You are connected to event: CFI-RPC7 OFOF6: Child Helpline International Room 7 7 December 2016 09:00 services provided by: Caption First, Inc. P.O. Box 3066 Monument, CO 80132 800-825-5234 Www.captionfirst.com *** This text is being provided in a realtime format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) or captioning are provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. *** . . >> MODERATOR: Good morning, everybody. Sorry on begin a little late. Thanks for being with us here today. I'm Sheila Donovan, executive direct of Child Helpline International. We are based -- we're not live streaming yet? Then I'll wait. We have participants coming in from Chicago and New York also to present, so we'll wait until we can get the live stream going. >> MODERATOR: I'm told we're ready and live streaming. All right. This is going to be a nice, cozy session. All right. Shall we begin? Unfortunately, we don't have the room forever, and I can speak about this forever, but we can't do this. All right. This session is, I think, I'll give you a brief introduction how this is structured. I will give you an introduction what a child helpline does and what we deat Child Helpline International, and I'll pass this along to John Karr and Kara sum RER, speaking about a project that Child Helpline International undertook this year under UNICEF's global program. We have participants coming in to present from Chicago from national run away safe line in Chicago and from New York crisis text line. I will get started with this right away. How do I even make this go? There we go. There we are. All right. I'm going to start with a very brief video to show you what a child helpline does. This is a video that was down by childline NSCPP. Do we have sound? ( Video played ) >> MODERATOR: There's an echo between the two speakers. They don't seem to be synchronized correctly. We can come back to that, and what I will do is then go back to -- ( indiscernible conversation ). >> I can talk to anybody about anything, well, almost anything. My mom says I can talk behind -- I reckon I can chat to anyone about anything, almost anybody. My mom says I can talk the behind off a donkey, whatever that means. I had a problem because I didn't think anyone I knew would understand. It got bigger and bigger in my head, so I thought I might speak to child line. I heard you could talk to them about anything. My cousin called them about bullying and said talking helped and it was completely free. I feel like I could chat myself, so how would I find out? Who would I talk to? What would happen? Would anyone else get to know about it? I didn't want the whole world knowing my business, least of all my mum. So I went on the child line site and found loads of information. You can talk to child line online as well call them. It works the same way on the phone. You just type instead of talking. Either way, I'd be in charge of what was said and what was happen next. I could trust them with as much or as little as I wanted to say and whatever I preferred and I could give them a different name if it made it easier. I thought about chatting online, but I find it easier to talk about something. I checked when I could call, and it said anytime so I just went for it. After I dialed the number, I felt really sick and thought about hanging out. I came this far. What did I have to lose? Someone answered and this man said, hi, you're through to child line. I have this problem and I don't think anyone will understand. Would you like to talk to somebody about it? Yeah, I don't want my mom to find out. He said that was fine. The call is between me and the counselor unless they thought someone's life was in real danger. That was the only bit that might change things. He said he'd put me in a cue and I had to stay on the line a bit. I waited and thought how can I do this? After a while this woman, a counselor, came on the line. I couldn't get my words out first. It's more like me. She said don't worry, take your time. So I told her all about it. She was great. She didn't talk too much to start off. She just let me say everything. Then she asked if it was hard to call. Yeah, I said, but this has helped. So what do you reckon I should do? She asked DP I had ideas. We figured out I had choices and they could work out in different ways. There's something I can do to change it after all. That was amazing, just doing that. All of a sudden it felt like I had a plan. It wasn't like I made an idiot of myself and hadn't blabbed to the entire world. The call wouldn't even appear on the phone bill. I felt like I was in charge and can trust them. They helped me decide what I wanted to do. It felt great. >> MODERATOR: So you see that that is what Childline U.K. The child line is there to help kids and empowers them and find a way to act forward. That was probably one of the audios we're going to get from our national runaway safe line in Chicago a little later. Can we go back? So just as an indicator of some of the -- the childChild Helpline International has 180 members in 140 countries around the world. Childline U.K. is, of course, one of our most important numbers. The data are very interesting in terms of the numbers of contacts that are received around the world by child helplines. I've only got -- this slide only shows here what the contacts via SMS are and via chat, partly because that's growing so much. However, that being said, the greatest number of contacts received by child helplines around the world are by the telephone. So 2015, contacts that were answered altogether including chat SMS, e-mail, regular mail and walk- ins, were almost 20 million. So 19,500,000. What we call responded to contacts, in other words, where there was a case, where there was a conversation of meaning apart from asking for information or even hang-ups or pranks was about 3,600,000. So it's a lot of kids who are being -- a lot of children and young people being counseled by child helplines around the world. As I was saying earlier, the growth in method of contact is growing in terms of online contacts. And I think that that is simply the beginning that started a number of years ago, but it's really growing almost exponentially, and I believe that that will continue. So Child Helpline International, this is our belief statement. That every child has a voice. When their voices are heard, children are empowered to participate in society and fulfill their potential. We believe that no child should be left unheard. So what do we do at Child Helpline International? We make sure the world listens and do a lot of advocacy work and reporting based on the data from the member helplines. We do traumatic reports as well. You see one on sexual and reproductive health rights we did late last year, and we do every year a voices of children publication and a violence against children publication. We're trying to highlight some of the reasons why children and young people are calling helplines. Apart from making the world listen or asking the world to listen to us, we listen to the listeners and help them help each other. We do a lot of capacity building, a lot of peer exchanges, a lot of of meetings amongst HEP line-- helplines. We forge partnerships, which is one of the our most important elements, and we're extremely grateful to the member helplines because without them we wouldn't be a network, obviously. That's our value-adiabatic -- value add particularly for our members is part of the equation. Here's some of the partners we work with. Some are in the room. I'm very happy to say UNICEF is an extremely important partner. You'll hear more about this program from earlier in year. We work with Facebook and telenor, and we work in terms of training with INHOPE and there are a lot more than that. We wanted to highlight some of the more important partnerships that we have. And I thought since most of this session today isn't just about child helpline but it's about as well as child online protection and it's about the we protect program that I would show this next video, which is one we just launched in Bangkok at our big international consultation last month. And it highlights some of the risks that young people are facing today within their online lives. >> I have 106 friends. >> I have this one. ( Video played ) >> This year, 27. >> SnapChat. >> What you got there? >> Hot chocolate. >> We talk about anything. >> My mom says I can do that. ( Overlapping audio ) >> That's cute. >> What is? >> The way you bite your lip. >> Vodka tonic or whiskey cola? >> Whiskey cola. >> Oh, it's beautiful. How did you get my address? >> You look different today somehow. No, no. Take the other one off. >> This can't be. >> Tonight. We had a deal. >> I was just at my friend's house. I turned my phone off, but I did text you. >> Don't turn your phone off. I never ignore you like that. Oh, where's daddy, then? Send us a better pic this time. We're getting impatient. Closer. Closer. Tell me why I shouldn't send it around. That's not enough anymore, Mya. Send me another one. Send me another one. Who are you going to call? What about mom? No, I didn't think so. >> Hi. You reached the child helpline. >> AUDIENCE: That was creepy. >> MODERATOR: Sorry. So, yes, it's a tough video to watch. It really is. And you'll see from what John and Clara are going to tell you about, the baseline work we did in 17 target countries as well as in nine other countries to look at best practices that a lot of the contacts that we received about online abuse tend to be of this sort. So kids are calling about this kind of thing, and they're calling about sexual extortion and grooming a lot, and about cyber-bullying. I'm going to turn this over to Clara and John. >> SPEAKER: Thank you. John Karr, as you know, is a world renowned expert in everything. Of course, he's also, I think, as you remember, on the executive board on the U.K. council on child Internet safety as well as an adviser to ECPA T and also many other roles. So John, if you would take this, please. Thank you. >> SPEAKER: I will. That's me at Lord's cricket grounds in England where you have to wear silly hats. Does everybody understand about cricket? We probably don't have time to explain it all right now. I'm going to be facilitating this next bit. So Clara, why don't you go first, and give us UNICEFUNICEF's -- can you come through? >> SPEAKER: Thank you. So, yes, I'm Clara, and I'm a child protection specialist at UNICEF headquarters on violence and exploitation. I manage a global program to build capacity to tackle online child sexual exploitation last year. I wanted to situate a little bit this LEAP project within this program, and I think many of you actually participated in the we protect yesterday, but for those who did not and who is not familiar with the we protect global alliance to end online child exploitation initiative, former Prime Minister David Cameron in the United Kingdom hosted the first we protect children online summit in London in 2014 we're building on the work against child abuse online. At this summit it was ministry of interior and justice, law enforcement agencies, technology companies and international NGOs and national NGOs and Interpol and UNICEF participated at the summit. At this summit, governments, international organizations, and the technology companies signed up to statements of actions committing themselves to urgently end online sexual exploitation. Last year in Abu Dhabi a follow-up summit was held in November 2015, and there will be another summit next year towards the end of next year. In Abu Dhabi, the countries also signed up to what is called the We Protect model international response. They signed up to have a coordinated national responsible at country level between the governments and private sector and NGOs and also in support of U.N. agencies. At this summit the U.K. government also pledged 50 million pounds to fund to end violence against children, and they committed 10 million pounds in the first year through a bilateral agreement to UNICEF for us to set up this global program to build capacity to tackle online child sexual exploitation that we implemented with many of the partners here in the room today. In 17 countries across six radio regions and activities at a global level. Why I mention this global program is because it's the first ever multi-national cross-regional effort to address online sexual exploitation and it's STRUMENTal too translate the commitments at global level on the ground and simultaneously calling attention to the issue at the global level. My slides. So the global program has been implemented in 17 countries in five regions it says, but it should be six regions. That's okay. One of the regions is Latin America and the Caribbean. We had five countries there. Those are the countries of the We Protect program that UNICEF with other partners and they're the countries in yellow. We had four countries in the Africa and two countries in the Middle East and northern Africa, and three countries in eastern Europe and one country in south Asia and two countries in eastern and southern -- eastern -- in the eastern Pacific. Sorry. I'm stumbling here. One of the main pillars of the work of the global program and also the We Protect model national response is to ensure we identify and rescue the child victims, but also ensure they receive support services once they have been rescued and are identified. This was a key pillar of the global program, and that's where we started to work with child helplines on the ground we worked with nine helplines in the countries and we worked with Child Helpline International at a global level to really also ensure that we have reporting mechanisms to reach so children can call and report crimes and be referred to services. We know this is an integral part of child protection system at country level. So in addition to these -- so what we did together with child helpline is that we decided that, you know, online sexual exploitation is a relatively new issue in many of these 17 countries, and in many of these countries the helplines might not be adequately addressing this issue, might not know how to address it and might not be familiar with it. So we decided that it would be a good undertake a baseline assessment and a needs assessment of the capacities of the helplines in the countries, in these 17 countries. And that's, I think -- John will speak more about the findings of this baseline and needs assessment that was done through a survey and also through regional meetings. In addition to the 17 countries, we also recognize that they're quite a lot of countries, these nine countries that you see in blue here, you know, United States, Australia, United Kingdom, et cetera, that already have helplines in place that are addressing the issue of online sexual exploitation, so also bringing in the experience with these countries and looking at what are the best practice models. So here are the nine countries, so it was a Canada, Egypt, New Zealand, Palestine, Poland, United Kingdom and United States and these are the helplines where they address it in different ways. Now I hand it over to John to present on the regulations. >> SPEAKER: Because I can see professor LIFLG stone in the room and Jasmina, I want to assure you will there be a report published at some time. There is a report already with the data. >> It will be ready very soon. We're putting the final touches on the full report. >> We should also say already the regional reports are ready. They're in the public domain. >> SPEAKER: I'd forgotten that. There is a summary report en route available soon with all the numbers. Obviously, I'm from the United Kingdom, and even if you were -- even if you were not in any way involved with children's issues professionally as I am, you would know about child helpline. When they do these annual kind of market research things to test the awareness of brands, NSPCC and child line is up there with Nike, Coca- Cola, and the BBC in terms of awareness on the part of the British public. Bus stops, everywhere you go pretty much you see some kind of advertisement or placard about ChildLine. They don't record the fact that you made a call to the helpline, if that's what you do. So even if your parents saw the bill or saw the records of who had been ringing who, they would never see that because that's something that the phone companies do. I was very much involved with ChildLine at the beginning, because there was a moment not that long ago when they didn't do any online stuff or they didn't deal with online cases. Today -- again, they published their annual reports. Online issues, sexting, online bullying, pedophile activity has been a very, very significant part of their annual -- of their daily workload. So for me, it was great to be involved with this project, because for me it was interesting to see how other child helplines were facing up to it. The good news is all of them were aware of the fact that this was a growing issue, but for some of them, as we see in a minute when I get around to doing what I was asked to do, for some of them at the moment they acknowledge that their knowledge and understanding of this problem is very, very low, which is why it was great that UNICEF and the We Protect was able to embark upon this, because this is tomorrow -- I mean it's today for us in many of the richer countries, and it's tomorrow for everybody else. It's great that we're all moving in that direction. So, yeah, some of the actual results -- oh, I can do it now. Just point at this? All right. Actually, I can't see that screen from over there. I'm sorry. Okay. So there we are. So before we -- >> Cairo. >> SPEAKER: I missed the Cairo one. There's Paraguay and Nairobi. I have to stand over there because I can't see the screen very well. It's my age and these lousy glasses. I went to Paraguay and the one in Nairobi and the one in London. It was a very interesting way from the child helplines or people involved in child protection at each of these meetings. ( Indiscernible ) . These are the organizations. ( Loss of audio ) program in the near future. I think they were changing their minds at the end of the sessions, but that was the state of play at the point where we, as it were, intervened. I mean, I don't think we -- it was true to say that everybody had some basic knowledge that this issue -- apart from the fact they were at this seminar that that's what we were talking about. Just the fact that they were there meant they have some knowledge of it. I have to say in some instances that knowledge was extremely basic, and yet, as we've seen from the videos and from what I know from the U.K., this is a really, really important bit of the child protection where I'm now absolutely convinced that just as every country in the world needs a hot line for reporting child abuse image material, every country in the world should have at least one major helpline, which has got an online component to it, because of the help that it can give to children, often in very, very desperate circumstances with nobody else to speak to. It's a big deal to speak to anybody about these things when you're feeling so kind of worried and uncertain, to speak to the state or to your parents is just -- it just won't happen. Often it leads to tragic results. Suicide, self-harm and all that kind of thing. So those helplines are a great evangelist for them, partly as a result in being involved in this work. There's no point in me reading out what's on the screen, because I'm sure everyone in the room is capable of reading. When are these people going toto -- so they're waiting for me now. I tell you what, is the link to the report in this presentation? I can't remember. We'll put link up in a minute so you can see the more detailed report if you want to, to see some of these findings. I think I'll stop now, and we'll -- we've got two people ringing in who are going to speak with videos. One from Chicago and one from New York. >> MODERATOR: If I may, can you continue one more. Sorry, John. Generally, of course, what most of the findings from the 17 countries where we were -- where we did this project and looked to the baseline was primarily around capacity building for helplines. It's both for counselor capacity building. It's for, obviously, CRM capacity building, making sure the tax on my and terminology is correct. There was interesting feedback from the helplines about not understanding what some of these terms meant. When we did the survey, it was very interesting. What is grooming? What is sexting? What does all this mean, and how do I translate that into my language? I thought that was a very interesting finding so people really did understand what kids were really calling about. Their counselors didn't know, and neither did the executives knowknow. We need a lot around terminology and awareness raising. They gave us interesting reasons why they think children and young people don't call. Primarily, it's so taboo that -- it's so shameful they won't speak to a confidentiality and anonymous source and anonymous counselor about these kinds of things. I think that's another interesting finding. Just one second. Clara wants to say something as well. >> SPEAKER: I wanted to add something. In Nairobi we had a discussion about streaming, online child sex abuse via streaming. There was a group there that worked -- I can't remember the name of that JIEgigantic shantytown in Nairobi. It's the biggest in Africa. They're very actively working with children in there. They stood up and said in an innocent and straightforward way. Yeah, it's happening, but it's not sex abuse because there isn't another person in the room. You're doing it by your own on a camera and getting money for it. So, for them, they didn't think of it as being a problem of abuse because they simply saw this as an easy way that didn't involve actual physical contact with anybody. You know, that shows you, again, the kind of sorts of things that this work was uncovering. I'd never heard of -- obviously, I heard about cases in the Philippines and Cambodia and places like that where as far as I knew everybody knew immediately it was bad and wrong, but this is an innocent take on it coming out of Kenya. >> MODERATOR: Thank you, John. Clara also wanted to mention something. >> SPEAKER: Maybe to add one of the main findings of all the meetings and the main report is that also most helplines didn't have specific protocols to deal with cases with online child sexual exploitation and abuse. They have protocols for dealing with violence, sexual abuse and exploitation, but they didn't know how to deal with NEEZ -- these cases. That was one of the main findings where we need to work together to help the helplines to develop the protocols. It's really about capacity building and victim identification and DAP at that capturing and the data collection. That came out strongly as well from the report. >> MODERATOR: It did. The other part around capacity building isn't just the training of counselors and getting the terminology correct. It's also building up their referral networks in their countries, and that's a very hard thing to do sometimes as we know. We talk about some countries where police can't be trusted. They don't have a reporting mechanism for child sexual abuse imagery, for example. They do it, but they put everything under a cybercrime tip line. So it means that also the people receiving the calls on the end aren't trained either to receive the calls and do something about them. Some of the legislation is really very antiquated and not up to date. So the purpose of these studies that we did was not just the child helpline but how do they work within their national context? And does it work or not? So the findings I think are very interesting on an individual basis, and the full report has individual country profiles as well. I have to say one thing as well, which I find -- which I always say, there are some countries in this study that don't have a child helpline at all. That's another area where I think we have light of work to do as well. So I encourage you to look at the report of the I will send around the link. I'm sorry. I need to keep it going because we're sort of late. What I'd like to do is call in Gordon Vance from the national runaway safe line in Chicago. Gordon is the director of programs for the national runaway safe line, and he's been with them for a long time. He's very -- he's extremely well-versed in a lot of these problems, and he's going to, I think, be talking about the issue of a child or a young person being lured to run away, lured into being trafficked through Internet connections. In other words, mainly through social media. So Gordon, if you're there. >> MODERATOR: There we are. Yes. Gordon, can you hear us? Can you hear us, Gordon? Maybe not. You need to turn your microphone on. Hang on. I'll just send him an e-mail, I think, or a text. Gordon, can you hear us? Is your microphone on? Can you please speak and say something? Gordon? Can you say something, please, so we see if we can hear you. >> AUDIENCE: While we're getting connected can we have comments and questions? >> MODERATOR: We're going to take advantage. Poor Gordon is talking. Of course, let's take some questions. >> AUDIENCE: Wait a minute. >> AUDIENCE: Sheila, I think you have another question down there. >> AUDIENCE: Hello. My name is Juan Pedro. There's outlines in Europe work alongside in safe youth ambassador. Why aren't these helplines included in the We Protect project? Even as a case study or perhaps just -- perhaps you could explain that. >> MODERATOR: For safer Internet? Safer Internet? >> AUDIENCE: Yes. >> MODERATOR: My understanding is, first of all, safer Internet is primarily Europe, so most of the target countries are not part of the safer Internet network. We did use some of, I believe, as best practices those who are also members of the safer Internet program. For example, Poland, which is empowering children foundation. So, yes, they were involved as best practice, but because the target countries are not part of the in safe network, then no. INHOPE is hot lines and not helplines. >> AUDIENCE: Thank you so much. This is wonderful work that helplines do. I want to mention in our research that Sonya and I did, we didn't do many countries but some of the countries are also members here and were included in your work as well. We found when children encounter something online that bothers them, they go to their peers and maybe the parents and maybe about 29% to teachers and fewer to professionals. So obviously there's a need for an outreach so the children speak more to available professionals and helplines, given that a few of them would consider that. Also, my question was, do you have peer services, peer-to-peer support services through these helplines? Children may feel more at ease talking to somebody of their own age who can in a way help them, if it's at all possible. >> MODERATOR: Indeed, that's a really good question, and there are helplines that do that have. ChildLine U.K. does, and the Dutch Kinder telephone does as well. Those are the two I know of specifically. Gordon, unfortunately, we can't hear him right now. He has a young person who is also a counselor with him. At the national runaway safe line are under 18. I think 16 is the youngest that people use. ALD Child Helpline International we would like to encourage that and to spread that practice to other helplines. It's more difficult in other cultures, I think. There's -- >> SPEAKER: In the U.K. ChildLine is -- even in the U.K. where ChildLine is a massive organization, like a Rolls-Royce organization in some ways, I still think it's the case that kids will speak to each other first very often, and ChildLine probably gets the harder or more difficult ones. Even though it's outside of framework of helplines, there's a lot of peer-to- peer stuff going on. ChildLine does have that peer network as well. >> MODERATOR: The other element is I worked at the Spainish helpline, and I know from the reason they know from helplines is from each other. They SFEEM to one another, and very often they pass along that advice if you need help I can't give you, call the helpline. There's an element of passing along the world from peer-to-peer. I'm just trying to see if we can get a chat. >> AUDIENCE: I tried it on Skype. >> MODERATOR: You did? I really do apologize for this. Let's see. >> AUDIENCE: Oh, technology. >> MODERATOR: What I can do -- I did it in in fact. ( Indiscernible conversation ) >> SPEAKER: We have about three minutes left, and Gordon even for two minutes is worth listening to. So let's see if we can resolve this. Put it up, yeah. Go on. Yes. Name and number. >> SPEAKER: The credit card number, yeah. Hi. I'm from the IPU and I apologize for being late here. I know many of the people in the room and I can count them as friends. So I was in another session, so I just couldn't come. Maybe this was only covered, but let me reiterate. We launched this campaign on partnering to protect children and youth primarily to recognize good practices and CLAB collaborators on child helplines and thank you for your collaboration and friend STHIP -- friendship and a couple of reports. We received case studies from many different parts of the world for several months, and they were evaluated based on various criteria. I think there are people in the room who are judges and this culminated finally in a session. We recognize some of these cases, and the criteria were improving access to child helplines and improving the quality of service and raising the international level. It was a very interesting session, and we hope we will do it again and repeat the exercise in the future. Thank you very much. >> SPEAKER: Any other questions or comments? There's something there. Spit it out. >> AUDIENCE: Hello. I'm Marcela from Argentina and an NGO. We were called by Facebook. I don't know if there's somebody here from Facebook? No. Hi. To help them to organize a protocol, you say, to help the child helpline in Argentina in Internet child issues. I would like to know if there is another country in Latin America that is already doing that, and if there is some examples we can get them to help to learn more and to help the child helpline. >> MODERATOR: I didn't know you were from Facebook. I'm glad you're here. Facebook and CHEELD helpline got together from the LEAP project and put together a training for African lines for the counselors on the privacy settings on when kids call about Facebook and the counselors know what to do with Facebook. As a result of the work Child Helpline International did with UNICEF in Argentina for the national child helpline in Argentina and Facebook, I believe Facebook will try to repeat in in a large part of the continent. You have the mic right there: >> AUDIENCE: We were doing this work with Child Helpline Internationally, and there was a request to replicate the model in Argentina as well. I think we've seen a lot of success in us being able to work with the people taking the calls to, you know, orient them with our safety tools and features and privacy features and how people report content. We found that useful as well and we would love to do that in many more countries around the world. >> MODERATOR: That's a very good question. Thank you. It is something that we are coordinating with Facebook as we speak. We are coordinating with Facebook now. >> AUDIENCE: Yes, yes, I know. >> MODERATOR: Yes. >> SPEAKER: Any other questions? We're out of time. >> MODERATOR: We're out of time. I have to apologize to the people participating at a distance. ELana Jacobs from crisis text line in New York and Gordon Vance from national runaway safe line, I'm sorry we couldn't bring you in. Thank you to all of you for paying attention and being here today. Take a bookmark. ( Session ended at 10:00 a.m. ) ICANN gTLD program: Exploring impact and future direction Room 7 >> MODERATOR: Good morning, everyone. We will start in one minute. We're just waiting for a technical thing to be solved. Okay. Good morning, again. The technical glitch has been sorted out. Welcome, everyone, to this new gTLD workshop. I'm SHA reason shall by. I'm a member of the board, and over the last few years I was the chair of the gTLD program committee that had oversight responsibility on the last round of expansion of name spaces. So what I'd like to do is start with just restating the purpose of this session and then ask mes of the panels representing various stake holders to introduce themself and give a brief introduction to the agenda and get going. We have an hour and a half. The first part of the discussion is just presentations to bring everybody up-to-date, and the second part of the discussion will be open to questions and answers. Anybody, please engage in a vigorous way in terms of debate and expressing your views. What is the purpose of this session? Frankly, it's really to bring everybody up-to-date with what's happened since we launched that last round. As you know, there are various reviews taking place on the impact of the last round on things like consumer choice and consumer trust, and at the same time part of the ICANN stakeholder of gTLD and looking at the PDP and see if there's policy changes or implementation changes to the next round. We want to bring you up-to-date on these two things and launch it into a vigorous discussion so you know what's going on prior to any launch of a new round of new gTLDs. With that in mind, I would like to ask members of the panel sitting around the table to introduce themselves. Then I will give you a briefing on the agenda and we will kick off very quickly. I will start with on my left, so Akram. >> SPEAKER: I'm responsible for the new program within the global domains division. We implement basically all of the policies and the recommendations that the board asks us to implement from the community. Thank you. >> SPEAKER: Jonathan Zuck. I'm chair of the review of the new gTLD program that's focused in on consumer choice, competition, and consumer trust. So we'll be talking a little bit about our work there. >> SPEAKER: Good morning. I'm Megan Richards from the European Commission. I'm here, I think, because I'm a member of the competition consumer choice. Anyway, the same one as Jonathan is leading very capably. Thanks. >> SPEAKER: Good morning. I'm Olivier Crepin-Leblond. I'm the chair of the European at large organization, and at large is part of ICANN. They bring the input of end users into the ICANN processes, and I track the health index, which we'll talk about in a moment. >> MODERATOR: Who's next? >> SPEAKER: I'm Patrick Bennings. I'm the head of the information department of the counselor here. I brought with me on the study on the applications for ICANN for new domain names and opportunities and challenges from a human rights perspective, which I can share with you. >> SPEAKER: My name is Andrew Mack. I'm from A.M. global based in Washington. We did a study of the new gTLD program, specifically why it did and didn't pick up in global places around the world. HAEB happy to answer any questions about it. