. It was a person I knew from the past. There was a list provided for participants on the accessibility of restaurants, accessible restaurants were notified in advance, they were accessible. They weren't horrible stairs to go up and down. There was a list provided. I think that was a good solution. We can add that, a little groundwork before we go somewhere. I'm not loud enough? That is amazing. Most people think I'm too loud. Fortunately, the captioner, the captioner is Caption First and they know my voice. We are lucky. I'm recorded. Does anyone else, can I -- Mr. Deme bele, do you want to say anything? Do you want to say something? Go ahead. >> He is saying that he is going to translate -- he is going to speak in French but I'm going to translate. Mr. Demebele is Rapporteur for the question 7 in the ITU D, and he has been working with Andrea for a long time. If I got it right, he had to leave the first hotel, because he couldn't access the bathroom. But since then he had no other issues. Thank you for your attention. >> ANDREA SAKS: Actually, what happened when I came into the building, there is an accessibility booth. I went and spoke to them immediately and said we are going to have persons with disabilities coming. Will you tell them where the accessible meeting is at this time, and there will be some people in wheelchairs, there will be some people who will be walking, some people who are blind, can you make sure they come to room 6. That chap actually did that. So, he was with Mr. Demebele when I got down here to see everybody at room 6. The accessibility booth really was a good idea. But if I hadn't gone and done something about it, it would have been totally nonusable. Accessibility booth, good. But that we need to make better use of that facility. Does anybody else -- Judith, you are talking, what do you want to say? >> Yes, it's Judith Helsing, I think that is a great idea because the accessibility booth, what we found is that they set that up, but they don't educate the people. So we need to, when we have that in mind, also have in mind that they may not be educated and we need to educate the people, because that is what they want to solve the issue, but they don't know how. >> ANDREA SAKS: I want Mexico to feel fine, because every time we do work with people, people get it. So if you don't know, you don't know. So everybody here, as I said before, once I gave the problem, just got it and came to the aid. It's not that people are incapable or don't care. It is that there is not a mechanism in place. I've been to Mexico so many times, I love it here. So I've never really had a big problem. But then again I've only gotten slightly disabled since I've gotten older. But as Gerry has said, you wouldn't have been able to do anything if you hadn't had Patty. Gunela? >> GUNELA ASTBRINK: Couple of quick suggestions. I know captions is considered important and there are ways to make capcha accessible by just saying, what is 1 plus 1. Yeah, sometimes audible isn't so good, either. But you can just have a question, what is 1 plus 1. An you put in 2, something like that, that can't be used by a robot. So that's solvable. The other question when we talked about restaurants, I know in Australia, for example, if there is a major disability conference in regards to restaurants close by, informing restaurants, checking of course they are accessible, but also maybe having a menu in large print, just having a few things lined up beforehand which really makes a difference. And even in Braille. But there are things that can be done, to really make the visit a pleasant one. Thanks. >> BRUNO RAMOS: Okay, so let's go to the other point of the agenda, suggested updates to the DCAD accessibility guidelines, 2015. So I give the floor to Gunela and Gerry. >> GUNELA ASTBRINK: Thank you. So, I'll start and Gerry will continue. For those who are not familiar, I might give a bit of introduction. So, the DCAD accessibility guidelines were created a number of years ago, I think, in India, the meeting there maybe? Istanbul. Okay. And it has been updated a number of times, based on experiences, and that is what we are doing again. So Gerry and I have been tasked to take that on. At this stage, what I've done is basically gone through the document, and increase the flow of a language and so forth, and but I will just go through the contents, because it covers quite a lot. So in the introduction, it states that the DCAD provides guidelines to the IGF Secretariat on how to improve accessibility at IGF meetings and to eliminate barriers. The intention is to help the IGF Secretariat to improve accessibility and inclusion for persons with disabilities, and persons with age related disabilities during IGF meetings. So it requires a staff of IGF to understand certain procedures, and to include those requirements as mandatory in all host agreements, and so that is on a high level. And I come back to that word, mandatory, in a second. But, what currently is in the guidelines are an accessibility considerations, when organizing IGF meetings, so to be aware of attendees' needs and requirements, and choosing a accessible environments for the meeting and there are various subsections about the accessible environment, providing information about the event, there are some subsections. The fourth issue is provide accessible information, and there is a lot of different issues there. And we already have a section for training and informing assistance staff and we need to work more on that one. Finally, allowing anyone to provide feedback and comment. We have already done that in this environment, but I'm sure there are other ways that feedback can be encouraged as well. And the DCAD involvement of course is very important, and annexes, there are three. One is a sample registration form, which covers some of the maybe requirements that people may have, so they can tick box this and provide more detail. There is a checklist, which covers some other things that the organizers should consider, and then finally there is a list of references, because there are other accessibility guidelines to meetings that are available. There is U.S., Australian, Canadian, ones for example that are in the guidelines. There is also some ITU reference as we expand its work, etcetera. That gives you a idea of what is covered in the guidelines. So, as I said before, that sentence in the introduction talks about the requirements that are mandatory in host agreements. So that is very important, because as IGF Secretariat negotiates with hosts about the venue, they would need to consider and include some of what is here in the guidelines. What we as the DCAD need to work on is all of these particular criteria in the guidelines going to be mandatory, are some going to be desirable. We of course would like everything to be accessible. But sometimes there might have to be some give and take too. That I think is a very important discussion that we can all contribute to. So that is something that is a work in progress. Gerry and I have discussed that we really are only at the starting point of the revision, and over the next three months or so, we will do it when we go back home. Finally, I want to mention about the references, that they are, annex 3, the references, they are quite important to consider in regard to how other countries, organizations put together guidelines, and some are Government guidelines, and some are from NGOs. I'd also like to point out one I've included from Australia, a meeting and events Australia guidelines on accessible events. This is actually done by an organization that has members of businesses that organize events. So it is really good to see that an industry organization is considering this. So looking at that as against how a Government or NGO considers accessibility can be useful. That is probably all I would like to say right now. So I hand over to Gerry, who has got some ideas on how we are going to move forward. >> GERRY ELLIS: Thank you, Gunela. Gerry Ellis here. Yeah, as Gunela said, we really only started this, we would hope to get a lot of work, we will do some of the work on it ourselves over the next couple of months. We will, we do plan then to put it out to public comment amongst DCAD members and maybe even further afield, and we would hope to have something well in place in time to inform IGF for next year's conference, and hopefully it will be used by that. Part of what we were talking about or one of the issues that Gunela mentioned during that was remote participation. So it is part, an important part of the meetings. The remote participation that we had here this morning, the public face, the bit that we see is the technology. I'm not sure what technology tool that we are using, I think it was Adobe Connect. So you do have to have the technology but don't forget that anyone who wants to do remote participation if they are not doing it from their own home, maybe there is a regional meeting which we are remotely linking to the main, all things Gunela has been talking about, accessible rooms, accessible meetings all apply to remote participation venue just as much as they do to the main venue here. What we are talking about goes so much, so closely hand in hand that Gunela and I are going to develop these two documents hand in hand. Doesn't mean I'll be hand in hand with Gunela, because it's a long way from Ireland to Australia. (chuckles). But we will develop these two documents hand in hand as we work on them. I will say something special about the technology of Adobe because it's so important, and making a choice of an accessible remote participation tool, I think makes it important enough to have it as a separate document. Maybe that will be available as a second document and the overall document will point to that as a sub document if you like. We have to make sure that the tool covers the needs of deaf people, subtitles, captions, all of those chat boxes to make sure they are accessible. But it also has to cover the needs of blind people, people who maybe have dexterity problems or whatever. I'm not aware of any tool that does all those things. I know different tools that cover needs of deaf people, I know a different tool that is used by a school for the blind, in America. So it must be accessible for blind people. I haven't used it. But I'm told of it. So there is a bit of experimentation to do. Part of this remote participation process, I hope to get a small group of people together who will do a bit of experimenting on three or four tools which we can then recommend one to IGF. I think I'm going to leave it at that and open it up to the floor and we might hear about experience of any people here who were using remote participation tools, maybe Gunela and I will be only too happy to take any questions. Thank you. >> Valentine a from Bosnia Herzegovina. I would like to thank everyone, have