You are connected to event: >> 12/7/16. Number 17 Copyright and Disabilities. >> Yes, I can hear you. Please turn up volume a little bit, if you can. . >> 12/7/16. >> 12/7/16. Number 17 Copyright and Disabilities. Room 9 test test into. >> 12/7/16. Number 17 Copyright and Disabilities. Room 9 >> MODERATOR: Good morning, everyone, well going to start in a couple of minutes. Welcome. I see familiar faces this morning so thank you very much for taking the time to come to this on Jipo. My name is Christine, I think many of you know me, I work for the European Commission in the G connect. I am the head of the sector responsible for Internet Governance and stakeholder engagement. I'm here with cassia Yakimovich. She is responsible for strategic stakeholder engagement for Jipo and European affairs manager at open evidence. >> And to my left is Andrea Director at Internet relations Center for Internet and global policy, University of Car diff. Andrea is also a member of the Advisory Group for JIPO. The idea of the Open Forum is to present to you what the global Internet policy observatory is, show you how you can connect your website to JIPO so that you can enrich it with new useful functionalities. I would like to have a feeling, I mean, understood to make the section useful I think many of you have participated in sessions on JIPO. Can I maybe ask you to briefly raise your hand it's you already know what JIPO is and if you have already explored the tool? Still a few newcomers, I hope that you will find this presentation useful. We actually presented gip poo at the last IGF in Brazil. It was one year ago, and at that time we were really at the initial stage in the development of the tool. Since then a number of improvements and additional features have been added. Also thanks to the input we have got from stakeholders whom we have been consulting all the way long. So what I would like to do before I give the floor to cassia and Andrea is to really briefly explain why the European Commission is developing this tool and why I think this is an important practical contribution in vade answering the multistakeholder model of Internet Governance, especially now in the current landscape after the IANA transition to the global community, and the new and extended mandate of the IGF. Internet Governance as you all know is becoming everywhere in the world an important political priority. We have seen an intensification of the debates in a number of fora and venues in a different levels, local, national, regional, global and we could say that Internet Governance is now at a turning point as the Internet becomes more and more embedded in all aspects of our life. We are at the beginning of what will be, what will become the Internet of Things. We see that artificial intelligence will arrive, block chain technologies, a whole series of new challenges also for Internet Governance. And how can these challenges be addressed? We know that Internet Governance is a complex subject matter, and also the multistakeholder approach to address these challenges has, we could say broad consensus with some exceptions, of course, but in general there is consensus that the multistakeholder model is the, offers the right to model to address the complexity of these issues because why? Because all stakeholders can contribute and participate. At the same time, we see the need to improve and strengthen this model. One important aspect I would say is to make it more inclusive and more balanced. And that means more stakeholders from different groups and from more countries. And I think we can all agree that when you have, when you have the resources, the financial resources, the time resources to get the information required, you have anedded value -- an added value, you have an advantage and those who do not have that are left behind. This is something that somehow should be improved and corrected in the multistakeholder approach to Internet Governance. So a barrier to overcome is the problem of finding the right and relevant quality information that different stakeholders need to access. And in this sense we think that JIPO can play a useful role thanks to its capacity to perform a real time monitoring analysis and information sharing functions. JIPO is a tool for everybody. The European Commission is developing it, but it intends to give it to the global community without necessarily being the final or sole owner of the tool. Now, we are in the final stages of the development. The tool uses open source technology as much as possible. It relies on automation as much as possible, and the way in which it operates is fully transparent. You can see how the filters work, what the sources are, et cetera. And it is also relying on the knowledge of the users who can provide additional sources and can interact with the tool in different ways, but I think that this is just enough as an introduction. I think the most important thing is to have a look at the tool, and then hopefully we will have some time for discussions and questions. So cassia, you have the floor. Thank you. >> Casia: Because not all of you have seen it so far so we will try to focus on showing it a little bit, but I'm going to try not to go through all of the slides then because some of them are a direct repetition of what Christine already spoke about. So when JIPO started last year, we, we have identified initiatives in our first survey because we wanted to see what the landscape is and how