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. I appreciate the introductions, but the panelists that are going to give presentations, I'd like them to introduce themselves at this stage. Renal YA. >> Thank you. I'm a member of the ICANN board and I'm a member of the board IDN working group and talking about IDNs. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. Olga. >> SPEAKER: Good morning. I'm Olga Cavalli. I think I have value in this panel in my role as chair of Argentina and chair of the gTLD working group on protection of geographic names and new gTLDs. >> SPEAKER: I'm Avri Doria and I'm here as co-chair of the policy development process working group on new gTLD subsequent procedures. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. Nigel, do you want to introduce yourself? >> SPEAKER: I'm Nigel hickson and I'm the coordination. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. A small administrative matter to start with. Unfortunately, there's no translation for the session, so everything has to be in English, unfortunately. And for remote participants, they will submit their questions, I'm told, in writing and it will appear on the screen there on the left-hand side. Nigel will read it so everybody can hear what the question is. So let me just lay out the agenda for you. We will start with Akram, sitting here on my left, who is going to give us an overview of all of the various reviews that are taking place on the last round of the new gTLD expansion as well as on the PDP process. After Akram's brief overview, we hand over to Jonathan here who introduced himself earlier who gave a status and progress on the consumer trust and consumer choice review taking place. Following that I hand over to Olivier Crepin-Leblond who will talk about the marketplace health index. After that I hand over to Avri to talk about the PDP background and status. And then various panelists who represent stakeholders will give their views on those two things we were just talking about. The various reviews as well as the PDP and Olivier to give a couple of minutes and Megan a couple of minutes and Olga a couple of minutes. Then we have some topics of interest we'll bring you up to date on. One is the IDNs and renal YA will give that. Then the two letter CC which has been a lot of discussion about recently. Akram and Cyrus, if he's here, will give us a couple of minutes introduction. And also, the last topic will be geographical imbalance. All of that should take roughly between around 40 minutes. That leaves another 15 minutes for questions and answers, which I will moderate. At the end we will finish with a five-minute summary of all the points or any conclusion or any decision or action we need to take, which Nigel will summarize to us the outcome of this discussion. Enough with the introduction. Let's go immediately to Akram to give us an overview of the various reviews and the PDPs that are all taking place. Akram. >> SPEAKER: I will keep a tight watch on every presentation so that we move along. Go to the next one. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for attending the session. What I will do is give a quick overview of the current round and where we are with that so everybody understands why we're talking about the next one, which I think is important. Then we talk a little bit about what's on the calendar and what's going on in prep for the next round and the details of some of the reviews that are going on and then I'll move it to -- on the CCT review to take from that. Next slide. So if you look at -- if you look at the current round, you can see that basically we're at the tail end of the current round. We are left with -- we've had about 1249 total strings that can be delegated, and out of the 1249 we've contracted 1229, so there are only 20 remaining strings that can be contracted to deal with. Now, the numbers that you see on the right of these bars, sometimes that is bigger than others, but it's because they're in contention, for example, multiple applications for the same string, but only one can be delegated. This is how some of the numbers shake out. So when you look at that, you'll see that we are left with only 20 to go. There are a few that need to be withdrawn that haven't withdrawn. There are a few that have applied for strings like mail that were found to be -- to have -- there is 20 of them, ink, that apply for home corporate mail that haven't withdrawn where the study we did on collisions found that these three strings -- they have a lot of collisions, and therefore, the board has issued a resolution not to delegate. So we need to deal with those lagging applications that haven't withdrawn or haven't contracted to finish the round. Moving on to the next slide, the current program reviews and the policies that are going on, you can see that a lot of work has been done already between the last few years, and there is some work still going on in the competition trust and choice review. The trademark clearinghouse is also work that is ongoing, and it's going to close shortly. The stability review, also we expect that to close next year, so a lot of these reviews will be hopefully done within the 2017 time frame, and then the orange bars that you see there are ongoing policy development that are either important for the new gTLD program or relevant to the new gTLD program. So if you look at those, we don't have a clear time line on when they -- when the community processes will infish. These are estimations of where we think some of these will end up. And the most important one for the new gTLD program is the new gTLD subsequent procedures PDP that Avri will cover shortly. Moving on to the next slide, on the trademark clearinghouse independent review, this was a GAC-recommended review. We hired an analysis group to do the study, and they published their initial report and we took public comment, and in response to public comment, they are now collecting data on abandonment rates from registries and wholesale pricing from registries. I don't know how much they will get. They will finalize the report and post it hopefully in January for public comment. So this is almost in the tail end of the review and we look forward to closing this one shortly. We are also -- we are also almost done with this. We expect to have a draft report open for public -- well, we have the report open for public comment until 22 December, and the public comments report will be published on 16 January, and if -- and the final revised report in April 2017. So also we're very close to finalizing this review. I think that, you know, the key finding is that the root is stable and the new gTLD in general did not create any issues for the root, which is very important for us. Hopefully we will close this very soon. The next slide. This is a list of all of the published data that is under review or ongoing work that is going on. All of it is -- can be found on the ICANN website. It's also available to look into. A lot of materials, but if you're looking for specific issues, hopefully this will give you all the answers that you need if we don't cover it here today. The next slide is about the policy development activities, and as I mentioned, we -- the most important one for us is the new gTLD subsequent procedure. I'm not going to talk about it too much because Avri is going to cover that. We have a lot of different things that they are reviewing that are very important for the -- for moving the program forward. So with that, I will just summarize that the way it looks like now is that the reviews and the PDPs are not going to be done before the 2017-2018 time frame. So we look forward for a lot of this work to be done. The board has already issued a resolution that they will look forward for the reviews before they will assess whether next -- the next round or the next subsequent procedure will open, and we look forward to all this work being done and then hopefully we'll get from the community some advice on the next round as well. We'll go from there. So with that, I'll close my presentation, and I give it to Zuck to talk about the CCT reviews. Thank you. >> SPEAKER: Thanks, Akram. I'd like to ask a quick question. How many people in the room do not follow ICANN regularly? Okay. That's -- the chairman of the board Steve Crocker who doesn't follow because he leads, I guess. Exactly. I'm also curious. How many of you knew that there were 1200 new top-level doe up -- domains added in the last year? How many of you in the last couple of days received a business card that had one of the new domains on it? One. Good. Two. All right. Excellent. It seems appropriate while here in Mexico to talk about a fairly recent trade agreement between the United States and Mexico called NAFTA. Before it was enacted, there were a lot of people that thought it was going to be the most incredible trade agreement signed and a lot thought it was the end of the world. Now that it's in place for a number of years, some think it's the best trade agreement ever signed and a lot of people think it's the worst trade agreement ever put in place. And like the new gTLD program, if you actually look at the data about NAFTA, the results are far less dramatic, right? Some good and some bad, et cetera, but it wasn't dramatically one way or the other. We face some of that same kind of discussion around this new gTLD program. There were thoughs that believed it would be incredible and those that thought it was a disaster and pretty much those same people think it's I know credible or a disaster. What we tried to do in the review mandated as part of the affirmation of commitments, which is an agreement that ICANN signed with the United States government in 2009, we wanted to try and look at this from a real data- based perspective, which is a relatively new way of looking at things inside of ICANN, right? So in order to create a more realistic painting and less impressionistic painting of the new situation with the new gTLDs. So there are interesting findings for the group, but it's still relatively new. As Akram shared with you, they're not completely done delegating the new string. The year we focused on studying to look at whether there was an increase in competition, and whether there was enhanced consumer trust and whether there was enhanced consumer choice, that year has been a year of growth and just a launch of the program. So it's reasonable to assume that it will take longer to really see what the effects of the program are. In fact, if you look at previous releases of new top-level domains, you haven't really seen what they've contributed in, you know, until about three years. Right? So you have more of a sense with a little bit more time that's passed. That said, there's some interesting things that I think are worth noting. So we look at competition. A number of things we look at, for example, is new sales, market share, concentration. These are some of the statistics that we're trying to compile about the new gTLDs. And if we look at the new sales, in other words, the sales of second-level domains, the part to the left of the period that have been made in the past couple of years, it's about split evenly between the legacy gTLDs and the new gTLDs. So that's a fairly significant proportion of new sales. If you include CCTLDs it splits pretty evenly a third, third, and third. These new TLDs have taken their place as the market has grown, but we're looking at 25 years of sales versus one year, and so you're not going to see a huge market share of change. We did see new gTLDs take about 9% of the market in this period of time. So that's a fairly significant, I think, dent, if you will, in the marketplace as well. Again, as we say, things are fairly new. When we talk about choice, we're often talking about nonprice-based competition, right? Have I got more choices? If the word wasn't available in a legacy TLD that are available in a new TLD. That answer in most instances is yes, but one of the most interesting statistics is a very large number, something like 70% of the new gTLDs that have been sold were available as con cat natured strings in dot com. So my own personal example, I bought something called bigshots.photography. I bought it at a time when bigshotsphotography.com was available in com. So it's an interesting phenomena that folks are interested in this semantic web and see value in these new TLDs. In fact, we conducted a survey by Nielsen where we asked people what they liked and didn't like, what their awareness was of these new gTLDs. There was a finding of a preference in in semantic web, and being able to tell from the suffix what kind of kind of service or product that they'd be getting to, what type of website they'd get to. Now, the risk associated with that is they survey and also reveal people were interested in seeing some enforcement of those semantics. You have something new like .bank where there's a strict enforcement play, but doc doctor is not the same. It's interesting to see over time as we track consumer perception of the new gTLD program what it will look like into the future. So a little bit of data and impressionistic data from consumers tells the story things are headed in the right direction in terms of competition. We also looked at trust and safeguards, and for the most part they revealed no degradation in trust, and for the most part the program seems to be doing things designed to enhance trust. They're things done to enhance trustworthy of the DNS. So that's a positive as well. When you look at the safeguards, you look at the individual success of safeguards, and whether or not they were implemented and whether they're enforcement and both of those things seem to be the case as well. One of the downside consequences that has been predicted and concerns intellectual property holders. I'm a member of the intellectual property constituency inside of the ICANN. There was a concern that a rapid expansion of gTLDs would lead to high costs for her trademark owners trying to essentially play a game of grabbing onto each of these new domains that came out so people wouldn't cyber squat on them, for example. There's some of that, but they're a lower level of defensive registration than there has been historically in the legacy domains. Now, there's also a new way to protect yourself called blocking, and there's some procedures for getting the doedomain back or suspended that rather create kind of a basket of protections. Even those have not been used in greater SDREE than they have been in the legacy TLD. So, again, the issues there is there's issues to be addressed, but on the whole the program needs to be headed in the right direction. There's the issue by the downside consequences, but there's more work to do. In addition -- how am I doing on time? I'm done? Okay. So if I've sparked your curiosity, we will be releasing an interim report. It's not complete because there's data outstanding, but releasing an enterim report on the 23rd of December for public comment. Read through it and gain an understanding of the questions we're asking and add questions we should ask or interpretations you think we're handling uncorrectly. We'd love to hear about the impressions of the report and of the new gTLD program. Thank you for your time. >> MODERATOR: Jonathan, just one question. Your review is one of the most highly visible and there's quite a bit of expectation. I think it's important to manage the expectation. What you're not going to come up with, I suspect, are concludes. You come up with strengths and direction but no firm conclusion or are you coming up with conclusions and recommendations? >> Good question. There are some conclusions and recommendations. The larger topics won't be substantive. That said one of the findings of the group that is not new is it's difficult to get the data necessary to really do competitive analysis. If you look at any of the studies that have happened in the last ten years, they conclude more data is better. We are reaching a similar conclusion. A large part is about ICANN taking the notion of data collection and provision more seriously so that as reviewing move forward, some calculations we're performing around market calculation can be done on a regular basis to be tracked in a comprehensive way. So that will be a very large and, I think, complex recommendation, but not specific to this little recommendation that will improve competition, for example. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. Akram gave us an overview of the various review and what's happening on the PDP. Jonathan gave us a flavor of a review. I will move very shortly to Avri to talk about the PDP. Before that sandwiched in between of the two I'll give Olivier to talk about the marketplace health index and why it's important to listen and understand what's going on there. Thank you. >> SPEAKER: Thank you very much. I'm just going to ask if Nigel can go over to the quick document, which was up for public comment a few months ago, I believe. The gTLD marketplace health index is another project of ICANN that will continue with tracking the gTLDs as they evolve in time to find out if they've actually fulfilled the original scenarios that we were wishes for them. There's no use to have new gTLDs not to be used for competition, to not thrive for all of the original ideas of the program, to not be fulfilled. Unfortunately, want screen is behind me. It's hard to look at both things at the same time. Okay. I can't see that. Nigel is having a bit of a problem. Effectively, there was a first document up for public comment a couple of months ago. It's a document that's sort of an example of what kind of metrics are going to be implemented to ensure ongoing tracking of the program. Metrics that might be used also for the next round, if there is one, and metrics that are looking at robust competition, marketplace, stability and trust. We might add more things to that. Do we have the document or not? >> MODERATOR: Your time is running out. >> SPEAKER: I'm going to blame the Brits for that. Darn, I live in London. Looking at robust competition, diverse across the choice of service provider geography. It's over there. Okay. Scroll down DO robust competition, one of the metrics for example is geographic diversity to find out the ICANN registrars by ICANN region. Are we on that page? Yeah. So we have nice JTS graphics that are there. They will be displayed in simple graphics so you see the diversity across the world. In Africa there's very few. Other regions are well served, and these are metrics that enable us to do where we have to do work and what improved there. You have TDL registry operators by region, and the page is competition. Geographic diversity is one thing and competition between different domain names is another thing. Looking at the district identities. Looking at the number of registrar accreditations and for those not aware, I think three people are not aware of the registry, and the registrars and the people that sell the domain names over to the public. So more registrar accreditations means that you will have more choice for the consumer. Going down to the next page, you can look at the total number of gTLDs and see a steady rise in these. Total second level domain name registrations and gTLDs year on year growth rates. It was going down and going back up. The next page, gTLD additions and deletions, of course, we're now rolling out a lot of new gTLDs, but some might be rolled back. We don't know. It depends really on how the market will work, and really what we're doing here is to track the market and see if things are progressing in one way or another. At this part this is the first report and these are examples and it's difficult to spot any trend. I see I'm about to get my microphone shut off. If we go to marketplace stability, >> Using at the registrars is important. Trust in the DNS is really important and trust is really important in top-level domains. There's metrics on this including the accuracy of who has records. I'm not going through the whole document. It's online and we can have it linked to the agenda, but this is ongoing work and we have a working group working on this. We will add more metrics, and if you do have some feedback to provide to us, there's an e-mail address you can contact and we're welcome to receive feedback. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you, OEL -- Olivier. >> SPEAKER: I took a picture of the walls here and I like the succession of things going by as we sort of toot on our horns. The starting point for -- next slide, please. We have policies and they will show up sooner or later. We have a policy from 2007 and an application guidebook from 2012. You know this already, and I wrote thinking I was talking to a room of people that didn't know this already. We're undergoing multiple reviews on both policy and the process. We can change anything that needs to be changed and that we have consensus on changing. If we don't change anything, then we stick with the same policy and perhaps the application process will change. That would be in GDD's hands, although there would be an implementation review team, so things would change but wouldn't change all that much. Next slide, please, and then the next again. So the current status is we already did one community, and that was the time before. We already did a community comment on some overarching issues. One of them was we asked if we need gTLDs at all? Is the new thousand enough and we can stop there? Do we need to categorize and differentiate types? Last time we had two plus one times. We had the standard. We had the community. Then we eventually ended up having what are the geographical, though that wasn't the intention at the time of the policy. We're asking ourselves should this be done in rounds or do we want to go for some others? A lot of people that don't want to end up with a hiatus again and want something continuous. Can we do a first come first serve process as a question is asked? How do we balance predictability and flexibility. The first principle of the last round was it shall be predictable and no surprises. Now we found out that flexibility requires surprises. So -- or at least caused surprises when there were issues to be dealt with that hadn't been thought of before. How do we balance those? How do we improve community engagement during the process? Should we limit the number of applications? So that went out in community comment. We got back commends and we're now processing our recommendations on that. Some of the trends look like, yeah, we want more gTLDs, and yeah we want to do son differentiation in types. We don't know what. I'll talk battle bit more about the rounds. Now we're basically working on four tracts going forward, so next one. That's okay. There's a quick time line that shows what was spoken of before where we're going to send out a community comment too based on the tracks we're talking about now, and our preliminary completion. We're still aiming for a final report by July 18th, when it goes into the next steps of board approval, implementation process, et cetera. That I'm not predicting, because that's beyond the PDP. The PDP is currently scheduled for July 18. Next. And then next after that. So we have four work tracts. It's amazing how it always wants to go back first. It's kind of like the new gTLD process. Every time you think you take a step forward, you find out you take one back. Yes. We have one track which is the overall process, application, support and outreach. Looking at things like the community support program we had that, you know, did it work and did it not for developing economies? Looking at all the legal and regulatory issues, and I will give examples of these in each. String contention. We had a lot of discussion. Obviously, if we're first come first serve we won't have much string contention, but we probably won't be first come and first serve. Objections and dispute resolution and one tract that's looking at international domain names and technical issues and operations. So some of as Akram mentioned we have 30 questions plus we're going through. I'm not covering them. Here we're looking at was the process fear? Were the fears appropriate? Should it be the same fee for every kind of application? What went wrong with the applicant support program? Why did it go wrong? What do we do? How do we support developing economies? Did comment periods work properly? Those are the questions we deal with. Next one. That's looking at reserve names. What sorts? How many? In the first round we sort of said, we're keeping the set minimal, and if people don't like it, they can file an objection. Then the board sort of decided no, no, no, we need lists of names so they created names. So now we're looking at their lists and your lists and other lists, and you know how big a list can we have of names that are reserved? Do we need extra registrant protections? Are second level rights efficient? Do we need more than we did in the past? Is it sufficient or do we different ones for different kinds? Do we need to consider a Louing for different -- if you're a different type or category or brand versus a community, you have a different contract. So those are the issues there. Some of the W3 issues. Rounds. If we do do rounds, is it like the 2012 round where we get 1,000? There are people that are predicting there's another 10,000 potential applicants waiting in the wings especially if brands opens up and if we talk about 10,000 rounds -- I mean 10,000 in the next round, do we want to deal with that? Do you want to deal with that Akram? Do we use a first come first serve process? A lot of interest in doing that, especially because it's ongoing, but if there's 10 000 and many, how do you do that? You lose name contention there. We're in the mode of now discussing various hybrid procedures. Things like you have an open for three months and then you do the initial processing for three months and then you open for three months, and you have set it up in a predictable way. We're not saying -- one of the things I don't expect we will find is we don't continue a next round until the reviews. This time we knew it was a learning round when we did the policy, and the notion was, we got to learn, so we have to review. Now we're taking a notion that sure there will be things to fix, but we'll be able to do ongoing policy changes as opposed to stopping. So this time it really is the intention to have ongoing. We had an independent objector that was supposed to look at things that were perhaps objectable for people that couldn't afford to pay and do the process? Did that work well or badly? Do we need one? Were the objection procedures working properly? Do they need to? I'm almost done. Next one. The work for questions, how to handle questions of technical competence and capability. That comes into if you're one applicant applying for 20, do you have to be checked for competence all the time? Also, if there are different types, does every type of registry need the same kind of competence? Does every type need the same financial capabilities? I DNs and questions like single-character IDNs where it's a whole word in another script and another language. They're prohibited and should they be? Should we prioritize IDN string applications either by giving them a separate round or doing something else? How do we treat IDN variance? That topic is still ongoing. As I said, these are really just example questions. One of the questions that I didn't bring up here and I think it's in NWC3 but you reminded me of it is communities. Some think we need to do more to support communities. Some think communities are rubbish and a way to get around the system. I'm being neutral now and gave the extremes of both views. That's the kind of discussion we're having there. Next one, please. So getting involved. You can join the working group. You could join one of the specific subteams. Anyone can sign up as an observer where you get all the mail, and there's a lot of it. But you can't answer it. You just get to read it, but you can always say, oh, that was important. I want to argue. Please make me an participant instead of an observer, and you change. All the e-mail lists are open archive and all calls are recorded. You can check out what's done at your own leisure. You can't get to sleep at night or wake up at 3:00 in the morning. My word, what is happening with new gTLDs? Then also we do put out formal comment solicitations, so if minimally you want to just make sure that wrong thing didn't happen, one, there are ways to participate to make something happen. There are ways to monitor to make sure that you know when something bad is happening. There are waying to check it. Nothing bad happened and nothing to comment on. So you know that. The last one. That was -- those are the resources. Those will be there. There's the project page and Wikipage and chatter. >> MODERATOR: Thank you Avri. We heard from the reviews and PDP. We now have a series of comments that take eight to ten minutes and then I will it open up for questions and answers. The first set of comments, and speakers, please don't spend more than two minutes. Some of the stakeholders to give us their view from their stakeholder point about these reviews, about the PDP. So can I start with Olivier and then Megan and then Olga. Olivier, two minutes please. State which stakeholder you're with. >> SPEAKER: I took more time before, so I'll take less time this time hopefully. I'm with the at-large community. I'm the Europe at-large organization. We bring the input from end users to the ICANN processes and the at large advisory committee is a committee that can comment on everything and anything that take place with ICANN including the new process. We have a very varied community of people from all around the world with very various views and some people are really happy about the new gTLD program and some are not happy about the new gTLD program. On the negative side, there's a potential, of course, for end user confusion, malicious use of domain names, Spam, Phishing, et cetera. These are concerning that many people in our community have. On the positives there's more choice for registering a domain name. There was a time to look for dot com and find out nine times out of the ten it was used and somebody would try to resell it at a extortionist price. There are concerns about the lack of geographic diversity when it comes to registrars. As you have seen from the metrics I showed earlier, there's an imbalance on that. Well, maybe we need another round to be able to address this, and as Avri actually said also, concern about the poor number of community applications. That's another one of those things. We're very eager to learn the results of the review team. We're very active in that. We have people that are on the review team itself, and we have people actively involved in the policy development process for the subsequent procedures and we invite more end users involved in that. It's really important. At the end of the day, the Internet is for you guys, and this whole program is for the end users. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you, Olivier. Megan. >> SPEAKER: Thanks. I'm Megan Richards from the government advisory committee. That's what I'm here to talk to you about today. I'm also a member of the CCT review team. I think there are a couple of things I'd like to see. The affirmations of commitments which was the basis for the review has been integrated into the new bylaws of ICANN. This shows it's not something that has worn off. It will continue in the future and it's integrated into the structure and functioning of ICANN, which is important. I'm not going to repeat, of course, what Jonathan said, which was very clear. One aspect that's important in particular for GAC was the effectiveness of the application and evaluation procedure, which is one of the things we were supposed to look at. As Jonathan said, the information is not sufficiently robust. It's very limited. However, there are still data and there's still information that gives us some ideas of what's going on. First of all, with respect to GAC early warning advice, it's clear it was very useful in my cases to make sure that public policy issues were addressed before it was delegated. It allowed two applicants to have 80% of the fee returned for public policy reasons, and so this was one thing that we have seen has been very useful. The issue of how accessibility and use was available for the whole world is clearly problematic and we have Andy Mack's report that Jonathan and Olivier mentioned. This is something that really has to be addressed in the future. If there's interest and if these are areas where we think and new gTLDs are demanded that's another issue. Do we increase supply or demand? The other thing I want to mention briefly here is someone menninged the number of community applications. I think the issue that we were particularly concerned about was the success rate of community applications. You've seen of the 1900 applications, 1229 are already contracted. That's a very good success rate. TLRM there were a lot of contentions and complications: Of the 51 community applications, 75% were rejected. Something is a bit unusual there. We had a report of the OM budsman, and this need 'more looking at. In order to limb the time, add I guessed I said, more information is needed and we need to do more in respect for future reviews, and the whole system and the whole delegation process is still new. We still have new gTLDs being delegated, so we're looking at a moving target which makes it really complex. So we're contradicted in what we have done so far because more needs to be done to have a fully robust and complete review. >> MODERATOR: Thank you, Megan. Olga, another stakeholder view. >> SPEAKER: So my view as a chair of the GAC working group on protection of geographic names, an internal GAC group was established in 2012 after the ICANN meeting. What's the purpose of our work? It's lower uncertainty for applicants. Prevent and avoid the use of names relevant for communities, regions and countries and lower conflicts once the new gTLD next round is ongoing. So we produce some documents that were open for public comments. They were not GAC con sensed documents. They were just background documents we wanted together. Feedback from the community. It was the first time that GAC did that, and it was very successful. We represented the outcomes in the Singapore meeting, and after doing work with these comments and this draft document we are now focused on developing a set of best practices for new gTLD round. For ICANN for the applicants and governments. Ing so the aim of this best practice is to help reconcile interests for applicants and have a legal certainty and clear environment versus the interests of governments and public authorities and communities. Now we're facing this challenge of how to inject and bring this idea that is important for at least some governments into this new gTLD/PDP process. So we're challenging our time with that. We appreciate very much the openness of the GNSO and this process, but it's challenging because we have also many other working groups and lists and places that we have to also pay attention to. So I know some colleagues from GAC are participating. I am try to get involved personally more. There are important efforts to work together to avoid then once the process is finished. Then we have the conflicts. We're trying to work together. It's not easy to work by consensus, so it takes time. We're 170-plus countries working together with different interests and different views of the same thing. So that's my view. Perhaps other colleagues from the GAC can add other comments once we have the time. Thank you very much. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. Now the last three topics, they are topics of interest. We're going to talk about IDNs. Renali will give us the views and the two-letter codes and Akram will talk to about and the imbalance I go back to Avri on this issue. >> SPEAKER: Thank you. Let's look at how it served a multicommunity that is multilingual. IDNs are essentially domain names represented by letters and characters from different scripts and writing systems. IDNs serve the online needs of a world diverse in language and script. It received 116IDN generic top-level domain applications, that only 6% of total applications. These applications were for IDN's in nine languages and scripts. Against that, consider the global context with 7,000 languages spoken in the world. In terms of the population in 7.4 billion, only 90% communicate in a language not English. 46% of the people in the world connected to the Internet today and the famous 3.4 billion that everyone refers to at the IGF surprise most of the English-speaking population. The bulk of the unconnected or yet to be connected is 54% of the world population. They're those that need support for languages and scripts, and they require IDNs to access the Internet. The demand should be higher if they really serve a global community diverse in languages and script. In terms of adoption, IDNs only comprise 2% of the domains. The world report in 2015 highlight two primary challenges of adoption. The nonuniversal acceptance of IDNs in Internet enabled applications, devices and systems and the lack of user awareness. In moving forward with the new program, I believe that IDNs should be a priority. So that's an answer to the question that Avri posed in her PDP work trial. Concurrently the problem of nonuniversal awareness and lack of user awareness need to be addressed and the challenge is figuring out whose problem SF? Like this adoption around the world, it's a shared responsibility. Otherwise, it's not going to happen. To give a rounded view in terms of status of IDNs in the route zone right now, the total is 139 delegated, 82 of these are IDN generic top level domains and 57 are IDN coded domains. That covering 221 221 -- 21 scripts and 35 languages. More needs to be done. >> MODERATOR: The message is clear, IDNs is a priority for the next round. >> SPEAKER: I'll pass that on, you know. >> MODERATOR: Akram two minutes on the two-letter CCs and the geographic imbalance after that and open it for questions. >> SPEAKER: The two-letter CC is a hot topic. There are some GAC members have -- that have provided their faction with the release of their country code names in the second LEFLT in the program. Although there's no GAC advised on this issue, we've worked with this two-character release for a long time. It's important to note in 2007 the GNS or reserved names working group did the policy on the two character release. That policy was integrated in the agreement. There are two paths for them to release the two KWEKTor codes. One path is by discussing it with the government and getting approval from the government and the CCTL registry. The other one is that the registry will put measures to avoid conclusion and then I can approve the release. So the board has asked the staff to put a framework together to do that, and the two connectors where that would not letters and letters were released a while back. The letter and letter codes were released in three phases. The first phase was we asked the registries to request the release, and then we looked at comments from the governments about confusability to see what we can do to -- what the registry needs to do to avoid the confusability and put the measures in place to avoid the confusability. So for the codes that did not receive any comments, we released those. Then the second phase was to actually make sure that the comments are only about confusability, because that's what the policy says. And we move forward with everything that -- we released everything that did not receive comments on confusability. We worked with the community to come up with a framework to put measures to mitigate the confusability, and now we're about ready to release the rest of the codes based on the registry implementing these measures to avoid confusability. It's important to also note that all the legacy TLDs do have the two collective codes released. So it's not something new that we're doing in the new gTLD program. It is consistent with the legacy TLDs as well. It's important to note that a lot of the CCLDs themselves actually allow the two connector codes to be released as well. So this is not new in the domain name system that we release the two connective codes, and we're doing it in a step-by- step with consultation with the GAC and with the countries that are having concerns about that and we're hoping that actually the mitigation will meet the requirements of the governments as we move forward. So I think that the process has been very -- followed all the policies that are available, followed all the advice available and we are actually moving it in an orderly fashion and I think that it's been about time to move forward with this issue. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. So we reached the end of the various presentations and a lot of food for thought. Avri has generously given her slot away to put it to questions. If a question comes on geographical, I'll point to you. I open the floor now to questions. Please state your name and affiliation and question then. Thank you. As I said, there's no translation, so the questions, UFRM, unfortunately, have to be in English. A remote participant will submit their questions in writing and it will appear on the screen above. Who would like to ask the first question? >> AUDIENCE: My name is ( indiscernible ) the chair for the finance and business and also the chair for Africa's alliance. So let me first talk with respect to the DC. Actually, it's the generally believe in BC that before we proceed to the new ETL round, it's very important it should be exhaustive review of all the studying ongoing, and that's what we're doing. And then because they also can sign up for compliance and abuse and we get to the sustained delegated new TLDs. That is about on my region, based on the studies that has come out done by LT and Andrew Mack is that the maturity level in the domain industry in Africa is quite low. That is clear with the number of delegations or applications we received. So going forward, I think we need to do a lot of consigning of help to view the maturity of of the industry in Africa in particular. We may need to look at the market. It's important to look at the big markets. For example, Niger has a big market. It could be necessary to organize ICANN meetings in Nigeria, because the resources are there but the awareness is very low. So the question is what other things can we do for developing countries generally to encourage them to participate in the next round when it comes up? Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Who would like to respond to this question? What can we do for developing countries to help them participate more in the next round? Is this something the GNSO is looking at in terms of PDP policies. Jonathan. Do Jonathan and Olga want to respond? Jonathan. >> SPEAKER: Yes. Thanks for your question, and it's a widely expressed and discussed question inside of the ICANN community, which is how to better serve the Global South and in general in Africa in particular. I think one of the interesting aspects of the study conducted by AM Global was that people that might otherwise have thought of participating in the previous round were unclear as to what the real business model might be to succeed with a new string. I think that that's telling, and what we need to do is really explore as you say working on the maturity of the industry generally in Africa. I'm not sure that the next step is to try and get, you know, registries or new strings there because the strings that exist, the registries that exist have low subscription rates, participation rates by registrants. So I feel like the -- it would almost be doing a disservice to someone to convince them they ought to go into business with a new string unless there was a viable business model waiting for them. We need to look more carefully at how to encourage better participation among registrants first. People creating their own websites and making use of IDNs where appropriate, building local content, for example, like we heard yesterday about the web series from Ghana that's gone viral around the world. So I think that there's opportunities there, but I think that that demand has to be driven by the second-level domains more so than finding the poor person we convinced to go after a top-level domain only to find the market isn't ready to purchase it. >> MODERATOR: Okay. I have three members of the panel that also want to respond. We want to allow more time for questions. I'll give you a minute each. Olga, Avri, and Olivier. I have two more questions. >> SPEAKER: Thank you. Having to try to explain the -- having tried to explain the concept in Latin America for kind of two or three years, I can tell you that it's -- the purpose of it, one of the biggest barriers, why should I? What is the purpose? Which is the business model? Where is my interest? Now we have good stories to tell or some examples to show. Then it's the complexity, but first is what is it for? That's what it is. >> SPEAKER: Avri speaking. A part of what we're looking at is indeed why did we fail in that in terms of having that wider distribution. A lot of it also comes down to yes, RE they prepared for it in terms of registry service providers and the expense. That's one of the reasons for the financial issue. When an expense is listed in U.S. kind of economy where, yes, 186,000 may not seem a lot to a corporation in that, but in Africa, et cetera, that becomes an exorbitant sum. That whole notion, that's why the GAC recommended last time that for developing economies there be a free application, which never came about. So we are looking at those things, and it is complex. I think there's also a certain chicken and egg of if we don't have a local registry selling to us, why send money for registries in colonial power place? People do say things like that. So, you know, the really is a chicken and egg problem on why to register and give you money if I can't register locally and give us money. >> MODERATOR: Thank you, Avri. Olivier, one minute, please. >> SPEAKER: Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Now he's gone and they excuse me from Akram. Thank you. >> SPEAKER: That was a joke by the way. They never confuse me. That's for sure. I'm not going to -- I'm going to add to what Jonathan and Avri have said, exactly. In the at-large community there's a lot of discussion on this, of course. One of the things is do we need a local registrar to sell domain names locally. You talk about the Internet, so why not buy domain names from the U.S. directedly with your credit card. In the Global South there are less credit cards than in other parts of the world. You need perhaps a local payment methods or other ways to reach the consumer and I'm aMIEZing that word because the consumer will bow -- buy a domain name. >> MODERATOR: The next question is down to this end and then this gentleman. Please state your name. >> AUDIENCE: Patrick Bennings from the European society department. I already spoke beliefly about the applicants' community-based application. We did this because there was a low positive reply rate or acceptance rate, and that puzzled us from a human rights perspective. That's why we wanted to share this with the communities and ensure that there is a proper reflection on the community-based applications. Second, I have actually three points. One is the reflection, and the second is the question of the semantic domain names. I think there is an increasing link there with content, and I wonder to which extent there is a DAIB for us, there may be a human rights angle to that. So I don't know if that has been considered whether we're speaking about semantic domain names basically. The third -- but that's MABL not directly for here, and this is a whole question of reserve domain names with regards to international organizations. That is a concern for quite a number of international organizations not to be confused with other existing domain names. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. Who would like to comment on the content and the semantics and the human rights issue? Is anyone working on WS2 on the issue of human rights around that would like to? No one? Okay. >> AUDIENCE: My name is Andrew as Mack from AM Global. I'm working on the human rights sub group and I can tell you a tiny bit where we are right now. We're trying to understand what norms are out there already. How they might be applicable in an ICANN context and how this informs the ICANN community and what is the best way to use them that doesn't -- that doesn't take us outside of mission and also doesn't constrain us among applicable law. With he came to a good point where there are some findings coming forward, and those should be, I think, pushed forward fairly soon. You're a participant? No. Avri is as well. Those are just now being shares with the community for comment. We've had a group that's a pretty active group regularly 15 or 20 people on the calls and some very good dialogue around that with the desire to make sure the human rights are taken into account. I want to add one thing to the other conversation really quickly since we did the research Jonathan mentioned. That is the other point, which is amongst the people considering applying in the Global South, there was a strong teaming that there still wasn't enough known just generally there was the possibility of getting it for something new. One of the questions we may have as a community is how to get the world out there if this is in fact something to continue with. How do we get the word out there and whose responsibility is it when we talk with different interviewees from the Global South. Many of them said, I get the idea. It's not necessarily the idea of cost, but the cost of not getting the string but also explaining to the market that that's a possibility. That was perceived as very substantial. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. The second question was about reserve name and international organization. I suppose you refer to IGOs. Chris, I wonder, you've been shepherding and leading the discussion. Can you give an update on the IGOs and NGOs and where we are? Thank you. >> SPEAKER: Certainly. Thanks very much. Chris deSpain, ICANN board member. Following the discussions in Hydrabad, we have now started a process of having the parties, the relevant parties being brought together effectively with an independent facilitator and try and bring everybody to the table and see if we can find a way through the -- with the IGO acronyms. It's really only the IGO acronyms plus some Red Cross abbing rowrow that are PROT mattic I think a meeting is arranged very soon. Is he still here? There's an meeting arrived soon. Bruce Bruce Tomkin will be a facilitator and bring everybody together as soon as possibly to see if we can find a way through. Thanks. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. The next question is from -- I'm sorry. Akram, one more thing? >> SPEAKER: Yeah, it's important to note that all the IGO acronyms are currently reserved until there's a policy or an agreement on how to move forward. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: I have three questions from the floor. Did you want to comment on the IGOs, or do you have questions? Okay. A comment? >> AUDIENCE: ( Volume too low ) >> AUDIENCE: Thank you, Jonathan. I'm hour Jorge with the Swiss government and I'm the representative from Switzerland coming to you at ICANN. Just now I was having this deja vu feeling and wonders if we were in hydrabad from one month ago or really in Guadalajara because the level of discussion to a certain extent, I don't know how the other people in the room feel, was very, very ICANNesque. We were very much into the details of our acronyms and procedures, and I wonder whether this is really something that is easy to follow for people who are not into that, into you're meetings and work streams because it's such a challenge to be there. That's only to find out that we always -- we and I mean the people who are participating in ICANN and we should be aware of this informational gap with the people outside. We shouldn't underestimate it, and we should take it into account. If we really want to be inclusive of the wider community, the global community, if we really take in seriouslyseriously the intention of involving everybody out there to serve the global public interests. And this is a general comment, and now would come the commercial. And the comment is that we're trying from the Geneva Internet platform, which is an initiative sponsored by my government to give some information, a one-stop-shop point to know about the different work streams and also about the new gTLD process. We have one website in the digital watch of the Geneva Internet platform where we try to put all the relevant information in an updated fashion so that people are really able to follow this without losing themselves amongst the many thousands of trees in this very large forest of the gTLD expansion. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: What do you mean by gTLD? You just used your own shorthand. Thank you. You made a very good point. >> AUDIENCE: Akram made a joke. >> MODERATOR: I thought there was a question at the end of this, but there wasn't. Okay. Go ahead. There wasn't a question but an observation. >> SPEAKER: It's Olivier speaking. It's an observation with regard toot to the gTLD and acronym soup at ICANN. Go to iKAN glossary or gTLD marketplace health index, and there's a grossaryary glossary FL there as well. I know it's terrible to find the acronyms. >> MODERATOR: So we'll take the question from the remote participant, and then we'll come back to you. We have 12 minutes to go, so we will really need to plow through quickly the questions and give answers to them. Remote participant, please. >> AUDIENCE: In question is regarding gTLD. He says that he wants to recall the frame of the situations regarding gTLDs. He asked what the generated turnover you new gTLD activity and in comparison with the overall turnover of ICANN? >> MODERATOR: Akram. >> SPEAKER: This is Akram. I would not actually try to provide a number on this, but our finances are on our website, and we actually report on all of these things and you can find it in the presentations that are there. We do a quarterly update every quarter as well on the financials so you get the most recent numbers from there. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Okay. Please state your name and affiliation. Thank you. >> AUDIENCE: ( Indiscernible ). I'm very happy to see the effort from the community from the ICANN staff. I have two issues to mention. The first issue is in the first round for the application, not too many applications from the developing countries, I can give you an example. For example, for China. They sell -- less than 5% of the application is from China compared to the 20% population and the part of the market. Is there some kind of thing from the local community? Also I think I need more outreach for that if I can open a second round. I think we need to try to avoid them, the effect in the future. In the first round there's so many very good streams that were applied by some people of our organization from the developing countries. The second that I'm very happy that I can in the IDN a lot, even though it's research and development for the past 17 years. But it's not very popular now. You also have a lot of challenges for the IDN application because there's a lot of issues that have not been solvedsolved yet. There are varies issues and also it will increase the efficiency in the future and how to protect the users. So I know I have some plans for USG, but now a days a lot of issues. There's a workshop for the future and that's based on the e-mail address. You need to work together to see what will happen if we work together to solve the problem and to see what problem they face in the current stage. I'll finish up. >> Okay. >> SPEAKER: To decrypt the message, the universal acceptance steering group that ICANN is also supporting. It's trying to address the problem of this nonuniversal acceptance of IDNs and gTLDs that are longer than three letter characters, letters. >> MODERATOR: I think on the first issue of only 5% of application came from China and, you know, that applies also to the first question that talked about Africa. We need better outreach in the next subsequent round. I think Avri has commented on that. Do you want to say something else? Go ahead. >> SPEAKER: Briefly. Last time there was developed a very fine outreach program, but it never got agreed to. And time went by and time went by, and all of a sudden it was too late for an outreach program. So I think one of the important signals to this time is that we start one early. We actually agree to do one and put the finances behind it. That was one of the issues last time, was getting one agreed to and then the one that was agreed to was considered to be too big by people and it wasn't done. I had read that outreach plan. That would have been great if it happened a year before we actually opened up applications. >> MODERATOR: Okay. I'm going to move to the next question from Benedict, and then one more question and we will close the session after that. Okay. o, and then one more question and we will close the session after that. Okay. >> AUDIENCE: Thank you. I think I can, yeah. I want to touch on a point raised by Mr. Akram that refers to the second-level domain. I want to be very careful in my comments because I did not benefit from being there and having first-hand connect by the decision made by the board. My understanding and also in consultation with colleagues that were there is the decision was taken at a very late hour. In the meeting I think the board decision was announced on November 8, one day before the end of the meeting. There was not enough time for the GAC to divest and to elaborate on this. What is in the GAC communique's request for clarification in the decision? I think maybe that was the possible outcome for the meeting, but I do not have a temperature of how much GAC members were dissatisfied with the decision. My council is certainly one of them that is not satisfied. I don't know if it was some or many or most members. Certainly we'd like to have some more clarity, and I thank you for explaining the history behind it. I think it's important for us, but in principle we think the decision is in very flagrant contradiction with the approach that has been followed so far in regard to counterlevel codes. I think the general approach is that they should be protected in some way. I think the decision deviates from this. We have a very market-oriented approach. We don't see clearly how the public interest was addressed by doing this. So we'd like to have some more information. We also think it is in contradiction with the responses given by many governments including my own in that regard. So we think is a principle, again, and I want to be very careful but we think it is a misguided decision made, and we are looking for ways in which we can address this and make sure that we have a common understanding. We think this was, again, something that was done in the very last hour, AUZ you have said, and may be based on a very broad understanding and we'd like to have more clarity on this. But in principle we are dissatisfied and we look to forward to challenge the decision. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Akram, do you want to respond, or do you just leave the comment sitting? >> SPEAKER: Thank you, your comments. We appreciate your concerns. I would be more than happy to go over and explain the steps taken separately so that you have a better understanding of what we're doing, but I think as I mentioned, the contractual obligations that are in the contract, we have to abide by them and we're following the step-by-step process we did together. I'll spend time with you after this to go over this. >> AUDIENCE: I think sometimes we are concerned about taking into the context of some things that may be seen as natural consequences of some bureaucratic way of dealing with things, and because we have the bylaws that say we have to do that. Sometimes we have to take a political approach, and I think here is clearly an issue that can lead to confrontations with regard to different governments and interests. I would call for the conversation on this issue to be taken very carefully. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. For the last question, yes. The lady -- yeah. The last question. Thank you. >> AUDIENCE: Thank you. I'm new here, so my question I'm not sure if it's going to be the place to ask it. I work in an association where we're an NGO, and we represent an international association of Internet hot lines where the public can report child sexual abuse material found on the Internet. I was wondering like many of the places on the Internet when people actually upload and provide and have this type of material which is illegal and made available, these are registers ISUs in many cases. So I was wondering, WLAR the registers doing actually to ensure that these domain names are not abused? What are the policies in place? If you move on and you have more registers and in more places around the world, I assume that's going to be difficult maybe to keep a level of accreditation so that actually the new registers can actually follow a poll. So I'm sorry if it's not the place or the moment to ask the question, but I would appreciate if maybe you could point me towards someone with who I could get more information about it. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. Good question. Akram, quick comment. >> SPEAKER: Quickly, I think what you're talking about and I can speak would be the the restaurant that -- registrant with the domain, and they have a contract with the registry and the registrar. The registrant has a contract with the registrar where the registrar can make decisions on how they want to deal with content and if they deal with it. That's not an ICANN issue and not something we have in our contract. He hope that explains it. >> MODERATOR: Okay. It is not very much, I agree. Olivier want to say something? >> SPEAKER: The contract that ICANN has, there is a section on public interest commitments. So this is interpreted in different ways can and it more or less depending on what the contract is. Some registrars and REJ STREEs take a strong stance and some a softer stance. There are several processes regarding abuse of domain names. Of course, the other parallel tract of law enforcement that works directly with the industry. There is work going on in that and the view of people in our community is there should be improvements to this as well. Hopefully by the next round this should be easier to deal with. >> MODERATOR: We have reached the end of the session and Nigel WUK talk about the key points and we'll close it. >> SPEAKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I don't think we need a long summary. We'll publish something on the IGF site. All workshops have summaries published, and we'll also publish some links on there, because I think this is a very comprehensive examination. We talked about the reviews that TUPS and consumer truth review that Jonathan spoke and we heard from Avri on the development process. That's important for the room. These processes are open and they're not just for registrants or registrar but for Civil Society and users and governments. So please get involved in processes and give your views so if there's a subsequent round your views are taken into account. We have good discussions on geographic representation and cost and community names were raised, and these are all issues being looked at in this very comprehensive process that ICANN is undertaking. Please get involved. It doesn't cost anything. It only costs your time. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. We've had discussion on the two-letter country code and the last discussion on registrants as well. Thank you everyone, and I'll draw the meeting to a close. Many thanks. Thank you. ( Session ended at 11:49 a.m. ) Reality of the answerability of multistake hole er -- stakeholder model Room 7 . >> MODERATOR: Okay, hello, everyone. We're going to start. Sorry for the delay. The technicians were working on the remote participation settings. So please take your seat, and if you can come more close. So thanks to everyone for attending this session. My name is Rafik Dammak and for today we have the front table to talk about the answerability within the multi- stakeholder model, and we have several speakers and we'll try to cover several areas. For that to kind of facilitate this discussion, we have four questions. So I will read them, and this is -- this gives guidance on what kind of topics we will cover. The first question is how an international organization with their constitution structure in the process to respond to expectations like transparetransparency, openness, legitimacy, and accountability. Sorry there are so many terms there. The second question is, how stakeholders, in particular Civil Society strategize their participation? What do they each as mechanisms and approaches to justify their actions and maintain transparent see? The third one what is the influence of processes within the stakeholders in terms of issues framing and yielding outcome. The last questions, can we envision a set of principles, best practices, mechanism or have a process template shared between all Internet governance organizations and processes? So this is really just to kind of make it more easier for the audience and also for the speakers to discuss the issue, and we will start first with Professor Janet Hoffman, and I think maybe she can give us some from an academic standpoint what she thinks about this question and if she can pick up on them. >> SPEAKER: Thank you, Rafik. I'm just addressing the first question. That's what we agreed upon, right? We go question by question. What I would say about the first question, I think that Rafik formulating the question by how contingency bid? I think they all have a vital interest in shaping the constituencies that hold them to account. We can see in in the kind of wording we find. For example, when ICANN speaks the ICANN community or the IGF about the multi-stakeholder community, these terms are not value-free. They sort of imply definitions of who is part of the community and who is not part of the community. When we speak of the mighty stakeholder process, who is not part of the community, those people who don't believe in that kind of process. So there is already -- there are values in this terminology, and one of the things that seems to be excluded from the term "community" is the power relations between those holding an organization or its board to account and those who make the decisions. Community sounds like eye-level relationships, but typically it's not. So what I would say from a Civil Society point of view is we should be aware of the kind of terms we use, the wording, and what implications they have. We should have a critical perspective on that kind of language, particularly with a view, too, that these terms implicitly define a constituency. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thanks. That was concise and straight to the point. From there we go with Matthew, and I think he probably will kind of follow-up with this. If you want to elaborate one of those questions. >> SPEAKER: Thanks, Rafik. I'll just stick with the first question, if that's the order we're going in, right? I think that probably makes more sense. It's a really interesting question, answerability. I think it's one of the biggest challenging we struggle with from a governance perspective. None of the structures in the Internet eco-system are traditional structures we're used to dealing with over hundreds of years such as the evolution of businesses and international organizations and similar. And that's simply because at the end of the day we have a very distinct definition change between or DWIFRNT YAGS between for example where we have businesses with shareholders and those entities in the eco-systems that are stakeholders, and I think that's a significant challenge whether it comes to understanding what the accountability and answerability relationships are between those stakeholders and the organizations they're associated with. There's an important difference between the two. When it comes to international organize organizations, there's no doubt the organizations themselves are answerable to the members and the members of government and those governments are answerable to the citizens. And that's what makes the interaction between those international organizations and the Internet eco-system organizations so challenging, is because of that difference of association and answerability, and finding a way to mesh those, is one of those things we struggled with certainly since these issues and the Internet eco-system came to the fore in 2002 and 2003. I still don't think there's a -- we haven't found yet a comfortable way assessing how we're answerable to the various stakeholders and who they are. Within ICANN, it's difficult TOON which way our responsibility goes, because as a stakeholder we have an interest in the organization for it to perform much like a shareholder has an interest in the business for the company to perform financially. At the same time, we have another responsibility and an answerability for our actions vis-a-vis ICANN. We have another answerable issue, which is the other direction which typical shareholders don't have to the broader communities. In that dimension, we're clear what our answerability is to the organization to the itself, but the answerability to the stakeholders that we represent, I think we're still struggling with it. That's one of those things that's very different and makes our eco- system different to traditional eco-systems to international business. Thanks. >> MODERATOR: Thanks, Matt. We heard from the academia and Civil Society standpoint. For now we will move to Jay, who can probably speak for private sector and maybe technical community standpoint. >> SPEAKER: Sure. Thanks, Rafik. So I guess we're going question by question here, which is a little different than my understanding, so bear with me. You know, to kind of piggyback on what Matt was saying, I actually had a very similar view of him in terms of answerability as both an internal and external perspective when we talk about ICANN. Internally we immediate to make sure that ICANN and its members and its stakeholders are actually following through on the bylaw reforms and things like that. Then in a more broad sense, we need to have a -- make sure that ICANN and the multistakeholder model and Internet Governance meets the need of the broader community and people outside of the eco-system. With that, from kind of a private sector perspective, one of the things that I think about in terms of a multi-stakeholder model is this concept of a B corporation. I don't know if many of you are familiar with this concept, but it says here that B corporations are used as a business force for good. They're certified by a nonprofit lab that meets vigorous STARJDs of social and environmental performance, accountability and transparency and have a multi-stakeholder model component to somehow they come up with their working groups and bylaws. It's a very kind of open platform from that perspective. The interesting thing about this, to me, is 1900 companies have signed on to become a B corporation. I think that's probably far exceeds the number of companies that are involved in ICANN or Internet Governance. So there is definitely other places that we could draw from when we looked on how to answer this question. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. Just to make clear, as for speakers, they can answer whatever question they want. Maybe continuing in the space for those from the technical community I'm going to Andress to speak on this point and also with your experience with IR. So if you can respond to one of the questions. Yes. >> SPEAKER: Thank you very much, Rafik. I'm not maybe representing the standpoint this, but I can speak on my behalf being part of the technical community in several different places. The last item, I won't say how many years, because it doesn't benefit me. Anyway, trying to pick up a little bit about the first question on international organizations, I would say even if they're not international organizations because some are territorial organizations, so this accountability, I believe, is something that falls into the national communities and I hope it remains that way. I have to say that the technical community, the regional and the global technical community, they have some challenges on this and expectations of policies and builtability. I would believe some may not agreement, but for me these organizations, especially ICANN are on the right path. They have a lot to do yet, so I won't have a lot of discussion on that. We'll leave it in this principle, and we'll go to the third question, and that is I believe I can contribute to that much more. I believe on the processes and the setting, the issues framing this organization have been collectively discussing this for more than ten years. This forum taking all the processes are useful for these issues on framing. Global forums, intersession instructions, and regional and other processes that are regulating this global sphere. I believe this is working quite well. The real challenge for me is to lift this from this stage of evolution to the outcome or the process to decision-making. My sense until now is this amount of collective effort, this amount of evolution that we -- I tend to think we made and maybe I contributed ALTH a little bit to that have not yet impacted on the regulatory environments and on the decision-making and policies. Maybe they only have the example I have -- some of you may know it also. I believe the transition could be an example of that. Maybe only an exception, and the rest of the environments are not influencing us. I believe it will be desirable to have this inference from this collective evolution. I believe that the global communities are on the regional also fail to show, even to the democratic countries, to the democratic governments that the stakeholder model is not about replacing the role of their governments but to inform them on the decision-making. I believe the rest of the challenges are much more in that part. These communities should now try to think collectively how to influence those decision-making processes, and we are not doing that very well. That's my initial take. Thank you very much. >> MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you. It seems the focus on the beginning is about the ICANN, but we may need really to see what happens in other spaces, and maybe we start first to talk about the trait. We can kind of move to a program, so you can give some insight about your experience in that environment and maybe compares that to other spaces and forums. >> SPEAKER: Thank you, Rafik. So I'm going to talk about the TPP, because I think there's a story there to tell people, to tell about people's power. So the TPP is dead in the U.S. I think there are discusses going on in other countries, especially here in Mexico, whether they should try to do it. Please don't do it. In the U.S. the TPP is dead, there's a misconception out there, because people think that Trump killed the TPP. That's a lie. This is Trump but that's a lie and rubbish and bullshit, because it's Trump. Who killed the TPP? It's the power of people who killed the TPP. I started to work on the TPP five years ago when I first joined it. At that time I realized there's a big trade coalition. It's cross-section allege and DROS borders and it's movements of movement. This movement managed to kill the TPP in the U.S. and other countries. We strategize the issues and picked our fights. That was a huge coalition of different Civil Society organizations representing different interests. We picked our fights. We picked the technical issues. We worked with the governments and worked with negotiators and with Civil Society. We approached the journalists and tell the journalists that, look, the TPP is not a good deal for this country because there are all these issues in the TPP. This year in the U.S. when you were having the elections, TPP became an election issue. Both Trump and Hillary were against the TPP, and I remember Hillary in 2011 was saying the TPP was the gold standard, but she had to say it because people in the U.S. were concerned about the TPP. So the Civil Society has a power. People have power. We should be reminded of this power, because we are getting -- we are entering into really, really rough times. I have to say that like, you know, now maybe we're happy. We killed the TPP, but probably in a couple of years we'll look back and be like those provisions were so great because the threats that we are facing now are worse than the TPP. So it's time to reunite and come with big coalitions and pick our fights and fight against the corporations, business interests, not necessarily all business interests, but big multi-national corporation interests and is this agenda out there. The agenda out there is not the right agenda. It's the big business' agenda. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. We will continue in discussion here about multi- lateral space, and moving to another example. Maybe you can give an example of something that is relevant. >> SPEAKER: Thanks. I'd be happy to do that. For those who don't know the world intellectual property organization is a multi-lateral organization. It's a specialized United Nations agency that addresses as in the name intellectual property. What I wanted to highlight is particularly with the example of the recently adopted mare KESH treaty to benefit persons blind, visually impaired and print disabled, there was tremendous stakeholder involvement, and really this treaty started with stakeholder. With the world blind union and Civil Society groups supporting the idea about having a treaty about limitations and exceptions to copyright to harmonize them to provide access to published works for persons in this category who wouldn't otherwise receive access without having to get permission from rights holders, and the copyright system does include the concept much these exceptions, but this is the first treaty we've had that has been focused on those exceptions and also that seeks to harmonize them across borders and add across-border transfer elements. All of that was unique, and really the motivation for this what we call or NGOs, which is really any stakeholders that are not governments or IGOs. There was active participation throughout all steps of the process including at the diplomatic conference, and this has been pointed out by some Civil Society commentators as a real gold standard in multi-lateral organizations to bring elements of multi-stakeholder principles into the process. We also have a system with our traditional knowledge discussion that's going on about potentially adopting treaties in this area where there are panels, for example, of indigenous people who are funded to come to the meeting, where we have specific consultations with indigenous persons as part of the meetings and where there's really a very active effort to bring those stakeholders into the process. I would say that it is important that there be some members, when you are made up of member states, there are supportive of these initiatives. For example, for the mara KESH treaty to get on the agenda on the standing committee on copyright, member states had to be the proponents. So the treaty text was initially prepared makely by stakeholders with some participation by some government representatives, but some government representatives had to come forward and basically be willing to put that proposal forward. So there does have to be some support, but generally speaking, we have found that there is strong support from at least some elements of the government representatives to include stakeholders in the process. On the Marrakesh treaty they formed a multi-stakeholder platform and a group to implement the treaty. This is called the accessible books consortium. It has membership from across all the different stakeholders including representatives of organizations that help or are made up of persons that are blind, visually impaired and print disabled. Libraries that provide services to these entities, publishers, authors, and basicallile all the different groups that are involved in trying to implement the treaty. WIPO does provide a secretariat roll, but the work of this consortium is driven by the stakeholders. That's an area where we bring in a multi-stakeholder entity built within the organization in order to carry forward some of the work that was basically started by groups of stakeholders. >> MODERATOR: Thanks, Michelle. You want to intervene here? e. You want to intervene here? >> SPEAKER: Thank you for mentions that treaty, because it's a success story for us. We've been fighting all those years in the different areas in in the FTAs because there's a progressive agenda from the corporations and developed countries against developing countries. So the mara KESH treaty was the start of an era, because for the first time we have a proactive, progressive agenda and we pushed for that. The union of the blind and some of the other Civil Society members they pushed hard for the treaty. It's a success story, and it's out there. There are lots of lessoning to be drawn from the mare KESH treaty. Thank you very much. >> MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you. Moving now to another space, which is the cyber security, and I think Tatiana wants to elaborate on some points here. >> SPEAKER: Thank you, Rafik. I was struggling when I saw four of your questions, and I was even a bit struggling when I saw the title of the session, because it was speaking about cyber security, and I'm working in cyber security field. The reality and answerability get a completely different dimension. Sometimes I think we have to see the reality first. First of all, if we're talking about cyber security spaces, there are so many of them. Many of them still closed, even if there is a conventional wisdom already for a decade at least that cyber security should be multi- stakeholder. If we're talking about multi-stakeholder approaches, how do we strategize? How do we build these models? I would say that it is mostly ad hoc, and in many cases it's just top-down. When some governments want to open for you on the national level? When some international forum getting open like for example a global concern in cyberspace in the process. It's just a way in many cases. I think that we have to accept the reality that all these closed and not inclusive forum Wilco exist with some more flexible multi-stakeholder model. Where it's coming from, I believe, that for some cases it's just natural. With cyber security, there's different dimensions and different domains. So are closed are like national security. Some are open but not for Civil Society, but more academia like critical information. They include businesses by default, but Civil Society voices are not heard still yet. What is interesting, what is getting multi-stakeholder is actually the strategy of how to open this forum. I do see how law enforcement, governments, academia will come in together, and we are still talking about how to work together. How to make this forum open, but I believe that and I say it again, we have to accept the reality. Some of the processes whim be multilateral. There are some sensitive issues, and there are some absolutely natural limitations from multistakeholder models in cyber security. The last issue I want to cover is these dichotomy, legitimacy and transparent. In cyber security it goes vice versa. It doesn't always mean transparency. They can be mutually exclusive. Legitimate models doesn't always mean inclusion. Legitimate models doesn't always mean openness, especially if it's about government, if it's about some of the political regimes. In the cyber security, you don't always need to be open. This is a harsh reality we're facing now. We look at making all the spaces more open, but I believe the first priority would be for multistakeholder corporations and just to focus on those venues which we can get open and where we can cooperate and just accept that some of them will not be up. The last thing, even if they get open, it's interesting because I took place in some of them which were closed and which are exclusive. Even if they open it for you because you're academia and you write reports for them or you're a part of their decision- making before it comes to the real decision, then you get to sit away in the corner, and even bringing you up front at the table might get a lot of political controversy if you're not anyone from the government. Thanks. >> MODERATOR: Thanks, Tatiana. I guess we can take another round of intervention from the speakers. Janet, do you want to? Yes. >> SPEAKER: Yes, the cyber security should question thescopy of the multi- stakeholder model. I have the suspicion that it's celebrated in an area where it doesn't count either because there are no decisions being made or the decisions were not really relevant. That is one point. I also want to say and in response to Matt, who talked about representativeness of Civil Society. I think we have a real misunderstanding here. The whole idea and notion of of representativeness goes back to to people that make binding decisions on our behalf. Civil Society doesn't make binding decisions on anybody's behalf, and to sort of imply that concept, that whole concept of accountability to Civil Society sort of seems to take the carpet away from under our feet, because it makes a weak stakeholder even weaker. How often have I heard that who are you responsible to? I'm an individual not speaking on anybody's behalf and I don't blame to be a representative. I think Civil Society is such a diverse community. It cannot even agree on sort of single positions in many cases. How can these groups then be responsible or sort of representative of anybody? I think it's the wrong concept. >> MODERATOR: Okay. Thanks. Okay. We will go with Steven here. Matt, please. >> SPEAKER: I clearly wasn't communicating correctly. I don't think I ever implied that, and I certainly don't believe that's the case. If we are talking about stakeholders, stakeholders do in the sense they're representative have an answerability to some of other stakeholders that they represent. We have to be careful here about whether we talk about Civil Society as a community or as some stakeholder identity acting within a construct. That's a slight difference thing. About the multi- stakeholder model, it's a great model. It does work. Some of us have sat through two years of the CCWG, and it works. We have fundamentally changed the government structure that's very unique. It's a unique organization at the core of the Internet eco-system, and we facilitated a government to step back from the role in the DNS. That's a pretty substantial and real impact multi-stakeholder engagement. Where does it happen elsewhere? This is the interesting thing. Where has it happened elsewhere to the same degree, and why was it successful in this particular construct of ICANN, and how can we take that -- the learnings from that construct and apply them elsewhere? What we haven't got to date is a very other example we can point to that have that impact, and I think we really need to learn from the ICANN experience and say, what did it take? What were the parameters? What were the requirements? How effect was the chartering up front and things like that. Those are key factors when it comes to seeing a success of the multistakeholder model. We need to stop kidding ourselves. The multi-stakeholder model is new in Internet time it's not new, but compared to other constructs it's new. We struggle with this as we go forward, and I think that we need to -- the other thing I would say, we overemphasis ice -- overCOMBSZize the model. It's going to have failings and limitations. Don't think TF like a panacea to governance. Thanks. >> MODERATOR: Thanks, Matt. We will go with Steve. >> SPEAKER: Steve with net choice. To the extent they deemed effective or works is often a function of what organization it's in. ICANN, for example, was born with an operational role publishing this and distributing numbers. That operational role gave it, well, a little bit of credibility and legitimacy and made it important that Civil Society, business and technical community would show up, because they knew that it mattered. That their voices would matter. IETF is another multi-stakeholder group that's effective. I don't know whether Civil Society perceives its presence there is effectively represented, but W3C and groups that actually publish things that matter, like a root table, right? Groups that publish standards then implemented, those are multi-stakeholder candidates that have an opportunity to be far more effective than a group that doesn't make decisions. However, IGF as a multi-stakeholder gathering is seen as highly effective at generating conversations and sharing ideas and best practices and concerns addressed. If that's its full output, I can measure that as effective. There are some that wish it made decisions as well and they will deem it ineffective. Jeanette, if I could turn to your yes about downward accountability. There are instances where Civil Society is given in the charter of an organization, it's given an explicit role with vote. ICANN is a great example of this. This is Civil Society representing itself and having the ability to make decisions that absolutely matter in what policies are approved and put forth and policies that end up being implemented in the demand name system. In that instance, the charter describes who the Civil Society bodies are that have that role, and I think Matthew is right. It behooves us to ask whether those Civil Society groups as well as business groups and other chartered, are they actually representing the interests or entities that they were chartered to represent? It's a fair question and one of the work stream 2 items that Matthew shears and FARZaneh is working on. If they want to join, can they figure out how to get in? Is there an eligibility criteria and decisions made challengeable by a neutral third-party? Are there fair and open elections for officers, and how are decisions reached when NCSG or DC decides its time to cast a vote on a policy? Those are legitimate questions to ask whether we're answerable to the communities we were designed to serve. It won't apply to every Civil Society organization, but it's an askable question for Civil Society organizations that participate in multimulti-stakeholder groups where they have a decisional role. >> MODERATOR: Thanks, Steve. >> SPEAKER: I actually agree with you regarding the relevancee of the multi-stakeholder model. I'm actually torn about. I think the fact that it doesn't work in cyber security in many spaces is because it has a long history of other dieamicsdynamics. It wasn't born multi-stakeholder. It has a history of power and government responsibility for protecting its citizens. It's a mix of different responsibilities, and it's not sometimes about answerability but about power. Also I believe in cyber security that different stakeholders and different processes doesn't work, because if you think cyber security consists of so many fat sets like policy-making and like processes of actual provision of technical cyber security and also enforcement. If I have a look at the relevancy of the multi-stakeholder model on this different level, I would say the most relevant is policy- making. I would say it can be multistakeholder to a certain extent because it would be anyways the responsibility of the legislature and not of different stakeholders. When we come to the actual operational level, for example, critical information infrastructure protection, it can be multistakeholder but mostly governmental and business. When we come to enforcement, I don't want enforcement to be multi-stakeholder. And I believe that there is a big confusion when we say multi-stakeholder cyber security. Let's be clear what we're talking about. >> MODERATOR: Okay. Thanks, Tatiana. Yes, please. >> SPEAKER: Thank you very much. I'm from the national research university school of economics from Moscow, Russia. I belong to academia. This kind of stakeholder group, and I think that just a couple of words about this. The Internet is one of the most complex systems we need to govern so that I believe -- I believe that multi-stakeholderism is the boast model for governance, because no stakeholder group for itself, even the governmental or intergovernmental could be responsible for the Internet Governance. I think the picture that's Indian-like, but it's for the blind man and the elephant. So each blind man could get an elephant with the same thing. Only the different groups could understand what it is and how to deal with this so that I'm in strong support of any kind of multi- stakeholderism and to engage all stakeholder groups to participate. I wanted to ask the question. What's the role of academia, and could the academia be recognized as a separate stakeholder group? Thank you very much. >> MODERATOR: Okay. Thanks. I see a cue so I ensure that I'm taking it up. I think you want to speak. >> SPEAKER: Thank you. This issue about representation, which jeanette brought up and it's an important question. I wanted to bring a nuance into it, because what often happens is people either say your representative, you've got to be accountable in all the ways like a parliamentary and et cetera. Civil Society is not represented in that way, therefore, we don't have accountability. That's one extreme. On the other extreme you say you represent people there, and you could be accountable to the same extent as parliamentians and the like. Then it gets put into those two extremes. I'm not sure that's