been incredible to be here. We last year, two years ago, we did the form where we just put the people with disability, a box and we got one participant, and was functional. Next year, this year our local IGF, national IGF had the main panel on people with disability, they were talking, they represent different multistakeholders and we learn a lot. We knew that we did the sign languages interpretation in local language, because we wanted to give a sign, I couldn't do that transcription because it's costly. But I really think that it is important that diversities are really fully accepted, and are empowered and people can be here, I can't believe that a international, I mean the global IGF, it's doing such mistakes. I'm shocked. I'm really happy that there are guidelines because we will need it. We were wrong about putting the chairs making people sitting, of course, your heads and legs and habits. Those guidelines will help us, will empower the community, will let the regulatory agency of communication that take the issue seriously in Bosnia to make better. But I'm really shocked that we have still at this level at a Internet Governance Forum to talk about universal access, and we have not access to our own bathroom. It's shocking. >> ANDREA SAKS: Thank you, Valentina. We have met before on the Internet which is great. But because I want to point out that one of the ladies you work with is amilla, who is also a vice Rapporteur of, Co-Rapporteur with Mr. Dembele for question 7 in the ITU. One of the things I want to point out to Gerry, we did try taking this document and we made two recommendations. They are separate. One is the ITU technical paper on accessible remote participation. And it always could use improvement. The ITU technical paper on accessible meetings. While I've been sitting here, I made a suggestion to Bruno, we should maybe have a contest, a contest that, because we have them from time to time for development, to make an accessible remote participation tool. That is what Adobe is. Maybe young people could do that, and maybe somehow a new participation tool could be created, that the ITU would end up using and adopting. I know Judith is stomping on the bit to say something. >> This is Judith Helsing. So Gunela and I have been working and some others, within ICANN, and at large with a technology task force. We have been pushing the ICANN about these issues. But one thing you left off on the list is what is also a real problem, is mobile users of remote tools, because often, while a tool is accessible on a PC, it is not necessarily all parts accessible on an iPad. So, we know all the faults of Adobe, and they are pushing, we have got them, it seems to be the best tool right now and being pushing and keep pushing, because as flash which is the biggest problem on mobile, is gone away with and html 5 is brought out, we are going to have a lot less issues. But another tool that we have tested in the technology task force, where we have that list of testing all the tools, that we are planning on testing, is meet echo which is what the IETF uses and the IETF has several blind participants who are active on the tool. We are going to try to test that and see, because apparently, since it's open source they have a lot of tools that they haven't rolled out. But they can roll out, if there is interest. So we are going to be doing, we are working with people at the IETF to test that tool, and to see can they answer our questions. Can they answer, are they better. One of the problems that a lot of tools don't use, don't have, is voice is, the ability to call out to people. I can use as, all those things as Gerry was saying I'm not in a perfect tool. So we need to find which ones will be best, and maybe meet echo might be something that they can scale up, if they have some money or something like that, that we can then accomplish all what we need. >> ANDREA SAKS: Thank you, Judith. IETF, if they are doing something there, we would like to encourage them to also work with the people who work in ITU. There is a competition thing between IETF and ITU. Sometimes they are friends and sometimes they are not. But in this particular case, I'm going to rely on you to do some communication, maybe a safe place for them to come is to the Dynamic Coalition, or to come to the JCA, the Joint Coordination Activity on Accessibility. But we will talk off-line about that. >> I'm going to pass it back. >> BRUNO RAMOS: Okay, any questions? We are almost ening our session. I don't know if you have any questions about -- okay. Please. Please say your name. >> I'm from the Netherlands. When I came in I thought it was about more in general about accessibility, people with handicap. So but it is especially working on the IGF meetings, this is important not to talk general but to be concrete. From the Netherlands, I'm a board member of a institution with people with light and severe mental handicaps. What I see there, both working with the United Nations Charter of the rights, there you see that life gets complex. Banks are getting out with personal services, lot of things are digital. I expect in some way that this might have played a role in this debate. But it is another thing but now we are at the end of the meeting. It is important to think about like you said on how to make them participate. We ourselves in our institution made an assessment of what we are doing, and how people who live independent with a handicap, more and more people live independent, how you can support them, in this extremely complex world, because we talk about the Internet but it's getting more complex for people with light or severe handicap. I want to underline this, you have a good approach to look to your own activities but maybe there is some other workshop or another year that it was advocated and seen it. So it's very important. Thank you. >> ANDREA SAKS: We only know where you come from, for the benefit of the captioner and for us, can you take the mic back, please, and give your name. >> My name is Lumbert. >> Can you spell for her. >> I have a look over there. Lumberto. (?) >> Lambert, and then van, and neiste. E, neestelroo epsilon. >> ANDREA SAKS: That is a specific mark that we don't have. We will get that sorted out in the transcript because we would like to quote you and also stay in touch with you. There are many organizations that all of us come from, that work on specific technology. This is the DCAD took on making IGF accessible because it wasn't. This is what we want. Wait a minute, don't go away. We got you, kid. Yes, okay. That's fine. >> We have only a few minutes. Maybe we can go to the next accessible screen reader, Gerry. No? >> GERRY ELLIS: I'm not sure what this issue about, I thought we were going to talk about accessible remote participation. What I will maybe mention that might be of interest is people who are in the room may not know that blind people use a piece of software which translates what is on the screen into speech, so I have a little earpiece on my ear now, I can hear what is on my computer because it's speaking into my ear. Most of those are very expensive. But there is one which is free, and is open source. That's NVDA, N for November, V for victor, D for doctor, and A for accessibility. NVDA. That is available to anyone for free, it's available in several different languages. So I don't know if that is what this thing is about. But that information hopefully will be of use. >> Thank you for giving me the floor. I want to touch upon the question 7, which is specifically about the access of persons with disabilities to the ICTs. He is just saying that disabilities is also age related disability, and with the increase of age, probably all of us experience it. I do. So it would be a good thing to, during the IGF, to have the national experiences that is all countries, especially developed countries, would give the experiences what they have, and that would help very much the developing countries as well. So, Mr. Demebele said that to improve the efficiency of the group, they organized two meetings of the rapporteurs to gather the experiences from each country. Thank you. >> ANDREA SAKS: Thank you, Mr. Demebele, the last person to make a comments before we close is Judy Okite. >> JUDY OKITE: Thank you very much, my closing remarks, to IGF, thank you for your contribution and work, thank you very much, Kyle, it was wonderful working with you. I hope we do that again. I still do insist that within the Secretariat there needs to be somebody with a disability as a contact person. I know this has continually been a political matter, that persons with disabilities cannot be looked at like a stakeholder. But I still insist that there needs to be a contact person. Thank you. >> ANDREA SAKS: We have one lady from the audience, her name is Esther deprietas who wants to say something. Then we are going to close. >> Hi. I'm a graduate student from university of Brazil and I'd like to know how can I make accessibility a reality at my university, because I have only one subject that explains a little about accessibility. And we are making Web sites, apps and we don't know how to make accessibility a reality. >> ANDREA SAKS: We can't actually answer this question for you right now, due to time. But I'm giving you my card. I want your details. I will start connecting you with people who might be able to assist you. I'm going to have to close, because our technical people have to eat or they will die. They have been absolutely wonderful, to let us go past that. I want to thank everybody who's come here, especially Bruno, and all the people who have worked, we have Diego in charge of all the technical people. It has been fabulous. Thanks for coming. We have gotten a lot out of this. We will be in touch at the next remote DCAD meeting which is captioned and therefore I also want to thank our captioner who did really great and the meeting is now closed. Thank you. (applause). (end of meeting at 1:35 p.m.) 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.  *** Raw file. Internet Governance Forum 2016. Enabling Inclusive and Sustainable Growth. Jalisco, Mexico. 7 December, 2016. Workshop 159. Encryption and safety of journalists in digital age. 1500. 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.  ***. Workshop 159. Encryption and Safety of Journalists in Digital Age. Workshop 159. Encryption and Safety of Journalists in Digital age. >> Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to the session. Organized by UNESCO, to launch our new study, and we have a couple of copies of the summary here. So anybody asks a question can get a copy. Otherwise, it's online. And you can also get other brochures which have all our other publications. This new publication is not yet in our brochure, because it came out early last week. We have the author here to present it to us. I'll introduce the session but telling you briefly something that precipitated the study on this. Three or four years ago, at UNESCO, a debate developed amongst the member states after the Edward Snowden disclosures and the debate was should UNESCO get involved in privacy issues, which of course deals with some of these issues of surveillance and as a tangential impact on encryption. The member states said, do a study, which is how problems get resolved in the UN system. We did a big consultative study which came out with this publication, for inclusive knowledge societies. This study was presented and refined and ultimately supported in the form of an outcome document at a conference called connecting the dots held at UNESCO, multistakeholder conference. That multistakeholder conference document called connecting the dots said interesting things. One is that it said here that it should be recognized by UNESCO that, I have to find -- it says, options for UNESCO related to privacy, it says UNESCO should recognize or could recognize that anonymity and encryption can play a role as enablers of privacy protection and freedom of expression, and it says UNESCO should facilitate dialogue on these issues. There is also a strong injunction in this that UNESCO should do research on all these kinds of topics. This particular document was presented at the member states conference, so it came a multistakeholder event to the member states event, member states only. They adopted this document actually. This gave UNESCO a mandate to proceed with this basis and a mandate to say states have agreed that encryption and anonymity can play a important role. That is quite a key acknowledgment. What the member states also agreed was a position that UNESCO calls Internet universality which is that the Internet if it's going the play the role that we want it to play in democracy, sustainable development, it should be governed by four principles, rights, openness, accessibility and multistakeholder participation. ROAM. It is easy to remember. In terms of framing all issues using this particular heuristic, if you are speaking about encryption, we need to in terms of rights, look at it in terms of openness, impact on accessibility and you need to look at to what extent it's also involved, decisions are made on a multistakeholder basis. This is the way in which we approached the subject and with the support of funding from Germany, we managed to decide we do a study on this and we made a public call for, a bid for researchers to come and do the study for us, and by Professor Wolfgang Schulz from the institute in Hamburg. The two of them did this interesting study. We will start this session with a summary of what is in the study. The study is online and those who ask questions can get a hard copy summary. Afterwards we will go to Mr. Marc Rotenberg, and Amalia Toledo, work for UNESCO in Iraq. We come to Sebastian Bellagamba, Internet Society and then to Janis Karklins, formerly the A.D. G in our sector in our Vice President of Human Rights Council. We will have the closing words from a new ADG, Mr. Frank LaRue, former Special Rapporteur, I left out Mr. Amos Toh. We will have you first immediately after the presentation. Let's jump in. We hope we have time for engagement. Wolfgang, over to you. >> WOLFGANG SCHULZ: Thanks so much. Does it work? Yes, it does. Thanks so much for the invitation to present that here. Thanks to UNESCO that made it possible and the front office in Germany that supported this. Some ideas we developed in the study, I will start -- is the presentation on? I will start with background information. The first one is not, does not come as a surprise, that this topic is still hot. It is not like the crypto wars we had in the '90s but nevertheless, even if you go to randomly a session here it is very likely that encryption somehow plays a role. Yesterday there was organized by the colleagues from Stanford University a workshop on that, and many others that touch the issue. We believe that the reason for that is that not only which is of course important it affects people individually, and their modes of communication and their protection of privacy but it has also a structural effect in different ways, encryption can create subnets in a way, and lead to fragmentation, countries can insist on policies that are applied to operators or manufacturers of things in their given country, fragmentation again is a issue. You see that it is not only the thing that is obvious but there are many other aspects to encryption and encryption policy, and that makes it important to talk about that. What we could build on in our study is the report of the Special Rapporteur, Dave Cabe on freedom of expression and opinion and he already highlighted the importance of both anonymity and encryption to guarantee freedom of speech in practice. When we talk about encryption, you see that and I mentioned that already, that encryption can guarantee or at least support a lot of properties of information, but it's not identical of course, when we talk about authenticity or anonymity or things like that, encryption plays a role. But of course we know it's not identical. So you have to be very careful what you are talking about, in a debate, when you use encryption as a concept. What we can see is that it's a complex and dynamic governance ecosystem that is, encryption governance, encryption policies are designed, it's not only of course the users and states matter, but the intermediaries play a fundamental role. We talk about encryption on very different levels, on the level of the, the user has in his or her hand, content delivery networks and other things on the way in between, where we can talk about encryption, data storages and things like that. It's important again in debate to point to where encryption is used. And it becomes more and more apparent and we highlight that in our study and in the recommendations as well, that this intermediary level plays a major role. Policy that just says the user should make use of encryption does not really have the full picture to say the least. But it's very much about encryption on the way in between, and the role of the different stakeholders in between. We see and highlight that in our study that there are some that very much rely on encryption, that are minorities of course, that in many countries have to face severe consequences when they engage in public communication or private communication, but journalists are of course a group that very much needs the possibility to encrypt communication, again in different ways, when they do their research it's important but also when they share their opinions and information and want to do that without interference, then encrypting of communication with the user can be of special importance. Again it's not just one use case we are looking at. There are many, many different use cases we are talking about. And of course when I talk about journalists, we have the question that is one question and the media sphere that is important in many aspects, that bloggers play in many countries a very important role to facilitate public communication, and not only traditional journalists but also bloggers depend on mechanisms to encrypt. The core of our brief study is on the human rights aspects of encryption. I just want to present some thoughts we had laid down in the study, where we want to unfold aspects of the debate that is already there on human rights and encryption and that are two aspects mainly that is to look at the aims of protection when we talk about human rights, what is covered by the protection of the human rights and of course the justifications for limitations. We very often find very simple statements that encryption is, should be or is already a human right, but we all know that there are limitations, that there are legitimate limitations, so it's very important to talk about the justification for limitations, when we want to have the full picture. I just highlight some elements, some ideas we have unfolded in our studies, some elements that are not so obvious, we believe at least. The first one is that we believe that the self-protection of speakers is within the scope of the freedom of speech. It is not the speech as such, as measures to protect the speakers, but they fall within the scope as well. I think that's more or less obvious. Nevertheless, it is not common sense in some legal orders I know, and the constitutional order is not protected by the constitution or at least it's unclear. There has been no precedence, and very, very few authors elaborate on that. We do that in the study and come to the conclusion that self protection is part of the aims of the guarantee under article 19. Another issue which was very broad, and not only something to be discussed when we talk about encryption, is intermediaries. On the one hand, the use of intermediaries as instruments of communication is within the scope of article 19 as well. And even more controversial is that the intermediary's functions are protected in our view as well, so the intermediaries can claim human rights when it comes to privacy in communication at least in specific functions. We do not say that in all the functions they perform, they are protected. But when they act as what we call privacy intermediaries, protecting the privacy and therefore the uninhibited communication as we call it of their users, then it is covered as well. One element that already is important and regarded as part of the test you have to go through when you see whether human rights are infringed or not is that you consider effects as well. In many jurisdictions you find that as a kind of additional element that you say an individual is somehow affected but there is a structural effect that is a chilling affect on the communication as well, again it has to do with what we call uninhibited communication which we see as one of the core elements that freedom of speech is protecting. Another thing we want to suggest as points of discussions are procedural aspects. What we can see when it comes to encryption policy is that you find at least in some countries informal arrangements between the Government and industry about possible back doors or whatever, and these informal arrangements and even acts of enforce self regulations or things like that are not as such bad. A lot of studies on self regulation and coregulation are quite confident that it is a powerful and human rights respecting concept, or at least can be designed in a way, but there are some problems associated with that, and one problem is that it can blur the responsibility, and you do not know whether there is in fact an act, indirectly by the industry that affects human rights. What we see is that we have to frame human rights more than we did before in a way that these procedural guarantees that the state has to make clear that it made a decision, and