we can actually accommodate the needs of different stakeholders, so we managed to map 33 initiatives and what we have seen is it that stakeholders represent a broad range of organisations. And these are various types of initiatives. These are not observatories and mapping reports. This is networks of centers, and research reports. There is the stakeholders are very diverse, diverse geographically, but also they cover different thematic coverage of Internet Governance policy topics. What is very important what we discover is that most of the initiatives are very small and will meet limited funding and limited human resources, so at the same time almost all of them require human curation so that's a challenge because it's a resource intensive task. So this is what we have learned. This is some examples of the initiatives that we were analyzing. So as Christina mentioned JIPO is an automated tool that has needs of other platforms and uses as its centre focus so this is why we are mapping other initiatives so we are looking at a broader perspective and we consider other stakeholders as also stakeholders for JIPO. So it is adopting a federation approach as Christina said. What is meant by that? Machine class case. We are not yet another observe for in so the stakeholders are expected to contribute further to improve the tool so it's like a two-way approach. We are aiming to be inclusive and global and local at the same time maybe I'm going to stress this theme because we are going to relate to it later on. One of the objectives of JIPO is developing a sustainable basis for collaboration between online observatories and other networks for a long-term perspective and this is why we analyze these main areas of pending needs for cooperation between observatories and stakeholders. So moving to the observatory tool itself. So this is the link to the JIPO observatory tool. You can connect to it on your own computer maybe it's easier this way. I'm going to try to do it here, but I don't know whether we will see it on the screen. May I ask the technical team to help us show the tool on the screen. We are trying to show the tool to the public on the screen. Can you help us? Unfortunately we cannot show it to you. >> One moment while we are solving the technical problem, maybeky also make a short remark in the transcript. In the transcript JIPO is spelled with a J and it should be spelled with a G. So I will do it for you now. So you will see on the screen, can I show it one more time if it's possible? So this is the, this is the link to the, to the tool itself. I encourage you to look it up on mobile or on your computer so if you access the tool, you will see that there are three options so first of all, you can, you are going to try to go through it. I'm going to use the presentation to do it, but now I see -- we have a real problem with the presentation. So I will show you how it looks not on line. So as you can see, you can see the tool, you can browse by different issues. The issues are structure around the taxonomy, we use the taxonomy of other experience initiatives, dip plo foundation and we -- DiploFoundation and we decided to base it on this one. You will see that you have different options so you can browse through different issues, but you can also browse for different tasks depending on the topic in question. The GIPO observatory tool has additional function. It allows you to visualize and customize the information. That you can find when you click on dashboard. It's on the top right side of the GIPO tool. So this is how it looks. I'm showing it right now on the screen. This is one of the screen shots, but you can actually see that you have the option to choose the word coverage so it doesn't have to be the map of the whole world. It can be a map of Africa or Europe. You can choose the topics of your interest by search queries, you can also observe if you go to the bottom of the dashboard, you are going to see how frequent different topics were mentioned across different areas and issues. So what the dashboard helps you to do, it helps you to spot the burning issues of the day, the search of topics of your interest and allows you to see in which countries and regions your topics or unfolding most often in the time of your search. Here you have also the link to the dashboard itself. You can check it out. But what GIPO Observatory Tool allows is to have options and create tailor-made observations for different stakeholders. So as you can see here, depending on the skills that different stakeholders have, they can use different functionalities of GIPO. So with basic HTML skills you have RSS feed option, then if you have basic developer skills you can have AP and developers and for advanced developers you can use advanced functionalities. And I will try to cover it a little bit. What we actually are providing is the ability to connect the tool to your website. So using RSS feeds and the GIPO app, you can customize GIPO functionalities according to your interest. Now, how to do it exactly, you can also go to the GIPO tool and on the hndz you have an open data section, and then you have the explanation of how exactly to do that. So if you, if you, after this presentation you still have problems, I encourage you to go there. But in general, for the first option, every page has an RSS feed and it is embedded in a website. Here is the example how you can embed it. You can create kind of like your own small observatory