really the best way to think about it. Civil Society groups, I think, represent in a variety of different ways. Sometimes as Steve says there's actual representation in the sense of having a formal mandate to take decisions, and at that point you are given a mandate by a certain constituency and are answerable to that and maybe wider for the decisions you take. There's lot of other times they speak as and not for. Many times Civil Society that we get into this kind of forum, and they will say, as a Russian or as a woman or as a disabled person therefore I have this insight. That's representing also speaking as rather than speaking for. Whether you do that you make claims and you say I have a special position with special insight, and therefore I have a right to make a certain impact on the discussion. Maybe you don't have the same kind of accountability with the extent of having a formal position, but you're making claim that is could have consequences. You might also speak about -- come in and speak about people. How many in groups come in and speak about people not in the room and don't have a chance to represent themselves directly in the room? People are speaking about them. That can also have huge consequences. And then you might also speak with. I spoke with the business community, therefore. I spoke with the peasants, therefore. That's also making claims of representation. I'm going around the houses around bit, but I think one can unpack different types of representation. When people get in the room as Civil Society people. They have better access and resources and possibilities to affect the process, and they make various representative claims when they do that. I think when they make those representative claims with that does come accountability, especially to the case in formal mandate but to the extent in other cases, too. >> MODERATOR: Thanks. We'll go with Wolfgang, yeah. >> SPEAKER: Thank you very much. As was said, we're in the early days of a political invention was born one or one and a half decades ago. I would agree more with Matt and Steve and disagree with Jeanette if it comes to all the questions summarized. I want to give you a practical example. If jeanette speaks as an individual I don't represent anybody and don't want to be accountable to anybody. If Jeanette was a German lady who was the former chair of the advisory committee and she's a member of the German trade union with 150,000 members, if she speaks on behalf of the trade deal as a Civil Society organization, then she is certainly accountable to the 150,000 members of the trade union and to -- if he speaks she has a certain tendency to bring her perspective. Certainly she can speak as an individual as well. This is the difference. I think because this is such a big picture with so many different animals I have compared this very often with the rain forest. We have no overview how many plants and animals are there, so this is what we have to learn with this and how to structure this. So far the transition process is an incredible source of knowledge now and experience. How can you manage in a certain way with this rain forest-like processes. So far we have three big results, which are already on the table from the multi-stakeholder process. The definition of Internet Governance was produced in the multi-stakeholder process in a multi-stakeholder body where the governments had no priority for the nongovernmental members. It was at the end of the day rubber-stamped by the government, but the Internet governance definition is the result of a multi-stakeholder process. You have the eight principles from Sao Paulo from 2014 is the result of a multi-stakeholder process, and this is an achievement. Now we have a new mechanism and accountability system from the transition, but it means we have a definition. We have a framework of principles. We have a mechanism accountable mechanism and other checks and balances in the system. This is for the 21st century already allot, but more has to be done. If we have this perspective and do not expect the solution of the problem tomorrow or until the year 2020, so if you have this more, let's say, Chinese way of looking into the end of the century, then probably we can be more effective and say, okay, this has to be done step-by-step to move forward slowly. If I have to work, let me also respond to the SEK issue with the usability for the multi-stakeholder model for security, trade and things like that. I go back to the definition because it was the mandate to define what Internet Governance is, because nobody had a definition. We had a discussion between a narrow definition and pro definition. At the end of the day, the outcome from the WIKI wars, Internet Governance is much more than names and numbers and more than ICANN. The final part of the definition, this is relevant for the evolution and the use of the Internet. You always differentiate between the governance of the Internet and the governance onto Internet. All we have discussed in the transition is the evolution of the Internet, the governance of the Internet. Governance on the Internet is the challenge ahead of us. In particular governments and I think Tatiana made a good point here, recognize that their traditional domains like security and economy is now infiltrated by the Internet. But they do not link it to Internet Governance. Security people speak about cyber. Cyber war, cyber weapons and all this. It has nothing to do with Internet Governance. This is just cyber. Already the language makes the difference clear. This is cyber. Business people speak about the digital economy. Though Germany has the chairmanship of the go-20 and have adopted a huge document on the digital economy, and there is one paragraph that says G-20 countries support Internet Governance and mighty stakeholder model for Internet Governance, but in their understanding, here's to digital economy, and then we have one small point of the governance that has nothing to do with the digital economy. This is wrong. The core of cyber and digital economy is more or less based on Internet Governance, and this is the misunderstanding among a lot of governments that say, yeah, yeah, the multi-stakeholder model is good for Internet Governance for names and numbers. That means they still live in the narrow definition and have not accepted the pro definition that all of this is infiltrated. Again, we have 84 years to go in the 21st Septemberary. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thanks, Wolfgang. >> SPEAKER: I want to comment. Thank you very much your comments. I would to talk about multi-stakeholderism in the trade. I heard a couple of times the United States trade representative negotiator is talking about the stakeholderism, and I warned them don't shoot yourself in the foot. Multi- stakeholderism doesn't work in the trades. TF ends the minute you realize that the other stakeholder has millions of dollars to invest in the well- being. Look at the TPP and other trade inee meants. The U.S. is part of it and the text is tabled by the trade representative, and the USTRL has like 600 corporate advisers, so they shape the text. Here we talk about ICANN, we talk about the multi-stakeholderism and we talk about domain names, but there are provisions in the TPP about the domain names. I want to ask the ICANN people here, have they consulted with you or have they consulted the Civil Society or business society WOV done this work. I wonder whether they have approached that we're trying to make rules for the Internet and domain names and this is the position we take. What do you think about that? No? So you discuss -- >> SPEAKER: If you'd like an answer from the standpoint of the business community, you don't wait until negotiations are underway to make your points known. The business community showed up in force with the commerce department in charge of the negotiating and let its opinion be known with respect to what kind of domain takedown language would be included. Guess what? The business community wasn't of one mind. There are Civil Society groups that don't always agree. These views were taken on board and something of a compromise emerged in the final language. There wasn't a formal consultation after the language because the time to get your licks in is before it's written. >> SPEAKER: How about the Civil Society? >> MODERATOR: I think that people will intervene, but we can go back to the question. Michelle. >> SPEAKER: To be honest, I think we're a bit past the point I was going to make. I was thinking about this representation for Dave, and there's different aspects pointed out by people. One example where we had to make a change and when I say wee,- we, not the organization but the group in in group working on putting in the mare KESH treaty. It became clear there wasn't enough representation of the beneficiaries, so organizations that represent blind persons, those persons themselves or organizations that work closely with them and advocate their interests. The group itself had to think about basically if one came down to a vote, normally the group doesn't vote, but if it does what would the representative representation be of different interests there, and then decided as a group that really more spaces had to be allocated to the primary beneficiaries of the treaty. So that was something that was decided by a multi-stakeholder group, but there it's clear when entities join this organization they're coming in some kind of representative capacity. It doesn't mean that individuals can't also express their views based on their experience, but there is a clear representational mandate. That may be different from Civil Society organizations that come to our standing committee meetings on copyright and express views in a context where they're not designated as representatives of a certain community and then everyone would expect that there would be much more freedom to express views either as individuals or on behalf of that group without having to think about being accountable to a larger group or some kind of other entity behind the scenes. You can have both concepts depending on the context. Thanks. >> SPEAKER: I'm the Internet Governance project at Georgia Tech and I want to address the cyber security relationship here. If you listened to BHA Tatiana said you got a correct position between multi-stakeholderism and cyber security. There's a lot of rhetorical overtones accepted by the group that when you deal with security, suddenly you're in the land of states, right? We at the Internet Governance project are going about to challenge that directly head-on specifically. I think there's a lot of misunderstanding by multi-stakeholders and we put too much emphasis on the MULT FIE and forget why it's relevant to include additional stakeholders other than states. The reasonable you have to do that in the international context is because you have policy decisions. It's in policy formations it's most relevant. You have to do that in the transnational context because you have a transnational system that requires transnationally effective policy decisions made, and states are fragmented into territorial jurisdictions which makes them fundamental incapable of making those decisions in a way that advances the public interest. States represent interests and their own as a military and political entity and the security of a nation state is not the same as the security of the Internet and the users of the Internet as a whole. In the interest of the users of an Internet as a whole are not con joined with the sum of the interest of the individual national state policies, so the reason you need to go multistaker holder more in cyber security because you need the Internet as a whole represented. That can't happen through multilateral state-based systems. You have to include the technical community and academics and Civil Society. >> MODERATOR: You want to make interventions? >> SPEAKER: I can address it very briefly. I think that the based what I told, I think these forums will be open sooner or later. Right now the only way to make them channeled in multi-stakeholder model is to create it on the national level. So governments who come into these close group of experts like all this, they will at least bring the opinions of their Civil Society and their nation states the technical community. This is the only way I see it right now, but this is just the first step, and I completely agree with you that they are going to get open. We also have to understand that policymaker is demonstrative in the sense, and I sense that there's a fear that opening the multi-stakeholder will make negotiations take ages in any case on that level. Even longer, and even more complex, even more complicated, and I think this is one of the reasons why they tend to be more exclusive. >> SPEAKER: It's really hard to react to everyone here, but I will -- I chose him and he left. Of course, I agree with Matt and Steve said about the model. I'm trying took back to the first question on what are the principles that we can agree on. It was having trouble myself to answer the question, and I found out that I don't see you answering that or having a concrete approach on what is the thing with agree on. Maybe he said in a very structured way that we have a definition and we have then processes, a set of principles and then now we have one operative example with the transition. I'm finding hard trouble on understanding if this is something on the principles that everyone shares as principles or values. I even don't know and to which extent this is something that's being accepted in Latin America or something that has been widespread in my region. One example could be interesting, the trade example is something that comes back to the question in Bucharest on trade. The TPP in our region, I work closely with our region and four of them are part of the TPP. I don't know if now they are, but they used to be. There were a lot of discussions, but they're -- not even do they have a strong relationship with government and the community. They couldn't do a lot of -- that was part of what I was referring to at the beginning. They weren't as influential as I expected they should be. Even in the weak side of it, but then I realized that even Steve explained that, not even the private sector of the strong side of the treaty are as influential as they'd like to be as organizers. I really believe in trade the model is not as influential as I believe it should be. So that level LUGS is and that part is I think some of the challenges that this model has to be involved and fob able to infringe those processes. I hope in the next treaty -- in the next wave it's much better than on TPP. At least in my region the community wasn't comfortable at all with that outcome. So it's good that it's here. >> SPEAKER: I've been waiting in the queue for a while, so I might backtrack a little bit. I want to go back to Jeanette and the notion that Civil Society, you're not really accountable to anybody because you're not an elected representative offer appointed. I think in the multi- stakeholder model having representative power is fundamentally different than that power in government. You are obviously elected or appointed and represent a certain group of people. You know, specifically at ICANN and other Internet Governance forums, you're coming willingly. I participate here willingly. At the same time, you know, I represent the IT coalition. So I'm answerable to them. I'm on the BC and I'm answerable to the BC. If I start spouting off things that are totally inconsistent with the mission, they're having a touch conversation with me. Then I also represent the interests of the broader business community and the way it interacts with the Internet domain name space. So it's very naive for me that you say that, you know, Civil Society doesn't really have a representative role in the multi-stakeholder model, because you do. There's a lot of different, I guess, constituency groups that the Civil Society can participate in. When you do that, you adopt those kind of responsibilities of those groups. And now moving on, Michelle, thank you for your example using the accessible books consortium as another case. e, thank you for your example using the accessible books consortium as another case. Maybe it's multi-stakeholder model, but it's largely driven through a top-down process. I would imagine when WIPO said they would put it together, they kind of went out and cherry-picked people they thought would put together a reasonably functional panel and groups of people. You know, again, ICANN and Internet Governance in general is very different than that. You know, Steve has mentioned certainly in the business community there's a huge variety of viewpoints around policy matters that we put our views out on. You know, as ICANN gets more and more diverse, which I hope it will because by the way in that only 3% were from Africa and only 3% from Latin America. That needs to get worked on. As we get more and more diverse, people are going to have to be more and more actionable to the organizations they represent or the constituency groups they participate in. >> MODERATOR: Thanks. In terms of transparency we take everyone at the queue. I am assuring you will speak at some level. By chance, Jeanette, maybe you can respond to him. Go ahead. >> SPEAKER: Two points or three. First of all, when I speak as a woman, I do not represent women. That would be preposterous. So if we think that when I speak as a woman I represent women, then we stretch the concept to a degree that it becomes in my mind really meaningless. It's an unfounded claim to authority. When we say we speak on behalf, it's always a claim to some degree. It is a claim, and we seem to want to make our voice stronger, more powerful, give it more weight, and I think we need to take that into account. It's different when there's a constituency such as the NCUC and they delegate decision-making power to one person. This person is then answerable to the constituency. In organizations there is representation, but without clear constituency where we know who the members are and how the relationship between the members is, outside of that to speak of the same type of representation I find problematic. That's my first point. The second point concerns the age of the mighty stakeholder process. The literature on the multi-stakeholder processes says that the first international organization is the ILO, the international labor organization that was founded in 1919. They did not use that term, but the idea of getting various constituencies together and making and hope that they make better decisions because there is more diversity, that is really old. There was also a period at least in Europe where we talked about corporatism. That sort of is the same idea to have employers, unions, and other parties come together and make decisions. So as much, the idea is not new, but what is new is the term multi- stakeholder. That was introduced. He wrote about it in 2005 into the Internet Governance space. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thanks, Jeanette. Yes, please. >> SPEAKER: Thanks. My name is Marcela and I'm from the Chilean government. I work in the mission of Chile, and it's my first time in the IGF. So it's very interesting for me to be here, especially in this conversation. First of all, liked to thank Michele because I work closely with her. All of what she said here and shared what we do in WIPO and there's definitely a very strong participation of interested observers not only watching the MREN NAER of what the countries do, but also as she pointed out in the specific process of traditional knowledge negotiations. In informal settings that normal it's closed for observers, we have indigenous participants there debating the issues in the same footing as governments. So I just wanted to make that point, but I'm interested in knowing in terms of concrete ways and the realityreality of the answerability of the multi-stakeholder model in areas that weren't a multi- stakeholder setting. Here I'm speaking on my own behalf, and I hope that that's not a problem that I represent only myself and not necessarily by government. I'm really trying to think out of the box and see how these could be implemented in a realistic way. Considering we have democracies and I would assume that this is also gives some level of representation to governments to agree on certain things, and then we at least -- in Chile there's been a lot of interesting in trying to pursue more transparency, more participation particularly in trade areas, and that's the area I'm more knowledge on. Especially hearing this issue about representation and think in practical terms how more multi-stakeholderism could be included in the process realistically. Highway could the government administer the situation and these are included in things that weren't this way on the beginning. This is a question for anyone that wants to comment. Thank you very much for the opportunity. >> SPEAKER: Good morning to all. I'm from Algeria and I'm also from the government. I would like to raise an issue that hasn't been invoked in this workshop, which is how to promote and improve transparency of the society and organizations involved in IEG in relation with -- and how to save independence vis-a-vis powerful big Internet companies and issues related to agendas sitting and decision-making processes. My second comment also is related to how these organizations could learn and benefit from the experience gained by other similar organizations engaged in, for example, the issue related to climate change. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: I'm not sure who wants to respond to that. Okay. In the queue we now have YOHN. >> SPEAKER: Just on the representation issue, it's not the same kind of representation. It's not the same kind of representation, but there are representational claims being made. Many people do often say, as a woman, as a peasant, they do it. We may PZ contest those and they made claims and there's accountability. So I think we need to think about new kinds of ways to deal with those claims. Many, many Civil Society groups come into the fore and make public interest claims. We represent the public interest, and I might be on their side, but I would like to know through what processes of transparency, consultation and evaluation and correction when they make mistakes that claim to public interest representation is made. It's all trying to think about what happened to those claims. Then you throw them out. >> MODERATOR: Okay, guys. I understand the representation issue is quite controversial. Marcus. >> SPEAKER: Thank you. It's just a discussion. Jeanette referred to me and I thought I would come back with. She's right and I think the basic difference between what we now call multi-stakeholderism is that this is what we are doing here. We sit around the table as equals, and the ICLO the stakeholders are in silos and they don't really sit around the table and discuss the same issues. This they discuss it among themselves and bring it later. Corporatism is yet to gain that, but nothing that we refer to as multi-stakeholderism is very much what we practice here in the IGF. Interesting also that ICANN used the term of the multi-stakeholderism. ICANN was build in silos, and this is still a policy development process. It's still done that way. What was really truly multi-stakeholderism is the transition process, the CCWG, that's where they sat around the table as equals and came up with amounts. It may sound AR -- arcane, but it's a distinction to make note of. Thanks. >> MODERATOR: Thanks, Marcus. Is there anything you want to say? >> SPEAKER: Thank you very much, Rafik. It's not reacting to anyone but just a general comment. I really am glad to be part of this discussion. Maybe in the future I would like to -- it's not a criticism. It was really balanced and well-structured, but I would like to see more opinions or takes from people from eastern countries or eastern communities. I believe there's less chance to have some general views or circumstances or agreements with mother diversity in these types of discussions. Apart of from that I'm really glad to be part of this discussion. >> MODERATOR: Thanks. That's a fair comment. It's always -- in terms of organizing a workshop, it's kind of -- it's complicated how to ensure diversity because of requirements. And also there's the diversity of point of view that maybe we do it. Anyway, that point is taken. For some reason we don't have anybody in the queue, but if, you know, you want to intervene or maybe it can be good -- oh, Jeanette. >> SPEAKER: I think Matt asked the right question. Who are the conditions for multi-stakeholder cooperation within an organization? I have heard all of you talking about this, about how satisfying and really great the collaboration was. Perhaps I should then give the question back to yourself. What do you think were the conditions for working together in that way? Was it the common enemy? Was it the fear that the U.S. government or anybody could sort of undermine that process? Was that one of the conditions that made you stick together and work in that way? >> SPEAKER: As one of the leaders in the CCWG, I would say it had a couple of critical ingredients hard to capture in all cases. One, was the sense that it mattered. This was our one chance to use the leverage of the transition to get accountability from the corporation called ICANN that we never had before. So it matters. The second was that it had a time frame. It was a sense of urgency with respect to to the date of 2015 moved to 2016. It was dictated by political considerings, not contract terminations. So it had -- it mattered. It had a time urgency, and then the third criteria was that we found ourselves with a bottom-up process. We asked for the process. ICANN did not want to look at accountability at all. They wanted a short, sweet transition of the functions. We at the community at the London community went to the microphone together, Civil Society and businesses and governments saying, we're going to call time-out here. Until we come back with a plan for builtability, this transition is not going forward. That made it a process worth enduring, and I wish it was as simple Azamat -- as Matt described it. We wrote thousands of pages and worked hard to struggle through con sense that would completely unravelled when new people joined in. The product was not perfect, but it is a vast improvement on what we had before and a vast improvement on what we would have had the community not come together in London and asked for it. >> Thanks, Steve, but it was a kumbaya moment with stakeholders. >> SPEAKER: Steve captured it wonderfully. What's interesting is when the stakeholder -- when the factors are important, and another factor important unique to ICANN is this notion of chattering agreeing with parameters up front and that lends itself to the process. With he don't want to underestimate this. This wasn't easy sailing, and many different individuals and stakeholder groups and subsections came to this process with very different ideas. I know came into there process with different ideas but what happened over time is by being forced to work together because of the conditions Steve said, we built whether we liked it or not that ability to discuss and agree and argue in a way that was constructive rather than arguing in a way not constructive. That was one of the big differences that stood out. You can trivialize it by saying it was trust, but it was a willingness to work together towards a common goal, and take common goal that finally came about through spending a good amount of time just feeling our way around each other and how we came from in the beginning. That's an important factor as well. >> MODERATOR: Thanks, Matt. I think we're going to get to the end in a few minutes remaining in the workshop to wrap it up. I'm not sure that we answered all of the questions, but at least I see there are several issues about the represent activity, so it's learning about other experiences in terms of the multi-stakeholder model. I was hoping that if we can make just to highlight some principles and how to operationalize the model, but some of that is not easy to do. However, I think it can remain a goal to reach. So since we have a few minutes, just if the speakers want to kind of make a last statement maybe to summarize their thought or maybe the way to move forward from here. Michele. >> SPEAKER: So, well, I can't say I have an answer to that question. I'm sorry. I'm kind of thinking about it going along here and also thinking back to Marcela's question about what do you do for organizations that didn't start out espousing these multi-stakeholder principles or the prior versions before that name was given. I do think that the goal of trying to distill some principles and provide some kind of, I guess it would be a document but that some kind of set of guidelines for entities that have very goodwill and would like to bring components of this horrible word "multi-stakeholderism" into their organizations, how they could do that. That might be a series of case studies, and it might be also some sets of principles thinking about how you make sure that you bring in all of the different stakeholder groups that out to be a part because, that can be an initial question, and how you structure, for example, meetings or other situations in which issues are discussed in order to make sure that it truly is what was mentioned by a couple of the speakers coming together as equals to have the discussion, because that may not have been the original forum that was aadopted by many entities. Those might be some elements one could think about as sort of subjects of at least one of the components of a set of objectives and principles accompanied, I think, because I think for example for the organization I work for that case study looking at models of what other organizations did is really most of the time this kind of change would come about and say, so-and-so tried that. It worked well for them. Let's give it a try. Sometimes that's brought in by governments. Sometimes that's brought in at the international organization or U.N. level. Sometimes it's suggested by suggested by Civil Societies groups. Those are a few thoughts that are a start. >> SPEAKER: So, you know, in terms of setting up a set of principles or best practices that could be adopted by other multistakeholder organizations, you know, I think we face a number of challenges on a number of different fronts. One of them is just from a timing perspective, you know. The transition took two years to put together, and there was a deadline we had to meet. If we try to do something like that outside of the context of having a deadline, it will probably never get done. And you know, one of the reasons for that and there's a balance, I think, between -- you need a set of documents to produce and be accepted as legitimate and one of the ways you do that is through diversity. As you get more and more diverse, everything gets more and more complicated because evening the meaning of the word such as interesting can become very different to people from very different cultures, and then the pace of your work becomes very, very slow. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. That's interesting. Tatiana. >> SPEAKER: Well, it is hard for me to conclude in the context of this session, because there are too many aspects of cyber security, even if you talk about best practices or good practices or however you name them. I believe my suggestion for good practices and best practices is starting with understanding what we mean when we talk about cyber security, which is where we meet with the multi-stakeholder model will work and where it will not. Thanks. >> SPEAKER: I'm not sure what is the right answer for trade, because the times are changing now. We're in transition, and I think next year will be a transition period for us in terms of trade and in other trade negotiations and they would be changed because there's a strong political will in the U.S. to go for bilateral rule and not international. So there are lessons to draw from the TPP and the defeat of the TPP. Also, you know, like in terms of trade negotiations, it didn't start out as a multi- stakeholder, because this trade model was set up in 19 0s and they only talked about tariffs at that time. Now the trade negotiations have lots of issues that affect everyone's lives. If that was the case with the TPP and that's why people came concerned about it. Big businesses found they're way into the negotiations and not necessarily small businesses. We're in a transition period now, and the future doesn't seem that bright. I still believe that, like, you know, if we can come together and discuss coalitions, you know, we might be changing something. We'll see. >> SPEAKER: It's a great question we struggled with for a while now. Ever since net neutrality where there was the best details what those characteristics are, and I'm sure we made much progress and there are Dynamic Coalitions to address some issues. We really do need to think about what is the purpose of it rather than figuring out what we call it, right? I mean, the purpose at the end of the day is to have decisions well-informed through people with the expertise to bring to the table that are holistic that reflect the interests of stakeholderers, and it doesn't have to be every stakeholder. We have to be careful about what we talk about, because the way we define them could in and of themselves be limiting. While it's nice to think we have a template or we can have something we point to and stay this is multi-stakeholderism, I would suggest we need to really be cautious about doing that, because I don't think there is a model, and I think the reason why we talk about the -- it's a mistake to talk about the multi-stakeholder model. There are variations and permanent YAGSs and I'm sure as we continue to evolve in this IG space, there is other variations and models as well. It is a nice idea. They're out there already. Let's not think about creating more. Let's see if we can actually implement them, but at the end of the day figure out what we're doing it for. Thanks. >> MODERATOR: I don't think we're trying to stop the multi-stakeholder -- we're trying to establish the multi-stakeholder church here. We want diversity. >> SPEAKER: What I found interesting is what Matt said before. He said we built whether or not we like it or not the ability to work together. So it happened throughout the process. So it wasn't predictable for all the participants before that it would turn out like that, and I think the same is true for this period of this and also for the process. When we look back, we can identify certain moments where it seemed to work and what worked there is that hierarchy was less important than the expertise brought to you table so that people took each other serious and benefitted from what the others could contribute. We are not able to figure out what the conditions are for these few moments where it works. So it's important to keep asking ourselves, but also be aware that it's more the exception than the rule. >> SPEAKER: Hi. It's really hard to -- there we go. It's really hard to answer that. I already tried to approach that in my previous comment. I believe that the situation is quite satisfactory and there are some happy exceptions and I believe what I already said about where I should -- where I think the evolution has to go and I hope that there are many exceptions in the future. I believe in the next for -- four our five years. I don't know. >> MODERATOR: Okay, thanks. Yes. I think that's the end. I want to thank everyone that has stayed until now. It's always hard to compete with lunchtime. Thanks for your dedication to keeping in this session. Thanks, again, and hopefully we will see you after this. Okay. Bye. ( Session ended at 1:33 p.m. ) Tech DZ women: Driving ICT, innovation & collaboration in CASA 7 December 2016 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. *** . Connecting the next billion Room 7 Open source: A key enabler on the path to the next billion. Connecting the next billion Room 7 >> MODERATOR: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this session. This is a birds of a feather session on the broad topic of free and open source software on the context of the next billion users on the Internet. So we are setting up the streaming system. So there's a small delay here. So we are told this is take another couple of minutes at least. They're having a glitch in the streaming video they're trying to fix. >> AUDIENCE: Is the technology open source or proprietary? >> MODERATOR: We are rolling now. Welcome to the session. This is a birds of a feather session. The original format was that there will be a panel of speakers and we will identify topics and assign these pop picks, which we've already done so far. The presenters will take about five minutes in the first round and talk about the topics, after which we will have an open discussion where the panel will address the issues raised. My NAM Sis SatishBabu. This workshop has been organized by -- between people, Judi who works for FOSS foundation for AfricaAfrica. She's done these for several years. This is the fourth workshop on Open Source in different IGF meetings. Let me give you a very brief overview on what this session is and what we will try to address here. Over the last two days we've been discussing about the next billion in different context. Now, yesterday in the same session about the next billion, but focused on Asia. Most of the people are also not necessarily very well-educated, not really. They're not tech savvy and it's quite likely the mobile phone is the only device to connect. Now, these issues actually raise a bunch of potential problems as we start to connect these next billion. We're all aware as Internet professionals about the risks that exist on the Internet. When you have a combination of new users who aren't tech savvy exposed to the risks, there is a potential for harm, which all of us would like to kind of limit and take precautions against. We understand that the primary factors for the next billion are things like infrastructure, building, policy co-herance and technology. As a secondary issue or factor, we believe that free SXFree and Open Source Software is very important, if not critical. Open source provides many advantages, which most of us are aware. It's kind of public software. We're aware of what exactly is there in the software. We can audit the content of the software. We can do that so they don't steal private information and pass it down the line to someone else. Community is very important in Open Source. The community is there to both support the software as well as to direct the revolution of the software from what the users want. As a feature, this gets added into the Open Source software. The case of non-Open Source, we are at the mercy of companies that produce the software, and we don't have all that control over what they will put out in the next version of the software. We also believe that Open Source lends itself to improved privacy, ano, ma'am mitty and confidentiality. Oftentimes the question is asked why should there be confidentiality? For many users from the mainstream in the developed world, there is no reason to be clamoring after something like confidentiality. In the developing world, sometimes you can lose your life if the system doesn't like you, and there are situations where anon mitt isn't a luxury but a necessity. Any proprietary software, you have no guarantees, what it's tracking and reporting about you. Whereas, Open Source there are special tools. For example, there's a family of tools. Nothing is 100% foolproof, but it tries the best. It's perhaps the best solution we have for someone. So the community and -- the reason it's a community of people developers included who believe in the particular approach to writing software, and Open Source is actually an outcome of that belief of that approach to writing software and the fact we have to contribute back to the community and such lofty values that are very important. So coming back to the next billion, we believe that the new literate on the Internet are exposed to things like ordinary users, children and the aged and students and girls and women, Civil Society activists. They'll be exposed to some of the issues we just talked about, which including cyber stalking VUR sailance, cyber-bullying, malware, Spam, scans, identity theft, and so on. There are many issues that confront them. This workshop is basically to discuss how these things interplay, and how the Open Source approach will help us to kind of address some of these issues for the next billion people as they come in. As I mentioned, the format is we have identified a panel, and Judy will be running -- most of the workshop. I have my colleague from ICANN, Maureen Hilliard, who is handling the remote participation. We hope some friends join online, and that will be handled by Maureen. And this is -- I'll just briefly touch on the topics and the speakers. First of all we have from Gunela Astbrink from Australia. We have Olivier Crepin-Leblond, and he's a very senior volunteer with ICANN and IISOC and so on. We have Glenn McKnight from Canada in the blue T-shirt. He will speak about open hardware and humanitarian applications. We have Dev Anand Teelucksingh in the green shirt, and he's a volunteer with the ICANN. He's an Open Source activists for many, many years. We have a young colleague Arjun who will talk about enables trust for the next billion. Finally we have Bishakha Datta who was on the board of directors. She's going to speak on open knowledge, and we have one remote who promises to join from Nepal, and we hope he joins us. This is the rough composition. The format is five minutes per panelists and the NEN floor is open for discussions. Then at the end we have one or two minutes for panelists to wind up. It's over to Judi now. >> SPEAKER: Thank you very much for a very good opening and introduction. Yes, we have been called bad names, because people have already chosen their bad names. Should I do that? Thank you. So I will do that. I will keep us all in time five minutes, please. So Gunela, I will give you the floor. What is your bad name? >> MODERATOR: What are you? >> SPEAKER: That was very spontaneous. Hello. I'm Gunela Astbrink from women with disabilities Australia, and I have many other hats as we all seem to do working with ISOC and ICANN as well. I have worked for 25 years on ICT accessibility for people with disabilities. Often it's very fraught in that people with disability either have forgotten about when a software is developed or it's an afterthought. Well, we need to adjust software to make it a bit more accessible. And so it's always challenging. Now, there are changes happening when it comes to the push to make accessible software. One area is public procurement in ICT. This is being adhered to by a number of countries in the U.S. and Europe through guidelines and also European standards, a particular standard that's actually just been adopted in Australia, too, by direct text adoption. Australia is the first country outside the European sector to do so. Having government guidelines on what should be purchased and including ICT accessibility in that really, really does make a difference to the marketplace. So I'm just saying that as an adjunct, but whether it comes to Open Source software, it's of great benefit, really, because there are a few examples that we'll provide to you where there has been commercial software available, which has been very, very expensive for people. And to then be able to have something which people can take up and use for your charge, which is very important in developing countries and developed countries, because people with disabilities usually have low incomes. One example I'd like to talk about specifically is one called NVDA, which is a screen reading software for blind people. So blind people use computers, websites, et cetera, and all the text is converted to speech, and in some cases to Braille on a separate keyboard. For those people who attended maybe some previous sessions, for example, the Dynamic Coalition on accessibility and disability earlier today, there was a blind person who used such software. NVDA is screen- reading software written in Lenix and available on Windows software. It was developed by a blind man in Australia together with his colleague, and it's free. It's absolutely free. As a contrast to that is one piece of software called Jaws, which has been the main screen-reading software used for many, many years by blind people. It costs about 1 # -- 1,000 U.S. dollars and needs to be upgraded and you have additional costs, maybe $100 a time. While the costs might be coming down, to have something like NVDA, available in about 43 different languages it makes a difference. I'd like to talk about daisy, which is a digital-reading system used by blind people, and a range of reading software in con JEKZ with daisy means that, again, that is Open Source software, and it means that published books can be made available at the same time to blind people as to anyone else in the world. I just wanted to also finish off by saying that in the Open Source software, we see some exciting developments in particular assistive technology for people with disabilities, and some is good and some is bad. And sometimes it's the enthusiasm of individual developers, and that's great. But there probably needs to be more consultation with people with disabilities in regard to the development, and sometimes systems are developed in isolation without the knowledge of existing software that might meet the same requirements. So my suggestion is it would be great for the community to have a platform to share information about things that are going to be developed and are in the process of development so the community can share that together and learn from each other and hopefully not duplicate so much. So there's just some initial thoughts I have. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Gunela. If you have any questions note it down and take note of speaker. When we do the open session, you can ask it. Thank you. Next we have Olivier, the rooster. Five minutes. >> SPEAKER: Thank you very much. I'm also known as the Rooster. I'm going to speak to a little story. I've been an Internet user since 1988, and during the '90s I was tracking the connectivity around the world, the spread of the Internet and especially in developing countries so Africa, Asia, Latin America and Caribbean, and there were many different initiatives. Initially it was end users, a few techies that had been to the U.S. primarily. They thought it was cool andmented to implement it in their own country. The way that they did it was to take Open Source software, whatever had been put together by hobbyists, and bring it over to the country and put a note together, get a little -- it wasn't laptops back in the '90s. It was mostly desktops and they got an Internet node running. Soon enough, they got a community together. In fact, many of the Internet service providers you have in these countries are actually starting like this. Parallel to this in I would say the '96-97, government thought hang on. We need to be on the Internet thing, especially the U.S. state department and U.S. aid thought, well, we have to bring the Internet to some parts of the world in a bigger way, and it deals with big manufacturers and big software companies, and they brought big systems down into those countries, which needed, unfortunately, air-conditioning, proprietary software, all the problems you have with bigger systems. Two years later, those systems were not working anymore. Well it's the little nodes put together earlier not by hobbyists because now they're professionals in their own field. They were still running, and the local population was able to adopt this. What's the whole moral of the story on this? When you look at proprietary software, I can identify a number of problems and it's worse and worse today. Licensing is a huge issue. Licensing often includes having to use a credit card. Credit cards in the Global South are not something commonly used. Secondly, licensing is expensive. You have to renew it very often, and then you have this thing called product end of life. Manufacturers love the product end of life. You have product updates, and just yesterday a person who had a fruit-based phone or fruit brand that you might find out running a system to hail taxis on the phone. It was freezing and said, well ever since two days ago when I left it plugged in and there was an automatic update, my phone is freezing. I think that company is telling me I have to change phones. ILTS terrible. They could afford to change phones, but in the Global South it's difficult to do that. Open Source allows for all of these things that if you have free software, free proprietary software somebody will pay for it, and it's probably your personal data shared and so on. With Open Source you don't have that risk so you know what is in that software. Sometimes you might not know there's another side to it. You need certified Open Source software. Because you might end up downloading something completely different to what you intended to download. I have two suggestions to close off on my points. First, be careful that Open Source isn't the poor person's software, as it's a copy of the proprietary but it has less features and a cut-down version. We have to be careful that Open Source software is safe to use. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Awesome. Please let's give him a round of applause. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rooster. I'll give the next opportunity to Glenn, the Chicken. Yeah, the Chicken. >> SPEAKER: Why is he called Rooster? >> SPEAKER: You're about to be cooked. >> SPEAKER: Before I start, since I got that terrible name, I have how many minutes? >> MODERATOR: Five minutes. >> SPEAKER: But I brought you a coffee. >> MODERATOR: Glenn, just do five minutes, please. >> SPEAKER: How many people use Open Source or Lenix by a show of hands? This is great. I wasn't going to talk about this, but this is a real quick story. I, like Olivier, was involved with promoting Lenix certification for the late '90s and most of the first decade of 2000. I remember going around to the 40, 45 countries trying to promote Linux and we were more popular than red head. I remember being in Venezuela under Chavez and we were talking about Open Source, and it was one of the only countries that got it. They understood the value. The only country that exports software is America, and this was a really good thing to do. I was on the podium with Professor Stallman. I used the world Open Source, and using that is forbidden. You don't do that sort of thing with Stallman. It's Free and Open Source Software. I understand, Richard, but sometimes he's a character. Let me get to why my topic is important. I'm talking about not open office Orlin nix but getting access to the code for humanitarian purposes. I worked with the IEEE found day and U.N. foundation to look at three of the SDG issues. One is reliable electricity. If you don't have reliable electricity, never mind. You won't connect them on a mesh network. Second, come up with cost-effective communication tools, which is the mesh networks and point-to-point systems. Third, was patient records or individual records in war-torn areas. We worked on this, and we're working on prototypes. The area I worked on first was 1,000-watt, the 1 kilowatt off the grid solar system, and then the earthquake happened in '80 and all that funding disappeared. It was an interesting culmination of IEEE engineers and people in the field. We worked on one particular Open Source license with we care solar. So if you look it up, we care solar, it's a wonderful woman named Dr. Satchel, who created these suitcases that go on a plane, take it to different maternity wards in Africa where power was off. The women were actually having a high death rate. The lack of power. So this was a suitcase with solar panels. It had walkie-talkies and a number of devices in it, and we worked on an Open Source license. It's called TARP. We worked on this license to make this entire system available so that anyone in the world people can replicate this model. The kits were made with university students making them so that they would give back. The costs of the kits were around $700, but there was no Open Source solar controller. There's so many things we did using this licensing protocol, and now it's just one example of a humanitarian technology we worked on. There's tons of other examples. How much time do I have? >> MODERATOR: About two minutes. >> SPEAKER: I'm pretty good. Open education. The issue of particular on solar and meshed networks, we're working with making sure people can access open education through sharing in particular how to build an off the grid solar system. I'm working with IEEE smart villages. This is a phenomenal project. Smart villages look at templates and prototypes, nailing them down, and there's projects in New Guinea and we're working on a particular mesh network project. The idea is it's also Open Source. When we first started to talk to I-EEE back six, seven, eight years ago, they had it on the line that it will be Open Source. I don't think anybody got it. I don't think anybody understood what that meant. They didn't get it. Sounds good. It sounded pretty good, but nobody was really doing it. As engineers or technicians, the biggest challenge is going back to the bureau accurates and other people explaining the real value. The way to explain stuff is to show them best practices that are really viable and inclusive, okay? Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Excellent. Please give him a round. Thank you very much, Glenn. I will give the next opportunity to Dev. What kind of bird are you? >> SPEAKER: This is a popular bird in Trinidad. That's why it's called that because of its bird call. Now that everybody is aware of ototology explanation, while I've been passionate end user from Trinidad and Tobago computers beside back in the '90s before the Internet. We ran a bulletin board system at one time for the precursors to the Internet. One of the things that I got very familiar with was the concept of shareware and Free and Open Source Software, learning about it and so forth. It was a hard topic to understand, especially when you explain to general computer users. Often, you know, we'll have meetings and some person will come and say, I have this problem, and I would like -- I'm running a browser for Windows and it has bars and pop-ups happening every five seconds or something like that. It's kind of like -- when I asked them, how do you get it to this state? I downloaded this free software that's supposed to help me with something, and, of course, that free software was -- had some sort of Spyware, malware and so forth that changed it. It did all sorts of things. I realize this was -- this lack of awareness for the Open Source software like Firefox and so forth, I need to create some sort of collection. That's what I did. I created the software called the TTTS collection and that OSSFW and it was Open Source software for Windows. When I first developed it in 2005, you know, broadband still was ubiquitous, and still isn't ubiquitous. I put it together on a CD with the intention of being able to give the person CDs and you know, say, here's some of the software. I created a menu system for persons to navigate the software in different categories. That's the tools and desk stop tools and sound and video utilities and so forth. I've included things like screenshots and related links, because -- and then to empower the end user like, okay, here's something you can discover on your own. Follow the web pages to the latest links, and if you didn't have the broadband and you had the CD and then or the DVD now, you can download the software on your computer and install it. The TDDS CD became a DVD as I found more and more software to add. Now it's just a collection. You can Google it and still download it. I released a new version last week. So people around the world have adopted it in various countries. In Africa I learned it's used at school to give to students. I believe in Nepal a customized version was made and changed the language in knee pat and used the software version VD for them and includes the software developed in Nepal and so forth, and it's been mentioned many times and used for promotions for the events, which normal you would know it's a day to celebrate software freedom and making people aware about software freedom and why it's important. So I'm thinking this type of approach can also help with security and be like an education about the security issues as to what, you know -- why you need encryption. Why do you need, you know, not just on hard disk encryption, for example, in your case your laptop is stolen and your data is still safe, et cetera, and then promote these Open Source solutions that alleviate those concerns. I think it's important to say use this solution, you have to explain why it is. This will solve a need that you may not be aware you need, but you really do need it, and these entities will. I think I'll just stop there. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. Please let's give him a round of applause. Very interesting. Please make sure you download so that you could have the highlights from IGF 2016. Thank you. I'd like to give the next opportunity to A Arjun Jayakumar who will talk about enables trust for the next billion. What kind of bird are you? >> SPEAKER: Woodpecker. Probably because there's a lot in the state I come from. That's probably it. Anyway, so he mentioned I work with an organization called the software freedom law center. We're big believers in the free software and we roadway the benefits that free software does, and we do our best to promote worldwide -- to provide Free and Open Source Software. We provide advice for free and open software in our work. I'm here today in place the our director who could unfortunately not be here because she was unwell and had to fly back to New York. The technologyist is lower than it would have been, so I'll define hi intervention to a very few quick, broad remarks how Open Source will help to ensure the Internet that we bring the next billion onto is something we can truce and you feel confident in using it. So the Internet's great success is because of the openness to participation. That is the public participation with this technology makes it possible. This whole idea of technology started with a Free and Open Source Software in the late 20th century. What FOSS did was to enable participation in software and so it was allows people to copy, modify, our share their software without any restrictions. Likewise, the Internet is a very open platform, because Internet protocols are always open and adopted by consensus, and everybody can implement these protocols which makes it a very open platform. This openness with both the Internet and free software is very crucial, as crucial as openness is and participating processes are to scientific research. We have already learned through numerous years of experience that maximum participation makes a better source of policy. So then we know that the primary purpose of FOSS is to empower users to ensure we have our basic rights to use the software the way they want and copy and share and distribute how they want. More importantly, ever, in this context, there is no software we can tally trust as well as other software. That makes it possible. It makes people -- it gives people the opportunity to look into the source code and go over the source code and make sure that it does what it says and it doesn't do anything as quickly under the table. So with Edward Snowden's revelations in 2013, we know there's a massive amount of surveillance sometimes under the authority of law and also exploiting and they tap into people's personal computing devices and keep a close watch what they do and say online. This makes people kind of fear for their right to privacy on the Internet and makes people not participate as much mountain public discourses the Internets permits them to participate in. Okay. All right. So when you talk about proprietary versus Open Source software, pry pry tear has a distinct disadvantage because you can't go into the source code, and therefore it would be prudent to proceed under the assumption that is proprietary contains somebody's Everett to control and surveil somebody. That must just be us. There are a number of Open Source software that enables people to ensure a certain amount of privacy in and around connectivities. There's layering of encryption and Internet browsing activities around the world to make sure you're not tracked back to what you do on the Internet. I guess I'd like to say that whether you're talking about brings the next billion online, it's essential to make sure the Internet they're brought onto is something they can trust and the use of Open Source software is a great way to accomplish this goal. Thank you. ( Applause ) >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Now I get it, why you say woodpecker. I understand totally, but I'm glad that our captioners were able to pick on what you were saying. Thank you very much. We may need to put on a speed dial. Thank you. I'd like to give the next opportunity to Bishakha Datta. Can I call you peacock? All right. Peacock. Thank you. Five minutes. >> SPEAKER: I'll try my best to live up to the name. Okay. So I wanted to switch gears a little bit and talk about something that's connected to Open Source but not quite Open Source. So if we go back to the beginning, which is when Sattish introduced this panel, he talked about how the next billion users, many of themish introduced this panel, he talked about how the next billion users, many of them will not be tech savvy or have much education, right? Let's imagine a situation where many of these next billion have actually got access, the infrastructure is in place. Let's say the Open Source software is in place. What is it they're going to find online, right? I imagine that they're going to have a bit of a shock when get online, particularly communities in India. The first thing they find is most of the content is in a language that they don't necessarily speak, think, dream in, count in, et cetera, right? It's an alien language, English for many, many people in India. So this is where I feel that we have to actually broaden our framework to think beyond Open Source to other parts of the Open family. What I have in mind in two things. One is open knowledge. I will say that I'm part of the Wikipedia family, so for me this is a very obvious extension, right? If we think of Open Knowledge it's like the Open Source of Knowledge. You produce knowledge in a way where anybody can add to that knowledge. The wind, which knowledge is produced, is very explicit and very clear. If you can go to the source of the knowledge, et cetera, right? So I think that's one of the really important things that we have to look at when we think about openness as a key enabler on the part of the next billion. That there be open knowledge, and by that I mean in different languages and also, you know, from the time of Web 2.0, we've been talking about producers, consumers become producers, user generated content. Again, open knowledge offers the possibility for people to not just consume content but also be producers of content, and more importantly to be producers of content about people like themselves. For example, if we refer to India, there's very, very little content that reflects the lives, the needs, the aspirations. You know, a whole bunch of stuff to live in rural areas. Who is going to produce that content? Right? So part of in is thinking about that. The other thing is we have to really think about open educational resources. Given that you have a lot of people coming online who may not be educated, why not look at technology and particular openness also as an opportunity to fill that gap. We don't live in a time and place anymore where people need to only go to physical schools, et cetera to learn, right? Why not think of open education resources and formats conducive to people who haven't been to school, which means maybe video formats or audio formats and particular if we think of people who are visually impaired I work with as well, the audio format is something that is very, very important and takes up less bandwidth. We have to match the Open Source spot of it with the what happened after Open Source part of it. I think we also need to think about a couple more gaps. One we've seen in open knowledge. There's a big gender gap. We know, for example, on Wikipedia, which is the biggest source of open knowledge currently online that about 9%. People that contribute to Wikipedia are women, whereas an overWLEMing majority are men. We know that, again, there's like a global note, Global South kind of gap. All of these according to me having to part of our mention constructive enabling the next billion through openness. In my final minute, two things I wanted to say. One is I think many of us are aware of the benefits of Open Source software. My question actually to all of us is, what is the policy push that we need? To be honest, I don't think Open Source software is really going to get onto people's computers and laptops if we just look at people individually puts it on. We need policy bodies whether it's schools or small municipal governments or in villages, communities, et cetera. Even if we can't huge national governments, so I think we need to think of policy in a sort of nuanced way, a different level to really popularize the adoption of Open Source software. Finally as somebody who uses Open Source software tag back to the other thing Satish said is we don't want to be poor software, but we have to prettyifythe software a little bit. Sometimes Open Source is hard to use and is clunky it doesn't appear to the aesthetic bits of us, et cetera, et cetera. I think if it has to compete on an equal footing, then it has to look appeals, peacock-like. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you, Bishakha Datta. Before Judi opens the floor, I want to make two remarks. Open Source has been combined to the body of developers who are kind of nerds and who have created -- erected these barriers to stop others from coming in. Now it's much more open and democratic. The other point I wanted to mention is that you might have seen me fiddling around with my phone all throughout. I'm tweeting all the time so the the #44nextbillion. Feel free to tweet on any issue you would announced to public. Over to Judi. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Satish. You wanted to say something, chicken. >> SPEAKER: I think he's only speaking of himself. I don't think D DZ EV are nerds. Went to the province of Ontario in Canada. We laid out a solid case, why it was economically viable to migrate away from an Open Source platform Ned of spending millions of dollars on licenses they intent on Microsoft. A bureaucrat looked right in their eye and he said hell will freeze over before we adopt Open Source. It's been true. It's been a real hard go getting countries. I went into Africa where they have more Microsoft licenses than people. We don't have the money, the marketing money to promote it. It's like you said, us nerds, we feel it. We're passionate about it and really want to get it. I used to do that stuff, too. I said the hell with it. I'm not going to preach about it anymore. It's open hardware and focus on that area, and that's what I chose to do. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Chicken. Thank you. I'd like to open this session for questions. Yes, I see one hand up. Do we have a roaming mic? Any other questions for anybody? Okay. >> SPEAKER: Hello. I'm Roger Matthews from India and represent mobile operators in India. Just two points. First of all, Open Source is a great thing, but in terms of the practicality of connecting the next 1 billion, if you look at India, when we go to a person that has never used and has no data connectivity, they don't ask for the Internet. They say, when I buy a smartphone, they say, please load on Facebook, Google, what's up. All right? So there's a brand issue here whether people are unconnected, they don't ask for Open Source. They don't know because they haven't spent the money to do this. This is the first point that crops up in terms of connecting the 1 # billion. Once they're connected and you don't have the problem. ILTS a second order issue. The second point I'd like to make is the issue that came up with LINUX. If I adopt open soap Lynn NUKS and there's problems in terms of my network infringement, I'm on the hook. inux and there's problems in terms of my network infringement, I'm on the hook. No Open Source person will offer my indemnification. It's a catch-22 situation that comes up as a result of government licensing issues over operators that center to operate. Just two points with regard to Open Source. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. The second question. Yes. >> SPEAKER: Hi. I work as a developer. It's quite long, but I will try to do it short and my English is so bad it won't be so long. First of all, I was there in another room talking about IPV-6, and they say all operative systems are working on the PVC, only Windows and Mac, they forgot most at Len nix. This is out of the Open Source community to the people. ix. This is out of the Open Source community to the people. In the other room I said we're like the ugly boy in the family. We're systemically selected by the media and everything. In the other side we are like the galaxies who support lots, millions or billions of life runs, because nobody cares because there's already there are. Hopefully in the community we work on Open Source and on the government. We are dropping licensing -- licensing stuff. Hopefully we can have the community and organization in the collaborative work, we attribute with other signs like social science, et cetera. That's my comment and question. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. A very valuable comment. Yes, please. Third question. >> AUDIENCE: Yes, I'm victor from Venezuela. I come from an organization where we want an Open Source society, because Open Source has four key core values. So I think that Open Source must go beyond technology to all kinds of societies. So we are doing one source politics and economics, and I wish to talk to you about this later. The government of Venezuela started to pass some laws according to Open Source and free software because you know it's kind of a social regime, and they say that Microsoft and all the software are from the Empire and it's bad. The thing is that we started to use Lenix in all the Polish institutions. The developers of software in Venezuela were starting to grow up affected by this because Venezuela practically makes them criminals or something. In develops countries like mine that we want to develop software and we want to get involved in this, how could it be they translate -- what does it mean for the point? What can we do about that? >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much for your question. There's a question from the gentleman here on this end. >> SPEAKER: I'm from Australia, but in in context I should mention I'm president of Lenix users of Australia and Open Source contributor. I've worked on send mail and know Richard storeman and so far and so on. As someone who actually running an Open Source group, one of the things that I node is that in a developed country like Australia the membership is aging out. It's getting the same people year after year because I think one of the reasons is the platform level was changing. Those that still develop and produce the software we use, we're in a time where you actually have to build that level. As we go to a world in which the platform is available and everything is done on the web and it's done at the application layer, there's less desire for people to learn that level of the stack. That's why raspberry pie has been helpful in that regard encouraging learning again and encouraging school kids to get involved in the low level hacking lair. That's helpful. Some offer proprietary software plaques on the platform. We see new information from coming from new AFSHs from Australian. They come from Asian and Africa companies and look for an Open Source group to join so they can form connections and network and contribute, because they have the values that we heard before from an earlyingier question about the Open Source core values. We get new aarrivals to the WUNT who share the values. I hope the continuation of our group is mainly immigrants. I hope it goes up as well eventually. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. I have one more question before. >> AUDIENCE: I want to respond to the nobody cares about Open Source part. We do. Our phones run -- AUR Android phones. We're increase going becoming involved in -- our engineers are increasingly becomes involved in Open Source. With the company's blessing and encouragement. Yes, some big companies do care about it and were -- we think it's important. Thanks. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. I'd like to open the floor to any of our members that are watch to our buds from -- I'ming I'm sorry. Any of the questions -- I'm sorry. The two of us on the farm. >> SPEAKER: Thank you, Judi. The first point raised by my friend from India, is about the Lenix having a brand issue and not -- they're not being many takers for this brand. Actually, things have changed dramatically after Android. It's a common brand, and now I think about 80% in India use it. It's Open Source, and that takes care of the problem. We do not have a brand issue, and Facebook or anything will come on Android on the next. So that is not an issue. That's indemnification. What is it? After the clouds come in, why did Microsoft move to Open Source? The whole Platt for moved last year. They strengthen the next position so much so Microsoft had to move in. Today the next cloud server is cheaper, and that's because of this very point of insurance. You can get much cheaper cloud instances today. That is a reality like none. So these problems are yesterday's problems, the second problem you raced. IBB6 and Lenix, you're actually right. We have had the same situation, and we also say sometimes look at this here. Please look at this with this and to connect. So we can connect heavily and it's flash-based. We don't use Mac or Windows. Please help us also. In fact, this workshop is a kind of direction of making that noise. Then socialization and in this case, I have something to add on, but I think I WOENL because other people have things as well. So I'd like to open it up for other panelists. >> SPEAKER: Thank you. It's Olivier Rooster speaking. In life everything is beigesed on aesthetic. When you go to the restaurant if you see pictures of the dish outside and it looks like a dog's breakfast, you don't go to the restaurant. You rather have it looking good, and this is one of the main problems I think with Open Source. There's much of -- the aesthetics don't look good enough for your average user. Yes, it's Open Source and it's got all the advantages and so on but it looks insert your four-letter word there. You know the second thing is it needs to be intuitive. The second you write software that looks good and as great as apple products and at that point you're going to get so many people flocking to it, even if it's maybe doing a little less than the other softwares out there. In fact, most people don't use all of the component parts of of a software. Secondly, I wanted to touch on the liability issue. You're absolutely correct that there -- I work a lot with the private sector, and it's the same thing as with governments. You have sort of an IT, a CEO of a company working with you to roll out a new system, and they'll say, wait a minute. What is our guarantee it will work? Who can I sue if it falls apart? There's also an issue of technical support. They like the predictability. The CIO might understand the Open Source concept, but then the accountant doesn't and the legal department definitely doesn't understand it. We can't sue anyone? We're not going for that. So that's also another issue. But, of course, you know, one of the things that I do tell them, well, how many of you have heard of Apache? Since the early days of the net has been the largest supplier or largest number of web servers run Apache. It runs so well. Obviously, Microsoft is eating a little bit of this, but Microsoft never managed to eat more than Apache, and then you have NJINX but it's Open Source as well. The Internet service side has run on Open Source. Why can't the other side work as well? Maybe it's because of aesthetics. Thanks. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. We'll get one reaction. >> SPEAKER: Can I quickly respond? The concern about the user interface is a long-standing complaint, and the reason is because good design requires designers that cost money, and the question is why don't we get skilled users and designers in the Open Source movement. One is because a lot of people that we do the programming about are in well-paid jobs where they can afford to put in extra work on their time on the own side. They're less likely to volunteer to do free user interface design. I don't know the solution until we have income or something like that. You can't force people to volunteer to user interface design, or you have to have government funding of Open Source so there's money to do it. That's a long-standing compliant, but they need money behind it. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. Thank you very much. I think that's why people keep talking about Open Source free and not as free as free. Somebody has to pay at the end of it. >> SPEAKER: So it goes back to -- I think this is often one of the big challenges, is that, you know, people look at -- hear the word "free" and it's free costs. I don't have to contribute anything or give back. That's what you have to encourage users to do. If you're using the software, tell the developers to help them with better UI experiences, and also how to socialize it more from the person in Venezuela. Well, Open Source software is multiplatform, and I think that's one of the great selling points of it. It doesn't matter whether you run a fruit-based system or Windows or whatever. You can use software that's available on all three platforms, and by using it on one platform, even if you decide to switch or try a different operating system, you can take your data with you, and that's one of the key benefits of Open Source software. Your data -- I suppose it could be not, but in more cases than not the data is an open format, and of course open formats means that, you know, you can take your data to any platform or form or whatever. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Peacock. >> SPEAKER: Yes, on cue. I wanted to jump in the aesthetics question. I think the winner is actually Android. I think Android actually looks very nice and many of us who use it don't have complaints about the user interface. I also wanted to say we have the exact parallel issue in the open knowledge movement. We've been talking about changing the user interface of Wikipedia for years. We introduced, first of all, the way you edit, we could be there and you basically have to write and work with code, which is weird for people posting on Facebook and Twitter and et cetera and not interfacing with code. The Wikipedia experience becomes different from the rest of your experience on the Internet as a producer. That's totally weird. We did introduce something called the visual editor to make it more contemporary, but I think for us it wasn't so much, you know, funding and stuff like that. I think in some of the movements where there are communities, communities are also used to a certain look and feel. Some find it hard to conceive of it, and I imagine at some level Open Source is AULGS a community, right? Some of those are also issues. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. I'd like to give you the opportunity to Chicken. >> SPEAKER: We talked about skills and professionalism, and I think that Ozzy at the end of the room there dealt with this issue a bit. I think the LAMP certification is good. All that culmination. Schools need to, you know, have a coordinated effort in their skills training and accreditation process and that's what we worked with in Australia working with the Open Source community creating a certification, and then we marketed that around the world and then we helped my SQL and BSD groups and all of these. We realized in certain countries like Germany and Japan in particular, they really valued accreditation and certification. It was important to let the companies know that these Open Source professionals were accredited, and I think I'll give you an example. CVCRM is probably one of the best Open Source softwares out there. In my dealings with these people, they have gotten together as groups of consultants that work together and have a good professional image and are at trade shows sharing leading, professional booths, giving a real professional look to the public. Not every geek is in the basement and never moved out of their home. There is people that really take, you know, a very professional approach in creating the best product possible. As you said, it's not free. Remember, you're not paying for the software, but you pay for the support. That's where the money is. Remember, there's only 15% of the cost that's software and hardware. The rest is teaching and support. That's where the money is. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. I'd like to give -- >> SPEAKER: It's hard to find a word for me. Very quick because we're running out of time. One point about the aesthetics is there's another side to the whole question of aesthetics and in India all the government schools run on Lynn nix and then they developed or customized many software, and they're not experts in the user interface or UX designs. Pour people who have only used Linux, that's not an issue at all. The gentleman was asking about the middle way, and I think an important thing. We had a colleague who used to come with us for this idea of Open Source sessions. His name is Fernando, and he's BLUND. He's been -- he's from Brazil, and he runs this company called -- I forget the name of the company. F1, 2, 3. So he has found a sweet spot for himself using only Open Source, but being able to kind of, you know, make a living for himself and his employees. There's the possibility. I'm sure we can look out under the lines. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Gunela, quickly. >> SPEAKER: I'm a cockatoo. Just a matter of aesthetics, for example, with Wikipedia, while it -- >> AUDIENCE: No, it's okay. >> SPEAKER: I am not -- well, okay, I'm a cockatoo. >> AUDIENCE: She's getting punchy. >> SPEAKER: Cockatoos in Australia are exciting birds, actually. Exactly. Moving right along. With Wikipedia, for example, one could say, okay, the look and feel isn't exciting, but it has an air of being there for a long time and respectability, and we have so many trends in web design. It moves from one aspect to another, whereas, Wikipedia stays the same. I think that's -- that's a sign in itself. I just wanted to also say we aaesthetics and user interface design, if there's going to be more emphasis and funding for unTuesday active design, obviously think about accessibility. Web accessibility, and the web content accessibility GIENs is just fundamental. Thank you >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Gunela. I'll give an opportunity to two reactions and then close. There's a lady in the blue and there's Jerry. >> AUDIENCE: Hi. I'm from Brazil and I came here through the youth program. Please don't misunderstand me. I love Open Source, but unfortunately I'm not sure if the government is prepared to use FOSS, the government of my country isn't using FOSS and bought Microsoft for the public server. They said it's more expensive to use the kind of software than buy leases. This didn't prove this. This makes me think this case should be studied. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Jerry. >> AUDIENCE: Thank you. Jerry Ellis from Dublin, Ireland. And I ain't no turkey. It's difficult for the ordinary person to get involved with Open Source, because it tends to be developed using very complicated systems and very complicated programming and so on. So it tends to be geeks that do Open Source programming, people who are used to doing things the hard way. Maybe you're not worried about the interface and so on. My idea for Open Source is to try and develop APIs and various other stand systems which then can be used by people with lesser skills, and those people with lesser skills are closer to the average user and make them easier to use. One last comment I'd make is referring back to Judi's talk about Open and knowledge, the big thing is it nooks which is massive online courses completely on time and completely free. It's just to promote three produced in 2013 for people with disabilities. I'm blind myself. There was one done by the international telecommunications union, but by the Georgia institute of technology with a group and one by third level institutions around Europe. They're all STRABL for free. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Jerry. That's a good way of finishing it. I'd like to give 30 seconds to my fun members. What you would you like people to leave here with? 30 seconds. >> SPEAKER: Shall I start in responding to Jerry's question, it's hard to use, et cetera, right? Why? I think it's hard for people to also understand why they should use Open Source beyond the point. I think one of the things, and I don't think your name but the speaker from Venezuela talked about the role of Open Source in building an Open Source society. Right? I think that's a nice approach to think about the kind of society we want and the role that Open Source can play in that. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Rooster. >> SPEAKER: Rooster speaking or singing. I'm not quite sure. I think that the point that I've heard today and that has struck me as being different from previous years because we have spoken about this on so many different occasions. We know the problems about the user interface, the lack of intuitiveness of the user interface and to on. One thing I found is we often find examples of Open Source being used because of a conscious wish to not use proprietary software. I wonder whether that's the right way to do it. For the next billion, people would want to use Open Source, not because they don't want to use proprietary software because but they want to use Open Source. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Yes. >> SPEAKER: So somebody had mentioned national policies that promote the use of Open Source software, and in that context I wanted to mention in India we have national Open Source policy which makes it mandatory for the government to first consider Open Source software as the mode of implementing the technology solutions and then only if it turns out to be infeasible through this method that they go to proprietary software. I believe they have the instrumental role to play in bringing about a policy in the state. I'm not sure how many government, in fact, have this policy, but I want to bring it up and put it out there. That's a good way to further the adoption of Open Source software as well. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. Thank you very much, woodpecker. Yes. >> SPEAKER: Thanks. I think what's important is that going out to the challenges that they have with the particular program. I think it's important and I think it doesn't happen often that instead of saying this is too hard to use, forget about it. You really do need to interact with the developer and the community there. They may think, well, the developer developed it and looks completely fine. If you showed them, hey, this is not working or it's too confusing, and offer -- and you know interact with the developers, some developers will take it on. If there's enough people that believe you in that, hey, this is not dealt with, somebody could even fight the project and create a complemental feature on enhance a feature, and that's happened very often in Open Source projects. It's not just you got to give feedback and get involved to get feedback, and again, support the developer in that way. If you're not able to financially support, you know what? Helping in that direction is successful and greatly needed. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Cockatoo. >> SPEAKER: I wouldn't even try to make the sound of a cockatoo. Just a final thought is that in terms of a particular piece of software used by blind people, NVDA I mentioned before, screen reading software, the people in developing countries might have an edge on using Free and Open Source Software because many blind people in the developed countries have been using Jaws, which is an expensive piece of software for a long time. Jerry might debate this with me, but as I understand it, learning a screen- reading software is quite a lengthy, complex process. And therefore, for people who start off using free software, Open Source software like NVDA, and that's going to happen more and more in developing countries, I believe thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Chicken, do you have a closing? >> SPEAKER: I'm still getting used to the name. It was a real pleasure so share the last hour and a half with all of us, and I really believe that the -- we haven't seen the killer app to change the general population. It's still going to be fairly fringe in many ways, but you know, as the gentleman from India USA in both mobile Internet, that is what a lot of places are going to be using to get access on the Internet, and as we know, Android is a big player in that. It's really exciting to be part of it, but uyou know, I've been waiting for the wholesale switch, but it hasn't happened the way I thought it was going to be over ten years ago. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. I'll also take a minute to kind of wrap up and Judi will formally close the session. I think there are many positives that center come out today, and Open Source is not an isolated -- this stuff anymore because it's influenced a lot of other domains outside software, so we have open data and we talked about open knowledge and open standards and open formats. Glen talked about open design, open research, open access publishing and open farming and open politics. Politics, we're talking about fake news and so on. This whole openness issue influenced many other domains as well. That's actually a point to the fact that there is actually an aspect of Open Source, of free software, which has an appeal to even nonsoftware people. We have seen a lot of change happening in the last one or two years with the Microsoft and other companies that are so far completely proprietary have moved on for their own reasons and they don't take the decision lightly. They have their own reasons and the commercial Open Source has become very strong. What we're looking at is generally directed at the individual user, the end user of the Internet comes into the -- new user coming into the Internet. For them we see solutions like Android there, but there are still many hurdles to go on the whole trust issue or understanding issue about Open Source. So on the whole, I see a lot of positives and a few issues to be addressed as well. So with that, I'd like to, you know, pass it on to my colleague, Judi. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. Thank you very much, Satish, and thank you for joining us. I'd like to officially acknowledge them by their names so you don't bump into them on the streets and just start calling them cockatoo or chicken or anything like that. Cockatoo was Gunela Astbrink. That's her correct name. Reduce -- rooster was Olivier. Chicken was Glenn McKnight. Dev Anand Teelucksingh and sis KAty and Bishakha Datta was the peacock. Peel FREEM to interact with us. We're still available and here till Friday. Thank you for your time and patience. Thank you. ( Session ended at 4:31 p.m. CT ) >> MODERATOR: We're going to get started. Thanks very much everyone for coming. I know it's the end of the day, and there's a lot of fatigue and jet lag and all the rest of it. It's great to see such a full room. Just a little disclaimer. The description of the workshop in the program and schedule is slightly different over the next hour and a half. It's about approaches to advocacy. There won't be any speakers. We want it to be more interactive, so I hope you're ready to get up and move at some point. So some brief introductions. Global partners digital is an organization based in the U.K. for those who don't know us. We work globally, and we work towards building Internet policies that are more inclusive and transparent and an Internet built on democratic values and human rights principles, and I'm sure we share that with many of you, if not all of you hopefulhopefully. What we realized working towards the aims in the last few years in this field -- sometime power cuts happen but you're still heard. I'll go on. There are a number of challenges working in the field and some of them are not unique to human rights on challenges. There's never enough money or time or resources or people to do the work that we have to do. Some of those challenges are unique to this field. The shear, legal technical complexity on issues we work on. The technical complexity of the issues as well and the global scope of what we deal with where policy developments in one area have ramifications across the globe. And the very fact of the fast-changing nature of the technology we're working on as well in a world becoming increasingly digitized. So lots of challenges, but also opportunities. And that's the premise of the workshop that we proposed here. It's how do we take advantage of those opportunities, considering the resources we have and make the most of what we have to achieve what we want to achieve and over the past few days working in the field we had some insights and developed some tools and we hope to -- we will share those with you over the course of the next one and a half hours. We also hope that with the amount of expertise in this room that we can all take away lessons learned as well to inform our own avocacy going forward and that this will be a useful and constructive session for everyone. On that note I hand over to Charles. >> MODERATOR: This session is interactive. We have to disobey all safety regulations and move around chairs and tables and I hope no one is injured in the process. Really, this session is going to be about sort of extracting some of the real keep elements of strategy and what we mean by strategy and one set of framework that we built and used with a lot of partners on here. We're sort of deconstructing and sort of analyzed the eco-systems to be more effective in the work that we do. And what I'm going to do first of all do is ask Andrew the executive chair at DGJ to talk about why we need to be effective and why specifically around the human rights implications we need to be effective and efficient in the work that we do. Over to you, Andrew. >> SPEAKER: Was a major politician, I was also the advocate who secured the human rights act in the U.K. It was the first for 300 years. So I often reflect on what I learned from those two experiences, which spanned about 15 years. I think the first thing I learned is I spent the first ten years of my life trying to be the most radical person in the room. The kind of guy was a right wing sellout. I realized after ten years that I basically lost every fight that I went into. After ten years I got fed up with losing and I thought -- I want to win something, and I actually see some real change in my society, and winning something and achieving real change became more important to me than whether I felt good about myself or whether I was the most radical, principled guy in the room. The first question is if you just want to be the most radical and right-on person in the room, this is not the session for you. If you want to actually win something and achieve something and change something, that's what we're going to try and address in the course of this conversation. And I think the three kind of key things that I learned is first of all to understand the kind of change I wanted to make. What I find within the Internet policy world is Civil Society groups spend a long time formulating a position and aarriving at a rather grand, norm active policy statement, but