is not allowed to blur it by using informal arrangements with other actors. That is one key element that we believe in future and that is not only true for the encryption, that is also true for other human rights aspects as well. That is why we put it forward. Second aspect as I mentioned before is justification of limits and proportionality of limitations to freedom of speech, privacy as well but we are focused on the freedom of speech issues. We have some, collected some arguments that we believe are important and have to be considered when we think about justification of possible limits to encryption, that are set by states. One thing is that we believe that the structural effects that these kind of limitations have, have to be part of the proportionality test. So when we have limits to encryption that have these kind of structural effects on, for example, specific provider, many people trust what their communication, and then this has to be taken into account. The second thing is that we believe that the effects on vulnerable communities, actors like journalists but that is also true for many other groups in specific countries, have to be taken into account when balancing these things, and we believe that the level of certainty as regards the risks that are put forward justify the limitations, have to be taken into account. We believe that it is hard to justify limitations to encryption, at least specific limitations, when it's a mere theoretical risk and not a concrete risk here in place. We find in some legal orders very subtle differentiations between types of risks and we believe that when we talk about limits to freedom of speech by limits using encryption, these risks have to be taken into account. And under these assumptions, for example, it's very very hard to justify that using encryption is criminal offense in itself, which is the case in some states, when there are no concrete risks is demonstrated by the Government or the state. I come to the last point, that is recommendations. We have a lot of recommendations, grouped by stakeholders, in our study. I just mention a few here. We believe that governments, given the importance of the issue, should include human rights aspect into their encryption policy and provide transparency, especially when it comes to the informal arrangement with industry actors. In this respect, we believe that it is not enough for a encryption policy to just look at the end user and say they have to be enabled and literacy, media literacy, Internet literacy has to make sure that encryption is also covered by these programs, that of course is important. We won't deny that. But nevertheless we believe that is not enough. We have to talk about encryption on other levels. I mentioned at the beginning, if we want to leverage the outcome as regards privacy protection and freedom of speech protection. Again, we focus on the, especially vulnerable groups. We believe that it is not enough information at hand as regards the necessity for some groups, for minorities, vulnerable users, and to make informed decisions, to make evidence-based decisions at least. We need more information about that. I think that's something important and neglected before. As I said at the beginning, it's important and it is not always the case that to see encryption policy as a part of the broader concept, with all the intersections with other policy fields as well. So my last recommendation is, please read the study. Thanks so much. >> MODERATOR: Thank you so much, Wolfgang. Let's jump in because of time, we will go to Mr. Amos Toh, office of U.S. (background noise). >> Thank you so much for putting together this informative panel, and congratulations to Mr. Wolfgang Schulz on a informative and thoughtful report. A disclaimer I'm speaking more in my capacity as a fellow with the U.S. Irvine School of Law, a lot of things I say will be informed by my capacity as an advisor to David Kay, but may or may not reflect his positions as well as the mandates. I think at the risk of problematizing this discussion, I want to start off with two broad questions. To protect the safety of journalists online and therefore off line can we simply focus on the specific profession of journalism, and single them out as special unique beenfactors of encryption and digital safety, as we look at the broader community of people that enabled access to information. The second question I have that I would like to throw into the discussion is that in the context of digital security and safety, can we look at encryption in isolation or must we look at digital security wholistically, must we look at encryption as a part of a suite of tools both online and off line that are vital to safety and security. On the first question, I think in David's September 2015 report on whistle-blowers and sources when we talk about the safety of journalists increasingly especially in the digital age, we are talking more about the function of collection and dissemination of information, particularly that which is in the public interest. If we tie protections to function rather than specific group of journalists or profession of judgism, this encompasses bloggers, organizations, human rights researchers and freedom writers and so on. This broader definition has salient and international human rights law, particularly under article 19 where it says freedom of expression is protected through any media. So journalism and transmission of information through any media, including digital and contemporary forms of media. I also wonder and I throw out this challenge, we must think about issues of digital safety, even more broadly than journalism in this broader context. When we talk about protecting encryption for journalism are we talking about protecting encryption for all people? If we single out journalists or any other vulnerable group as unique or special beenfactors of encryption and other digital technologies is there a risk that we could be incentivizing restrictions on these measures because we are attracting undue scrutiny by saying that journalists are given special protection because of the use of encryption. I think that is an open and debatable question that I would love to hear some responses on. That is really the first part, right, like who are we protecting. Then the second is on encryption, I think the report, UNESCO report makes this very important link between encryption and anonymity. I think that is a really important link to emphasize. David's June 2015 report was not just about encryption but also about encryption and anonymity. Encryption doesn't necessarily guarantee anonymity as most of us know in this room. It doesn't protect the metadata, the titles of E-mails. If we don't, if journalists or any other person engaged in information gathering doesn't use encryption in combination wit an onI amizing tools, their sources may be discoverable. David identifies in his report not just restrictions on encryption that are concerning not just back door access, not just decriminalization of the use of encryption but also SIM card registration requirements and restrictions in the use of VP Ns and even the use of pseudonyms. These are all concerning restrictions that we must start addressing and bring meaningful human rights discourse and scrutiny to in order to advance the conversation on digital security. The final thought I'll leave with everybody is, must we also convey the need for sensible and practical balance between online and off line security to not forget that off line security measures are important and there is a need to emphasize cryptography and other encryption tools. I read in a report somewhere that journalists who have all these highly advanced technologies, they reach the border of a particular country and they encounter resistance in the form of, if you don't give us your passwords, we will break your fingers. What kinds of off line measures, more rudimentary measures bringing basic device that is don't contain vital information across the border and using traditional means of security, how do those complement encryption and other digital security tools. That might also be something that is an important feature of this discussion. Thank you. >> GUY BERGER: Thank you, Amos, that was good food for thought. You have set agenda for questions. Let's go on, we will jump, Marc is still connecting so we will come back to him. Let's go to Amalia Toledo. >> AMALIA TOLEDO: Thank you. I'm here to share with you the experience from the south, specifically from Colombia, and the experience we as a small NGO has with journalists in Colombia and a analysis that we did. We found that there is little known or awareness on digital safety and security for journalists in Colombia. So their communications, whether by phone, chat, E-mail, any kind of communication were very insecure. We decided to work on the development of this app to contribute on the protection of their communication, their privacy and security of their communications, and this app is called Hansel, despite the setbacks or challenges we have been facing with the development on this app, being a small NGO with developers that are activists, but they still need to live. So they have to dedicate their time to work and not necessarily on developing this app, although they are very interested on working on this. We have identified through the whole process where we still work with journalists, on digital security, that implementing digital safety protocols with media workers or outlet is very difficult, mainly because data security requires an extra effort, that they are not, they don't have either the time to put that effort into considering digital, their digital security, or because they are still working or dealing with many other priorities for them, like their own life, for instance, or sustain ability of the media outlets when we are talking about media outlets that are based not in the capital city but in the regions, or where they are still, they still need to improve the work conditions. They still have other priorities, and safety of their communication is not there, it is not one of this priority. But to spread the use of digital .. we are going to have a better opportunity if media outlets engage in this. We are sick of working with journalists where they have a very busy agenda where they have to run all the time, to get the news, and to sell one article to get something, some money to live, to make the month. We are sick to work with them because it's difficult for them to implement digital safety measures. So now we have a better opportunity if media outlet take the responsibility of developing digital security protocols, implement them, and help journalists to take care of their communications. But it shouldn't be the sole responsibility of journalists, and media has to make more efforts, media outlets have to make more efforts on this and they are not doing it at least in Colombia, as I say for many reasons when you have the mass media because they don't care or when you have small media outlet it is because they don't have the capacity. They are still dealing with many other stuff. But they have to take the responsibility on this, and to help their employees improving their journalists even though this is not going to solve anything because there are a lot of independent journalists out there and there is still a need to work with them on raise awareness and make them implement their own threat modeling and their own security measures and so on. But for that, in both journalists and the media, should consider also that digital safety of their sources and also of the audience they are addressing with their media. That is something that we believe so, for instance, we have been talking with media outlets in Colombia about implementing https in their platforms, and it come one ear and go to the other one and no one is listening to us with this because they are not aware and they don't care about the audiences. They only care of their survival, their own survival and not the audiences that also need to be secure as my colleague here has mentioned before. We have some success with journalists when we work with them, when we say maybe you are already used to living in risk because your profession is difficult in Colombia. They are still killing journalists in Colombia. Maybe you already accepted that. But your sources, no. They are forcing them to take the same risks as the ones that do by yourselves, you agree to take. So those are the only areas where we can, we have had some success, but still, digital safety process is very difficult for them. I'm not talking about encryption because as you say, I don't believe this is about encryption only. This is about a more holistic approach for me, and I forgot what I was saying. (chuckles). But that's okay. >> GUY BERGER: Thank you. We have started with the state and we have been to the individual, in a vulnerable community and individuals institution. I'm sure our next speaker will focus on the intermediaries but I yield my chair to him so he can use the laptop. >> Hello, everyone. I'm Marc Rotenberg, director and founder of the electronic privacy information center. We began in 1994 after the launch of the first petition on the Internet, and the basis of that petition was the freedom to use encryption. We opposed this clipper chip proposal from the National Security Agency, which would have established key escrow encryption for all Internet and telephone communications, and that's in fact how Epic got started. There is a lot of history to tell. I know I have only a few minutes. I won't take all that time of the session. I'm going to post on the Epic Web site the slides, if you are interested. I've recently written a book called privacy in the modern age, the search for solutions which talks about some of the history. It is a nice Christmas gift, by the way, you can find it on line at epic.org/bookstore. Did I mention the URL? It's epic.org/bookstore. Okay. If I can get the slides, please, quickly we will jump right into the presentation. Thank you. A brief history of the crypto wars and lessons learned. In the early 1990s, Government was worried about hyper privacy, the inability to get access to evidence in criminal investigations. They had two roles and they were conflicting. One role was to ensure the security of the information systems, the other was to enable access in the context of intelligence gathering and law enforcement. They describe these as equities and they put out two proposals in the United States, one technical, one legal. Key escrow encryption would enable a third party who retained a key to gain access to private communication. The legal approach which we came to call coLeo was a mandate if you are offering a telephone service you had to ensure that you could provide to your law enforcement agency the ability to access the plain text of the communication. Those were the two key proposals in the 1990s in the United States. The NGOs were a bit confused in the U.S. The ACLU focused on law, not on technology, with a apologies to my EFF friends who are doing great work nowadays, back in those days they got confused, got money from the telephone companies, signed on to Calya and we were all very upset. What happened in the technical world was most significant. It was the leading experts in cryptography who said this is just bad. Weak encryption is bad. It doesn't matter your political party, doesn't matter your position in society. If we don't build strong security into our communication networks, everyone will be vulnerable. We wrote a letter to the President, in 1994, and we urged him to oppose efforts to regulate encryption. Soon that letter to the President became a petition with 50,000 names on it. That was a lot of people for the Internet in the 1990s. That was like half the Internet. We were telling the President of the U.S. that this stuff really mattered. We had books and Freedom of Information Act lawsuits and Phil Zimmerman wrote PGP, he was under indictment from the U.S. Department of State for exporting. He is not a arms exporter. We had some failures, Calya became law, telephone companies in the U.S. are required to ensure that their networks can be wiretap friendly. But the clipper chip proposal was withdrawn. The OECD adopted very good cryptography guidelines which we often point to as soft law, NGOs began to monitor national policies and there was open Government litigation. Here are lessons we learned 20 years ago about this issue. Then I'll fast forward with more recent lessons. In this debate, tech experts are crucial. You do need the people who understand the technology to be able to explain in general terms, in nonpolitical terms, respecting everyone's concerns that bad encryption makes us all vulnerable. We had this debate with the FBI director recently. I debated him in fact. He said, we have 500 cell phones that we can't crack. That is a bad thing. What do you say to that? I said, Mr. Director, there are also three million cell phones that are stolen every year in the United States. Because those cell phones have strong encryption on them, criminals and other bad people can't commit more crime. We are sorry about the 500 phones that you can't open, but it's better for you in the world of law enforcement that those three million stolen cell phones can't be easily opened, either. Public debate is important. Internationally human rights norms matter. This is why we thank UNESCO for their very important work. You need to do the reporting, you need to do the litigation. Outcomes matter. I said a word about the problem of money. I'll leave it there. What has happened? Snowden. Snowden told us a lot. Told us about mass global surveillance, he told us the agencies engaged in surveillance rather than fixing the vulnerabilities were exploiting the vulnerabilities. This is a dangerous thing for a Government agency to do. Particularly with regard to its own companies. Right? Instead of going to Microsoft, by the way, you should patch your new OS because it's easy to get into the kernel, MSA said we have a easy way to get into the Microsoft OS kernel. Guess what, hundreds of millions of people's communications including U.S. business and others were vulnerable as a consequence. Data of entire nations was gathered and systems of accountability broke down. We had some reform. There is good news, we thank Mr. Snowden for that. Sense you bought me from the museum exhibit of the 1990s in encryption to talk to you here in the 21st century about the current debate, let me tell you what I've learned over the last 20 years that may help you in your work and advocacy. This is no longer a debate just about privacy versus security. That is always understood for a long time, people need privacy, the Government needs access. We need to figure out how to strike that balance. We realize now that in a Internet of Things, with connected vehicles, with home thermostats and with door locks all on the Internet, there is no justification for weak encryption. When we did our brief in the Apple versus FBI case we said if you look at what is on a iPhone, it is not just your private messages. It is your passwords to your bank accounts, your remote servers, the ability to control physical devices like your car or your door locks. You need strong encryption because security of the user as well as privacy is implicated. We have also learned over 20 years that the databases are more vulnerable than we understood 20 years ago. We thought good security, good encryption, databases could be maintained, could be protected. I don't know if you have been following the news about the elections in the United States recently. We have had some problems with our E-mail. We have had problems with our online voting. We are having some problems with our technology. Let me tell you. But that is also reflection of the fact that these problems turn out to be much harder than we thought they were 20 years ago. This is still a stronger argument, even to governments, even governments know this, even as they say to you, we are concerned about what bad people might do, with strong encryption, they know that they are vulnerable to hacking and to attack as well. Last two slides. I believe that the case for strong crypto has grown over time. The more that we have learned, the more experience that we have gathered, the clearer it is that to regulate, to control, to restrict, is going to be counter productive even for the short term gains, even if the FBI gets to open up those 500 iPhones that they have, those 3 million stolen iPhones also become vulnerable. At Epic we launched this page 20 years ago, online guide to practical privacy tools, we have updated it. We welcome you to visit us online, download some of the software. See what is useful. We can't guarantee that anything necessarily works. But at least if we all give it a try, maybe we will have a better privacy and a little better security. Thank you. >> GUY BERGER: We heard a appeal that everybody should get into the dark Web, which interestingly, there are no panels or sessions using this fear mongering term of the dark Web which shows the maturity of the IGF. I thought he was going to speak about intermediaries but we will come to them. I'm sure he has something to say about them. We have Mr. Sebastian Bellagamba, Internet Society. >> SEBASTIAN BELLAGAMBA: Thank you very much. Good afternoon to everyone. Internet Society's mission is to promote the open use and evolution of the Internet for the benefit of everyone. I think the important part, there is two important parts. First of all, for the benefit of everyone, not just for technology itself. It is because of the benefits it brings to our people. The second is the