they spend virtually no time on thinking practically about which elements you want to achieve and who they need to influence and how they want that change to happen. You often find people coming to an international conference with a position where in the conference they drew up their positions three or four months in advance, and it's impossible for government delegations to walk into an internal conference and change their position because there's a brilliantly argued Civil Society position. We have to talk to the governments five to six months in advance in all the preparatory work leading up to a conference if we want to influence how a particular international session or treaty discussion goes. So figuring out the change you want to make is really important, and if for example we want a free and open Internet with governments and businesses playing no significant role, then good luck with that. We'll see you in the 22nd century. That's not going to happen in our lifetime. So let's figure out what would be an achievable goal within the Internet policy sphere. The second part is figuring out who are the people who can make the change we want to happen? I spent two years, two whole years working on one politician in Britain. One politician. Became the development minister and resigned over the Iraq war. She played a particular sill ball lick and moral roll WN the labor party which was an advocacy target and it took two years to persuade to change her hostility from aposing it to supporting it. That two years of work of one politician did more to shift the balance of power within the British political environment than anything else we did, and she wasn't even a government politician. She was an opposition politician who occupied no formal status. So figuring out who are the people that make change, and they may not often be the most visible and important people. They may be quite low level or quite side people, people you don't recognize in the public domain. That's very important. The third part I learned here is what is their incentive to change. If you want people in power to change something, to shift their behavior, to owe to what they do, what's the incentive to do that? As a politician if I had met a delegation from Civil Society, which I did all the time, part of my calculation was always, why should I do this? If I do this for them, who else is going to impact on. What's the incentive within my political world to make the change that these guys want me to make? And understanding what the incentive is for a politician to change. What's the problem -- you want them to do something, so identify as a problem that they need to fix. Now, if you have a mass movement and you can threaten to deselect them or vote them out, that's a very powerful incentive to do what you want. Most of the Internet policy groups aren't like that. They're relatively small, and they have some moral force but they don't carry electoral weight in society. So figuring out how we present our issues in a way that solves a problem they may not know they had is one of the key things, I think, in making change. So for me the three key lessons are, figuring out what it is you actually want to achieve, secondly figuring out who needs to influence to make that change and what's the incentive to make that change. And frankly abusing them and that faith and I never found that argument too change that behavior. In fact if someone came in to me and said I was crapped, I took the view you're crapped too so why listen and engage with you. We need to modulate the tactics to actually whatever we think of them, you're interesting and decent and you have a problem and we're here to help you fix your problem. I that I found to be the most effective tactic with any politician I ever encountered. Over to you, Charles. >> MODERATOR: Thank you -- >> SPEAKER: Thank you. Does this work? It's great to see your words captured on the board behind you as well. Fantastic leadership in practice at GDP. So the big question is and coming from you're really thoughtful and insightful comments is what do we mean when we say strategic advocacy? We throw around the word strategy and advocacy as well, but it's super important to think about what we mean by advocacy and how we measure that. At the GDP we spend a lot of time thinking about that and working with partners to identify key trends and issues when we look at advocacy and understanding how to be more effective and more impactful. A couple of things that we've identified, which I'm going to put up on the screen here, is, you know, what is having a strategy enable us to do? If we could get the slides on the screen, that would be great. So it helps us to maximize our impact. Impact is some ways is a bittery term. We have to find that as well. It's really important to be sort of identifying where we go and what we want to achieve and be able to increase that with the resources that we have available. Getting full value from our activities, and the number of times we get into the activity trap. We want to do this, and we have no idea where we're going to go and how that's going to impact us in a sort of long term, and also it makes sure that we're doing the right things in the right way at the right time. These three points are really important to what we think about strategic work and that we are able to identify the exact activity in the way, the approach, the language talking about at the right times. It's timely and effective. One of the common pitfalls my team often hear me talking about the fact that a plan is not a strategy, and we often think about a strategy as a sort of set of activities. It's not. Another common pitfall that we have seen is the strategies disconnects from reality. There's a lot of analysis that needs to go into developing a strategy, and it needs to be contextualized and brought to life through the analysis and research. There's a disconnect between the analysis and the goals and then what do you do to tomorrow? What do you do in two, three, four months' time? Bad strategy doesn't define what you're not going to do. We only have so many resources, and there are only so many hours in the day. This field is complex and it's -- we suffer from the mag pie effect of shiny new issues popping up everywhere. We need to focus and think about what we're not going to be doing when we define what we are going to be doing. A bad strategy leaves assumptions left unchecked. You really need to -- every word you put in you need to understand what that means and you understand what your goal is going to be, and you know, preconceptions that we have need to be questioned as we think about it. So we've developed a tool called called the canvas that we're looking at right now before we break you up in groups for an example of it. This is the canvas, and it's apologized for that and the first part of the top is setting the goal and sort of analyzing of the context and the goal then the second part of it and that's in the objective canvas. For each objective you want to achieve is it provides analysis of the problem, sets your outcomes and does a mapping of the different processes and you're going to engage in and the different actors and and then finally showing those activities and mapping out the reSOURSresources. We're going through an example very quickly, so the goal part of the canvas is what is the long-term goal. This is an ambitious statement unrealizable in the short and medium term. An example here is cyber security laws and policies in Kenya are human rights respecting by design, so it gives you that shot of the bigger picture. In the context it's easy to describe the relationship there. What are the trends and factors behind those. The policy debates driven by increased access to the Internet. And that's why it's important for you to do it, so ensuring that you're able to protect and promote human rights online. By this point you'll complete this and before moving down to setting your first objective. So the first part of the objective setting is analyzing the problem statements and we said here what is really trying to define and what is the problem you're trying to solve. This should include information about the specific issues, the context or history of that issue, the trends so how is that issue moving in context to other things and also the driving factors behind those trends. I was actually moving those trends and moving that particular issue. So we've given an example here about the government having a duty to protect and promote human rights both on offline cyber security policies without the full impact on human rights and the policies on transparent and resulting in lack of engagement by the Civil Society. You see what you put into that analysis of the problem statement before sketching out what your first objective would be. And we use the terms smart objectives, which is specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-bound and other people use other acronyms for this. The objective here is something that you could realize within your time frame of your project or the time frame that you set out for this particular advocacy. It's to increase the openness, inclusivity and transparency in these processes by Kenya at a certain date. Outcomes, what is the specific change you want to see so there could be outcomes related to particular awareness, particular information, and/or the number of groups that increase their capacity to be able to engage in these as well as the process itself being more open and inclusive. Once the sketch it out and dig down and understand whether your objective is realistic, is achievable by doing this sort of stage that we call mapping the eco-system, which sets out in four stages. What are the processes to achieve your objective to understand when and where the decision is made is really important to be a strategic advocate. So, for example, the 2017 cyber security policy has a particular time frame. What are those deadlines? How open are those? What ability do you have to be able to input into those processes? The bit we look to do and who do I need to engage with and on what and whatever relationship do I have with them and what influence in that particular environment, so we might talk about a particular government agency, we might need to find a specific individual within the agency we'll working with. What relationship do we have with them. Who else has that relationship as well that we might want to lean on? And then also mapping out the sort of partners and contributors, so what else can help us on our wayway? Who can support the realization of our objectives and outcomes. Before thinking about other opportunities, what opportunities can help you achieve your objective so in Kenya there's a constitutional commitment to public engagement on new policies and law. That's a really important thing to be mapping out for cyber security policy we would recommend thinking about the sort of working group 1 recommendations and there's a new inclusive cyber policy-making framework we're working so if you want to increase the openness and inclusivity of that process, what are the existing languaging you can use. After you've done all of this which takes ten minutes or six years, you get down to the advocacy pathway, which is how do I connect all those dots together and set out my activities, when am I going to do them, how much does it cost me to do them by time as well as resources and how do I evaluate that? We need to set that out in three boxes so the activities and outputs are very simple like who you engage, how will you engage with them and when thinking about that time line you mapped in the processes box. The resources so how much time for the power and the resources into the activities and then two key points, and how and when will you review your path way? And say you're not moving towards your objectives and will you do that on a regular basis or when a significant change happens to the system. So there's a change in government, and there's a change in a particular actor in the government. Then how will I measure my progress towards my outcomes and my goal? How do I know when I get there how will I be able to find success and what's that like. There's some things that are already something in there, and what you need to do is break out into groups and the first activity is sort of matching the correct answer to the correct box. By the quick example which are put into envelopes and we're given a big canvas and we break you into groups and complete the canvas with all the different answers before we sort of come back in a group and share whether we got it right or not. So if I -- because we have to -- we've only got ten groups able. If we can do a group that's here and we can take one of these to one group here. If you can join into one group, and then the next group sort of from here to about you and if you can come in and join that as well, we can do that in the middle here. And then the next one, if you can do this group here to about here. Excellent. Let me take that. Great. ( Small group activity ) >> One group here if possible if you can join around and that would be excellent. That's great. Excellent. If you can do one more in the corner there. Has everyone found a group? You have have five minutes. So each slip of paper matches the box. The box is the same size or shape as the paper, so that can get confusing. They're not the same size. They're not the same size or shape. That would be very easy. You have to read the text first. ( Small group activity ) >> MODERATOR: We'll check them in full groups. We have one more minute. >> MODERATOR: Okay. Staying in your groups, we're going to go around and each group and ask for one answer from each group, and then we ask the other groups whether you agree or disagree with them, and you adegree by saying we agree. You disagree by saying nothing. Otherwise it will get a bit loud. So we're going to start with this group, and I promise you the next activity is even more fun. So if we can move on from this one, you'll literally be blowing your mind what we have been able to do in here. So we start with this group who were first and therefore got it perfectly right. So on the objective what did you have for your objective? >> The objective is to raise awareness of the impact of user's rights for the cyber security practices and policies to target business leaders by March 2017. The other objective is to develop a better and new business model with an online service provider that respect the user's rights by January 2018. >> MODERATOR: Perfect. Do we agree? If we agree we say we agree. It's correct. Well-done. No round of applause? Second group outcomes. Let's ask Kelly, what did you get for your outcomes? >> Outcomes, increase an understanding on the impact on user rights to freedom of expression and privacy of identified ISP, and telecommunications SIEB you are security practices among target private sector actors. >> MODERATOR: We agree? We agree. Yes, it's correct. Next group. Did you do one, didn't you? To this group. Problem statement. Just the first few words. What do you have. >> Issue it's on selling person data which impacted the user's right to freedom of expression and privacy. >> MODERATOR: Perfect. Do we agree? That was the easy because we set out the questions on it. A round of applause. Now WREER onto mapping eco- systems processes and decision-making. What did this group get? >> The freedom of expression and privacy standard for telcos and IPCs and how to implement the standard. Double up on implemented the targeted awareness with the standard with key details with ICC business leaders. Do we agree? You're in that group. Is there anyone that disagrees? You do. What did you have as the process in decision-making? >> The use of anonymity tools. >> INSTRUCTOR: Did anyone -- >> MODERATOR: Did anyone disagree with this one? Shout it out. Yes, yeah. It's the U.K. national action plan, so it's first and correct. They're cheating. They are cheating. So it's what's the existing process that you would engage in so the U.K. has a national action plan on human rights? It's a bit technical, so sorry for that example there. We're onto target groups and individuals. What did this group get? >> Company executives and leadership team with no previous engagement. >> MODERATOR: Perfect. Do we agree? Well-done. In that example you see that we sort of start with the company and then move to the particular area and then the individual and think about the relationship that we have the influence we have on the particular objective that we've set. This group, we're on partners and contributors. What did we get? >> We have the global network initiative, consumers international for humidity rights and business center for international private enterprise. >> MODERATOR: Perfect. Do we agree or disagree? For other impunities, what did we have here, Barbara? >> Other opportunities. >> MODERATOR: This one here. >> Other opportunities. Increase the quality and user anonymity tools. >> MODERATOR: Yeah. The one that starts with increase quality and user. Do we agree? Absolutely. And then back to this one. Advocacy pathway, and we look at activities and outputs. >> Develop a freedom of expression. >> We agree. That's what we do and what the out put of that would be basket back to Gigi on her phone and resources. What did you get for resources? >> Human resources, logistics and design. >> Resources helps with that one. It's about the human resources and the hard costs to implement that and finally we should and do that by deduction what's left and review and evaluationevaluation. >> Complete quarterly reporting most on one, two and three. Excellent. What do we think, do we agree? Excellent. Give yourself a round of applause. Fantastic. So we will have an opportunity for questions and things after the next activity. I'm going to pass over to Sheetal that will explain what we're doing next. >> MODERATOR: Put a hat on in an imaginary world or maybe not, because what we're going to ask you to do is to now use the canvas to address or to flesh out a strategy to a particular problem or issue. I'm going to read out what that issue is, if we can put it up on the slide that would be good as well. So the issue is the next IGF will be hosted by the kingdom of cyber land in November 2017. Six months before the next IGF, the organizing committee announces that it will be charging participants to attend the meeting. So it could -- I mean, it could be anything from $500 to $1,000. Either way, this is obviously a huge problem and there's huge uproar amongst the community. How does one go about it? So to help us, it would be great if you start by using this. If you have pens and pencils, all you need to do is just fill out the boxes that are already here with your plan to address this grave irissue that we are facing? Yes, please use the canvas you already have. Help. Any questions? Okay. Well, anyway we'll be coming around, so if you have any questions, please shout. >> MODERATOR: We have 15 minutes to do this and we'll ask depending on time one or two groups to present back their advocacy canvas thinking about what we mean by strategic advocacy. So all the different principles that Andrew talked about in answering -- Andrew has already started. Answering all the questions of the canvas, but thinking BU how do we correct that and change the fact that the organizing committee is going to charge for participating in the next meeting. Great. Over to you. ( Small group activity ) >> MODERATOR: So if we could start wrapping up, in 30 seconds we'll start wrapping up, 30 seconds, please. >> MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you everybody. I understand you probably haven't GT to the end of canvas, and you can't take it home and you can complete it at home if you want to. If we could just get a bit of focus as we ask a couple of groups to report back. So I'm going to start with this group. If you could talk us through your solution to the IGF charging for entry to the IGF. >> I don't think we -- I'll stand up. I don't think we made it through a solution, but we got some ideas. We all know the problem statement and our objective was to maintain an IGF free of charge, so the outcome is free participation. There's not a distinction there. We got to the process to talk to the IGF secretariat and taking it top to the top of the U.N. secretary-general we are flirting with. Then, of course, private donors, but we don't know how to bridge the gap to convince them. We want to get everybody on board and get back to talking about how the multistakeholder platform is important, but if we get everybody on board, it would be a private sectors and governments and CSOs who is making it problem HIBTive. We didn't know where to move on from there. >> MODERATOR: Excellent. Thank you very much. It's an interesting problem to have. We thought it would be one to bind us together. We come back to this group to present back on the solution. >> The whole thing? >> MODERATOR: The whole thing. >> SPEAKER: Yeah. So clearly the problem/solution is charging for entry into the IGF is problematic. It would no longer be an inclusive space for multistakeholders and many people would be left out. The overall goal is that the IGF would be all inclusive and nobody would be charged to attend. So we came up with one objective, which was to successfully advocate members of the steering committee to overturn the decision by next meeting in three months. Then the KROUT come, I think, is really what I said was the goal. So for the process and decision-making, we said that we would start by determining what the formal decision-making process is within this steering committee, and yeah, let me see what I wrote here. Yeah. We would want to find out how we can influence the committee through their next meeting, so the target groups would be the members of the steering committee and we would want to figure out who the people were on the steering committee that made the decision in the first place and why that decision was made to figure out what we're up against. So there are a number of of target groups, so the members of the steering committee, we thought the kingdom of the kingdom of cyber land might be someone who has a very fragile ego, you know? The minister of external relations, trade groups, and global commerce would be kind of contributing partners, and also those people who would be marginalized, Civil Society groups who couldn't attend the IGF if this were implemented. And then other opportunities we thought could be to look at other funders and other opportunities for fund-raising on a needs base for people that could attend. That's a last resort. We'll be successful for sure in this process. In terms of activities, this is kind of in no specific order and very random. They're tactics really. We thought we could do an online petition accompanied by a social media campaign with Civil Society groups with a common hashtag. We could do an open letter and encourage the commerce groups who would be impacted by less numbers at the IGF to participate and send their own letters. We would see if we could secure meetings with the steering committee, and we'd want to present a petition to them. If they closed us out, then we would organize a protest outside of their next meeting. That's what we've got. >> MODERATOR: That's excellent. Well-done. Great. ( Applause ) >> MODERATOR: Protests, petitions, playing on the fragile mental state on the king is an effective strategy, absolutely. One more group. We will ask you to present your strategy. >> So what do I read first? The problem statement. So charging would destroy Civil Society engagement, and that's the very purpose of the IGF, and discriminate against poor, marginalized people and organizations and even governments, you know, smaller governments would certainly not be able to do it. It would no longer be multi-stakeholder. Objective is to make it free on a long-term basis. We did talk about how a short, quick fix for the next IGF wouldn't be our goal. We'd want something more embedded about long-term accessibility. Outcomes, yeah, we'd just like to have that -- the outcome be that the core principles would be protected on a long-term basis, and that diverse participation would be protected. So processes. Meeting members of the mag and hosting U.N. abbing voc see. So targeting MAG members and we had interesting conversations about the government and about getting to know the parliamentary assistance, the policy advisers, the people behind the scene. I say that I'm a member of the European parliament, so I know kind of how it works. My staff really is far more powerful than I am, okay? And also, in the government the different departments that might have an interest in it. So if this was the U.K., it could be the development, it could be deferred but it might be education, skills, equalities, different areas. Then also talking to like-minded governments so previous IGF host countries, partners would be IGF support association, U.N. as we said hosts the countried and societies and organizations and networks. Basically we can do it ourselves, yeah. And private entities. Other opportunities. We didn't talk about that much, but I wondered about the world's social forum. I know that there's somebody here suggesting that there might be an IGF social forum, so at one stage we said if they didn't make it free, have an alternative. Threaten to take it somewhere else in a different way. Activities, training lobbyists, so members of several societies being trained to do the lobbying and supporting each other with a peer network. Sharing your successes, publishing a open letter. Meetings, meetings, meetings building that relationship. Oh, God. You have to have people in every country doing it, right? A big campaign. Lots of high-profile press to celebrate success. Time, staff, travel costs. We didn't do the review or evaluation. We just liked doing it. Okay, right. ( Applause ) >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. It's super interesting to see the different ways in which people have approached the same issue, and sort of this group identifying particular points of the problem statement more than other groups. I think the one thing that we would say is that really the problem on the surface is there's a charge to attending the IGF, but why? What was the driving factor behind that? What is that decision, and what is that called? So a lot of the problems that you define was around the lack of multi- stakeholder engagement in the IGF and what that would cause going forward. Having that more detailed and concise analysis of the program gives a different picture of what that objective might look like in the short term and who you might need to engage with, which is excellent. We've got ten more minutes, and in that I want to just ask sort of reactions and thoughts about the tool or any sort of comments that people had about using it and also if anyone has any sort of words of wisdom before we sort of leave the final session of the day as we walk into the Mexican sunset for human rights strategies and advocacy going forward. Just comments on the tool. How did you find it? We'd love feedback on it, but has this been useful and is this something we should be doing more of? Any sort of key sort of questions or lessons for us. >> AUDIENCE: Thank you. I'm Mary from Armenia, youth IGF fellow. So it was really useful, but in the beginning, as we were reading different pieces, like in the first exercise, at first we thought that we got everything correct, but then when we started thinking, we got more confused because if you are doing this for the first time, it's really difficult to differentiate between the goal and the objective. Like the outcomes are fine, but the objective and the goals seem to really be similar, but I think it's a very useful tool. We just need to train more. In terms of practical terms, I think it's useful to do this in every case FP you want to develop a strategy, because it's really -- it really breaks it down into all the important aspects that you need to take into account if you want to have a good strategy. So thank you for it. >> MODERATOR: Absolutely. There is -- we didn't provide in and should have in hindsight, with a explanatory guide that gives more detail to each box and certain questions you should ask behind the boxes. We realize unfortunately this session is all in English, and we -- the next step for us is to think about how to make it much more accessible to others as well. Any other comments? I'd be interested to see if anyone sort of approached or sort of as they thought about their activities, it changed as you went through the canvas. So when you first thought about the issue, what were you thinking about, and by the time you got to the bottom, did that change? If you want to use that mic there, that would be great. >> AUDIENCE: I thought it was interesting that we had a devil's advocate who said is it all that bad? Maybe we don't disapprove of that proposal? Maybe accept they charge and instead provide proposals for how to achieve equitable outcomes while maintaining the change in the IGF. >> MODERATOR: Absolutely. >> AUDIENCE: That didn't work in the workshop, because we didn't have early agreement on what the actual goal was. >> MODERATOR: Which is often the case. Absolutely, coming to a common understanding problem statement objective especially when we coordinate across groups and regions is really important and spending that time and investment on that stage of the process is really important. Maybe the IGF secretariat would be much more effective if they had all the money from all the ticket sales, you know? Maybe there is a longer-term outcome of the IGF if they were to charge. Anything else? Yeah. >> AUDIENCE: I thought it was a really effective use of the time and actually the first session that I've been dynamically involved in. So I think it's much better learning environment for people to do something like that. I think the way you got everything prepared before was really helpful for us to get through the exercise quite quickly in the time that we have. Thank you. >> AUDIENCE: I think this type of tool is really helpful for Civil Society groups, because as you mentioned in remarks at the beginning, I think it's common to get caught up in activities and being activity-driven because we're constantly in a reaction mode. So I think it's really important to people to take the time to step back and know if you build a strategy that you're more likely to be successful and repeating the same tactics over and over again. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Fantastic. I'm glad it was helpful. I'm going to pass it to Andrew as well. >> AUDIENCE: The observation I got is I think the rooms at the IGF really mitigate against genuine interactivity and participation. I found that every IGF I've been to, you have the tables and panels of speakers and the audience. A lot of them are coming to do your e-mail. If you want to have a conversation, you have to go to the cafe area to interact with people. I think feeding back to the secretariat when they look at space, that the spaces are flexible and can be used in different ways and not the assumption it's a bunch of experts talking at an audience that listen. There might be the opportunity for much more participation. We came into this room and said, how the hell do we run a session for a large number of people in a room like this, which is not designed to be interactive? That's what we should try to feedback to the secretariat, a different kind of space and opportunity for dialogue. >> MODERATOR: Absolutely. That was slightly terrifying five minutes before we walked in. Four rows deep, and here we go. Anything else before we wrap up? >> AUDIENCE: I just applaud the people that stayed to actually do the activity. You notice half the room was like I have to do work? Ran out. So kudos to everyone that stayed and great work doing this. Thanks. >> MODERATOR: Great. So myself, Sheetal, Andrew, Danny and Lara are here and we're happy to answer questions on it or if you want materials please ask us. We'd love to share more and thank you again so much for your active participation. I've learned a Loy about how to get free tickets to things in this process. Thank you very much indeed. Cheers. ( Session ended at 5:54 p.m. CT ) Copyright © 2016 Show/Hide Header