openness objective. We believe in a open Internet. We see the Internet as one of the more important enablers of human rights, the exercise of human rights. In that sense, we believe that encryption and other trust enabled technologies are critical to this. We shouldn't be able to exercise our human rights without just technologies in place, they support our freedom of expression, the commerce, everything that we do online is supported by encryption. As such we believe that encryption should be the norm for all online traffic and data that we exchange, all users should be able to communicate confidential alley -- confidentially and anonymously online, including everyone. Including journalists. Individuals have in our perspective the right to use encryption, and other tools to protect their data. And the use of encryption should be, and in particular the end-to-end encryption should be not limited by Governments but promoted by governments. Governments in that sense should not ever outlaw encryption technologies or mandate the use of encryption back doors. In that case, we believe as was pointed out before in other interventions, that even though some governments might not intend to krenser using this kind of technologies, back door to technologies, they may end up doing so -- censor. When we see encryption we believe in strong encryption. For us, strong encryption means unbreakable encryption. Any weakness in encryption will be, it is not that they might or could, will be exploited. There is no other possibility in our view. It is going to be exploited either by hackers, by criminals or by governments. We don't want any of those scenarios. In your very good example about the cell phones, I will take it eventually because I like the example, if law enforcement agencies can enter a device, criminals can too. We don't want that. If we, instead of unbreakable encryption, we use any kind of weaker encryption, privacy and anonymity of all users is put at great risk. Our point is that encryption is not, in our view, I mean there is a false trade-off between security and privacy in our perspective. That is my biggest, my strongest point that I wanted to raise. I think some people try to convince us that there is a trade-off between security and privacy, in order to be more secure we have to let our privacy goes. We don't think that way. Actually, I have a off line example for that, that I will always use. I don't know, 30 years ago, we don't have that many cameras on the street. We are watched everywhere today. And we were more secure 30 years ago than today. The lack of privacy because of the cameras, does not prevent unsecurity in the streets, apparently it's, the reason for that is some other reason. It is not the, that they have to watch us in order to keep us secure. The only trade-off between security, I mean in our perspective, the only trade-off possible if we don't do encryption, and we don't, any other trust enabling technology, is between more security and less security. So there is no other trade-off that is putting at risk. Thank you very much. >> GUY BERGER: Thank you very much. You mention unbreakable encryption. I think everybody will know from Apple FBI case eventually the unbreakable system was broken, which does raise the question then, as to whether, if nothing is completely unbreakable, is there still a case then to have a degree of proportionate limitation by governments under certain conditions of transparency and so on. Anyway, we will have that debate whether it's either/or, either you are going to have the most encryption possible, or you, any weakening of that means you've got nothing. Let's turn to Janis Karklins, Vice President of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. >> JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you very much, and UNESCO for inviting me to this what I found very fascinating conversation. Let me do a disclaimer, I'm not speaking on behalf of Human Rights Council but I'm speaking as a Vice President of Human Rights Council that is a member of council and I hold this post until end of this year, will be replaced by Ambassador Georgia. I would like to make a few points, but also react to certain, also react to what has been said during the discussion. Let me start by warning that it is not very wise to put equality sign between governments and criminals. Governments do the job with a certain purpose which is very different from a purpose of criminals. Of course there are always tensions. These tensions always existed between competing interests of different Government agencies in charge of certain issues that they have been entrusted to them. And also, we see over a period of time that sophistication of activities and risks have grown enormously. If you remember early '90s, the virus was when you are typing your text on computer and suddenly, letters started to drop down and form a file, that was considered as a serious virus but actually that was a joke in comparison with what we are facing now. We of course do not know where it's going. But we know that this needs to be addressed in a way which is balanced, and governments certainly are part of that conversation and some are more involved than others. Now I'm coming to Human Rights Council. Like UNESCO Human Rights Council is intergovernmental body, the difference is that UNESCO is in charge of very specific task and that is promotion of freedom of expression through media development, which also includes protection of journalists, Human Rights Council is part of UN machinery which address all aspects of human rights and its promotion and protection. There are different mechanisms that we are using, one being expert device which comes from special procedures, special rapporteurs, independent experts who inform intergovernmental debate, and form opinions within Human Rights Council. I would like also to note that it is not optimistic to expect immediate or fast developments when it comes to promotion of the human rights around the world. It is about midterm impact that we need to talk about when it comes to Human Rights Council decisions, and their interpretation and implementation on the ground. But nevertheless, it is very important element, because more than 194 governments are participating in that conversation and form their policies as a result. Another element that Human Rights Council very rarely speak about implementation of specific policies, but rather stay at the level of principles. It is of course very valuable principles, like the same rights should apply online and off-line but when it comes to implementation, of course, it varies from country to country. But now turning to topic of our conversation here, I would like to make two points. One point is that we need really to think about terminology and definition of privacy, which is certainly changing when we are venturing in this digital age. Historically, we can even say regrettably, we have traded willingly or unwillingly privacy for information. Privacy today is considered as currency for whatever we can find and read online. Again without value judgment, this is a fact. The underlying economic model of internet is such that we are paying with our personal data. Second element, I would like to say that encryption, specifically for protection of journalists plays certain important role, but this is not the golden bullet. It does not ensure a hundred percent security of journalists, because online anonymity is not absolute, and will never be, even with encryption of metadata, still using different methodologies and analytics, one can by gathering sufficient big data set, one can figure out links between people or Internet users and figure out who is the source and who is providing information. So, and this needs to be understood and kept always in mind. Nevertheless, I would like to encourage UNESCO to continue in that reflection, and most importantly, share the outcome of the conversation at UNESCO with the Human Rights Council, because that is imperative, that we sort of share our knowledge and understanding about those issues in UN systemwidely. Thank you. >> GUY BERGER: Thank you very much. Let me ask Frank LaRue, the ADG of, assistant director general of communication information, my boss (chuckles) to make some remarks and then we will throw it open to comments and questions, and get responses from the panelists. >> FRANK LaRUE: Thank you very much Guy. I'm going to be very brief, because I think it has already been very rich and there is a lot of material for discussion. Before I want to make two comments. I fully agree, especially with Amos and Amalia Toledo to began mentioning first of all that what we are talking about is not encryption per se or not anonymity per se. We are talking about questions of privacy and security of communications in general. This is very important. Encryption and anonymity are both very important and this latest study we have, I think, highlights it and has good recommendations, as well as everything we have heard today, and there has been a long struggle on this for a long time. But I think to put it into perspective, what we are really talking about is the creativeness of mind of human beings, is to develop its own thinking and its own expressions, through different means, can be word, can be art, can be any form but to develop freely. This means the possibility of rethinking and debating and or gathering information, and yes, it includes journalists who have a right to maintain the privacy of their sources and who have the right to maintain their investigative journalism confidential until they decide to publish it, or but it also means that people that are in opposition to dictatorial regimes who are doing human rights can maintain the testimonies of victims private and safe, so as to avoid repression against them. Or people that are establishing opposition policies against authoritarian regimes can also, and somehow develop their communication anonymously. I think that this idea of privacy is essential for communication, this is why we always link them and it has taken different forms. Of course, online is more serious, but we have always recognized privacy as this space of human beings where people can develop themselves. So my feeling is that, yes, there is several contradictions that some states may raise the question of the challenge of security, national security, that is always there, vis-a-vis the privacy of communications. But in a way, in one of my own reports I said that the security of nations is to establish safety for individuals and to protect individuals. It is also to protect institutions and the institutionality of the state. But it's also to protect the Democratic system and the political system. We cannot use illegal procedures or unlawful procedures or weakened fundamental human rights in the name of national security because then we are weakening our own political system and the strongest societies vis-a-vis any threat are the most Democratic societies, the ones defended by their own public. My feeling is that in weakening privacy, in weakening the element of communication, we are also generating a weakness of our society. I think eventually it backfires against states, the misuse of technologies, of penetration of communication of surveillance and monitoring of communications. It seems to me that what we are generating, because there is no -- it made us reflect and now we are demanding certain policies but it shows us technology is going so fast, by the time congress regulations have new policies technology has advanced ten years ahead and is becoming so easy to do it is that now all of a sudden they are not selective monitoring one message or two messages, it can be mass monitoring of all the messages. Why? Simply because it can be done. If it can be done, why not do it? This is the logic of those individuals designing this. Yes, I believe that the use of encryption is legitimate, but again here with this I finish, I think there is some, a challenge in this, and I think encryption is not a magical solution and a magical wand because also, encryption can create a myth, can make us feel safe, and in moments when in reality we are not. Either because those that designed them, if it's a privately source created and sold, encryption system, there will be, yes, the back door procedures that will eventually be given to the governments, we may or may not know about them, but even those that were not done that way, we don't know how the technological advances have developed to the extent of making it invulnerable. I think that again, it may be good, may be wise to use encryption because ultimately the more encryption there is going around, the more difficult it will be to monitor those comments, but it would be a mistake to believe that encryption give us a foolproof totally closed form that we can fully trust in our communications. I think that we have to design Amalia Toledo was saying global perspective of safety that allows different things from digital safety and cyber safety to personal mechanisms of safety or even deciding what should be put online or not. >> GUY BERGER: Thank you so much, Frank. Let's get some comments from people. One, two, who else indicates? Two at this stage. Please, can you identify yourselves. >> I'm part of the Internet architecture board. I want to take up the comment that Vice President of the Human Rights Council made which is a very important one, that of course governments and actors from illegal contexts are not the same. We certainly understand that, and it is an important point. However, it is a very difficult thing for us to design tools that in hands of those two different bodies behave differently. The intent of the actor does not affect the weakness of the system. If we craft a system that includes a weakness in order to enable an actor with good intent, the reality is that that weakness is there for any actor. The IGF looked at this during the year of the clipper chip and published a document RC2804 which describes its response which is a purely technical one. We do not know how to design a telecommunication system which is weak only in respect to one actor. And as a result we will not. During the recent Snowden revelations much the same set of considerations came up about what response the technical community should have. Again, the response was looking at the effect on the network itself, and saying that mass surveillance had created such a loss of trust in the network that the only way to restore that trust was to enable encrypted communications confidential communications, both from metadata and payload, to the greatest extent possible, so that confidential communications which did come from minority populations from journalists or from others were not singled out by the mere presence of their encryption. I certainly take the point that the thread model of a journalist would be different from a threat model of somebody engaged in banking or sending notes to their kids. But if we have the baseline to include methods like this we believe the network as a whole is stronger both for the common use case and for the use cases of those who are potentially directly under surveillance or otherwise under attack. We certainly do not wish to have an antagonistic relationship with the governments who have their jobs to do. But the simple reality is the best way we can build this Internet is to build it as strongly as possible with regards to both encryption and confidentiality. Thank you. >> My name is acid, I'm representing Pakistani not-for-profit organization. Most of what I was about to say has been said by the gentleman here. But I want to point out comment was made about governments not being able to connect to networks but when the governments have dark history of human rights violation and done more damage than all the criminal elements of a country combined, it becomes slightly difficult. That is one. When we talk about the journalist safety, working on that for more than five years now in Pakistan, so what we have seen is that the governments have found a way about the encryption, across encryption. This new law in Pakistan, cyber crimes law has a element that anybody who is under surveillance or under any investigation, while even anybody who is under any doubt of activity being a journalist or not has to give up his passwords, encryption keys and devices without any warrant from the court. The police or investigating agencies has to notify the court in 24 hours, notify. All service providers in Pakistan have to keep record of the traffic data, with both data, the voice communication and data communication of everybody, for one year. That in itself is a huge challenge of protecting the journalists, the integrity and identity of journalists' sources because everything is, service providers and any Government can get it from service provider. How does the panel see that? Thank you. >> GUY BERGER: We have one remote participant. Let's take that question, and we have somebody here and then you and we will get responses. Remote participant. Can somebody read it to us? >> Yes, hi. We have a question from Cecil from the Civil Society council at the OECD, addressed to Marc Rotenberg and also to Frank LaRue. The question is, I am thinking of smart phone applications that facilitate encrypted communications like telegram or signal. These are useful software. But they run on top of platforms like Android or IOS which provide very weak protection against realtime intrusions while being used. The same thing happens with other operator systems like Windows or OSX. Do you think that fostering or even enforcing encryption by default policies in the software industry could be a fusible approach to solving this problem? >> GUY BERGER: Thank you. Where is the mic, please? We have a speaker here. >> Thanks, Brian Holland, we operate dot CA as a top level registry in Canada. I if this was a easy problem we would have solved it. The richness of the conversation around this table has been remarkable for this discussion. I find myself in my day-to-day role, there is a dissonance to what we do because on the one hand, I operate large databases. We heard how easy they are to compromise. That is the thing that worries us on a nightly basis, ensuring our own security. On the other hand, on the other hand the other thing that keeps me up at night is threat to the network. There are many security related issues and a stronger Internet I'm a fellow traveler with my colleague at the IA B, on the other hand, it makes it harder and harder and harder for us on the front line operators of pieces of the network to continue to ensure a safe stable and reliable network. I find there is that dissonance in my own role and we hear it here today around the table but how do we create that safe, stable secure Internet that also enables us to protect individuals and protect the network itself from the day-to-day operations role. >> Thomas Richmond, German Ambassador for cyber foreign policy. I wanted to reply to your question, why do we single out journalists and why not talk about everyone's security and right to encryption. Why did we fund this study, first of all because it led to the mandate of UNESCO so that was good reason enough for us to do it. The second reason is of course that the Human Rights Council and other organizations that look at the protection of human rights have for a long time had a long tradition of focusing particular attention to journalists, protection of rights of journalists is, has been a political issue all the time. So in that sense, it looked natural for us now, also to look at protection of human rights of journalists and their working editions in the Internet because situation has changed. You are also aware that Germany and Brazil are running a General Assembly resolution on privacy in the digital age. In this year's resolution, we had tried to introduce some language on encryption and other technical means to secure and bolster privacy. It didn't get through, because it was due to bad drafting, we will probably try again but this is a sensitive issue for sure, and not everybody around at the UN and elsewhere is totally happy with anyone who raises the issue. Thank you. >> GUY BERGER: Thank you so much. I should pass around the summary to those who made comments and questions. But let's go in the order of the speakers. It may be fragmented, but give a response to one or two of the points that were made. >> Thanks. First, to the question, journalists as a group, and functional approach, found that extremely interesting aspect, and that is not only an aspect we discuss in this encryption policy context but other context as well. I believe that these kind of functional approach is appropriate, but on the other hand has had the problem of clarity sometimes, because when it comes to court decisions, then you need very good criteria to outline and frame this function. So it's not an easy one but nevertheless, I think it's definitely so, that we have to think about structural functions for public communication, and one is what we call journalism, but that does not mean it's a specific trade or something like that. It is very much focused on the context. To the remote participant's question about encryption by default, I think that is an intersection of two different fields. One is what we discussed here right now and I would be very much in favor of that, because it has to be solved on this level. There are studies about the use of encryption and what really people, hinders of doing that it's so easy but nevertheless very few people do that and even companies it's increasing, but it's not the norm right now. So that is of course one thing. But on the other hand, it's about autonomy and making people see what they do, and risk analysis of the individual. That is very important, Frank pointed to that. And this false sense of security can be a problem. It is a well-known thing in privacy theory, they have a privacy paradox that when you believe that everything is okay, your privacy is protected you act in a way that is not okay in the end. Technology has to some extent make people aware what the risks are. That is not an easy trade-off. I see that. But it is a trade-off we have to consider. >> Maybe I should clarify my question I pose about encryption and its relationship to safety of journalists, and encryption protecting the safety of everybody. I think definitely the interests of journalists and the safety of journalists is critical and should be definitely talked about and elaborated upon, but I also think that when we talk about encryption and we talk about digital security, we need to emphasize that when we seek to protect encryption and cryptography we are talking from everybody including the journalist who is doing investigative reporting and needs to protect sources, all the way to somebody who is inputting personal information into a refrigerator and whose personal information might be stolen from the things that, information that he puts into the network of Internet of Things. That is what I meant to emphasize in terms of how we need to emphasize that this conversation is not just about certain groups. It is about that, and it goes beyond that at the same time. Thank you. >> AMALIA TOLEDO: A short point, we have to keep raising awareness. We have to seek commitment from the different sectors, from Government, from intermediaries, or the private sector but as I said before from media outlets and media workers as well. Just to make a better world to say it, more safe Internet. >> Sebastian? >> SEBASTIAN BELLAGAMBA: Thank you. I think the Internet was not designed in principle with this secure feature in mind. I think the years of experience on running the Internet have turned the mind in certain way. My colleague pointed out, the revelations of this pervasive surveillance of communications from the Internet has changed the game in certain way. We have to do everything in order to prevent the integrity of the network and prevent the security and privacy of the people that is using it. I agree sometimes technology can produce some false security. But I still think we are better off with the kind of security that we can provide that without it. >> I'll jump in, make a few quick points. First of all to UNESCO again in support of the report, it's a wonderful thing that you joined privacy protection in the interest of journalism and freedom of expression, too often in this debate I think people try to balance privacy and free expression. I think that is a misunderstanding. This is a good area where strong tools of privacy and confidentiality enable better reporting and better public accountability. That is my first point. My second point, we respect the concerns of Government. One of the lessons I've learned over the years is to take seriously that there are bad people out there who certainly intend harm, but I do think that Government in seeking these enormous powers for weakened security has a corresponding transparency obligation to make clear the need for the authority as well as the risks. When we have participated in these debates, actually in the early days we did a series of Freedom of Information Act request as to the local FBI offices. We asked the question, straightforward, has encryption been a obstacle to your criminal investigations? The answers we got back, were no actually at the time. That may have changed. We did change, we did help with an amendment to the U.S. wiretap reports, we now know on a annual basis how many cases, where encryption is an obstacle. So we have some data. We can make the assessments. So again I'm not ignoring the concerns of Government but I think Government has a need to be accountable. Finally, if I may make a brief contradiction about the privacy paradox, this is something I feel quite strongly about, we need to change our understanding of this phrase. It's not about people engaging in behavior and saying that they care about privacy but doing something in fact that reflects lack of understanding of the privacy risk. I think that is unfair to people, I don't think most people have the ability to make the judgment that it's not the most current version of the OS and therefore I can't use this app and if I do the text messaging would be insecure. We would never think that way with consumer products. We would say if someone offers a E-mail service, it should be secure. It should work. It should be encrypted end-to-end. If it's not encrypted end-to-end it is not a E-mail service. It's something else. We need to put less responsibility on the user and more expectation on the service provider, if you are going to offer a communication service, it needs to be encrypted. If you are going to store personal data, you need security measures, the data should be encrypted. We don't have the ability to measure the thickness of the walls of the bank vault. If we give our money to the bank we have to trust them that they will be able to protect our money. We need to think that way with our data, as we turn it over to these Internet companies. >> If I may, completely agree with that, when we talk about privacy paradox, we mean completely different things sometimes. I wasn't only referring to the aspect that risk awareness matters somehow in these things, it does not mean to say that we do not have to think about encryption on the level of service providers. On the contrary that is one of our points we make in our study. But nevertheless, in the whole debate, I think it's important that people act under the comprehension that there are specific risks and these kinds of paradox only I was referring to. As regards results, there is no contradiction at all maybe with framing what the privacy paradox is. >> Thank you. I fully appreciate that the same technology will be used by governments and criminals. No question about that. Only governments do perform functions that are entrusted by population, and some of them may be basically contradictory. And there are governments to perform their functions better than others. And for one side Government is in charge of protecting and promoting human rights including freedom of expression, including privacy, and from other side, governments are in charge of also providing security for population. And most probably, don't like to be killed in a concert by random individual and normally when these things happen then the first question the population asks usually is, where was the Government, why Government didn't do what it is supposed to do. From that perspective, and Government are composed, governments are composed by individuals, and as we know, individuals are acting in sometimes irrational way. So when you burn your fingers in one way, you immediately shift, go from one ditch to another ditch. In that respect, that is a search for a balance, to keep all actions on the road, in order to promote one and promote human rights and privacy and protect population from harm that can be potentially done. That is one element. The second element, unfortunately, this is the classical situation, then we are spending 99 percent of time talking about 1 percent of bad things. Instead of talking 99 percent about 99 percent good things and devote 1 percent time to 1 percent bad things. This conversation (overlapping speakers) is necessary. And forums like this are very useful for you to understand better Government perspectives and for governments to understand perspective, you are also human and you can go from one ditch also to another ditch in no time. Thank you. >> Frank, we have one minute left. >> Literally to remind all of us about a couple human rights concepts. Number one is, privacy and human rights, privacy and freedom of expression are two very different human rights. They are not in contradiction. They are complementary and have to be understood together. They are very different but they need each other. They will not be full freedom of expression and other freedoms as well without privacy. And privacy is, exists for the purpose of many rights but including freedom of expression. Secondly, as human rights, they are there for everyone, for all population, not only for certain sectors but clearly we must recognize that certain sectors of population run a bigger risk, because of the social role they are playing. Journalists is one of them. Human rights defenders is another. I think this is very important for those that are critical of opposition, in the cases of authoritarian regimes. Oftentimes you have people that are of a profession that has several characteristics like cart oonists who are journalists themselves but who are using art or artists as well using the expression of art for their cartoons to send messages. They are oftentimes suffering the consequences. In general, we can see that this is a right that everyone should enjoy like all human rights. But that we must also look at the most vulnerable sectors and the possibility of establishing particular protections for the most vulnerable sectors. Finally, on the question of governments, I think that governments vary, some governments are legitimate, some other are not so legitimate. Some of them defend the population. Other ones, others repress their population and dissident opinions. But the point, the main point is that what we are struggling for in freedom of expression is to have a Democratic system and everyone can express themselves freely. In this sense even Democratic governments I find fall sometimes into the temptation of trying to curtail the most critical of opinions, and this is true, we learn that in many incidents in history, and this is important to prevent by mechanisms of protection and safety which is why we are saying that the safety of freedom of expression and the protection that we should use in all our communications, whether traditional analog communications or digital communications should be a global perspective, because it is true that oftentimes we will try to be hacked by Dell Inc. beens or we will try to be penetrated by illegal states or just by other actors. The idea of using safety mechanisms, have a broad concept of safety is for important for own preservation of communication. >> I want to thank my colleague who set up the study and our moderator and our speakers. If you didn't get a chance to ask your question, you can still claim a copy of the UNESCO publication. We don't want to take them back to Paris. (end of session at 16 :35) 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.  *** Internet Governance Forum 2016. Enabling Inclusive and Sustainable Growth. Jalisco, Mexico. 7 December 2016.