on your website. So you can use GIPO observatory tool to automate it, and incorporate it into existing website. So it can help you to actually focus on curation of information rather than searching for it, and at the same time, you have a live feed of the information that you can provide to your users. And how can you do that? You can copy the link of the RSS feed, you with base the link into the RSS Widget and put it into the code of your home page. We have is option of advanced API. We will not go into details because it's complicated but it allows you to fully customize to your own needs. It allows you also to create new products based on GIPO observatory tool, some mobile applications, the world is full of opportunities. It actually depends on your creativity how you want to use it. So we are going to show you the example of the customized dashboard. I told you that the dashboard can be customized to stakeholders' needs. So this example was done forget with the African Civil Society on Information Society. Forget with them we customized the GIPO observatory tool to, and put it into the website to monitor Internet Governance policy in Africa. So this is how it looks. As you can see, the dashboard changed a little bit, so it only covers African area. I would show it to you live, but unfortunately right now I cannot. But I encourage you to go into the access website and here you should be able to see the customized dashboard as well. So what are the next steps for GIPO right know? >> What we are trying to do we are focusing on continually developing the tool, releasing improved versions. As you can see, this is not the end of the project. We still have one year to go. And this is a process. This is a continuing process of improvement based on stakeholder's comments. We are continuing to promoting the tool to stakeholder to all of you still feel that a lot of people need to know about it. We really want to continue to be amore than observatories and one of the important issues to insure the sustainability of the tool in the future and I think maybe Christina will talk more about it. We have some first initial collaborations, talks with IGF and we already even deployed some kind of pilot with them, but I'm going to let Christina to cover the topic later on. So one more thing because Christina told you that we are relying on stakeholders also goes for the improvement of the tool and provision of sources. On the GIPO observatory tool website, on the right-hand side you can see the section for sources. You can see all of the sources that are there, and you can add to additional sources. We still need your help in improving the tool and please, if you see that something is missing, tell us about it. >> Christine: Thank you cassia. I will come back later on what you mentioned about the future sustainability of the tool. I would like first to give the floor to Andrea and maybe in the meantime you could check if we managed to have access to the tool so that we can play with it while we discuss about it. So thank you. Andrea, the floor is yours. >> ANDREA: Thank you Christina and. I am Andrea Codorp Director of Center for digital politics and university. I am pleased to serve as member of Advisory Group for GIPO. It might be worth to spend a few words on the role of the Advisory Group which has a key component of the observatory. The Advisory Group has the role to advise, of course, the development of the platform and also to feed the platform with contents about Internet policy developments happening worldwide. Because of this, members of the Advisory Group have been selected based on their expertise and passion for Internet Governance issues, but also based on their geographical distribution, meaning that we do have members based in Australia and North America, Latin America and so on. The idea is, of course, to gather information about policy developments happening in each region, and at the same time to bring the global, the platform to the ground to link, to facilitate links between the development of the platform with what is happening, again, on the ground. And these, of course, are important because it says a lot about the nature of GIPO that it's a initiative conceived and supported by the European Commission, but it is a tool that expects as ambition to be platform useful for the global Internet Governance community. And the role, of course, of GIPO is to map as we said all of the fragmented discourse around the Internet Governance. Internet Governance I believe most of the people in the room agree it has become more complex day by day than ten years ago when the conversation was clustered around thinking about the first World Summit Information Society, the Internet Governance debate was led by industrialized and most important already connected countries. So there was more discussion where about how to connect countries instead of discussing how to regulate it the Internet. Ten years after we know that most countries are likely now connected, and this is a great news, and this, of course, increased the number of actors involved in the debate, which is a good thing. So and at the same time it boosted a lot of production of documents or regulatory initiatives and policy documents feeding and animating the Internet Governance. At the same time we know that the number of events have increased a lot. We discussed Internet Governance, which is a good thing because it brings the debate to the ground and may easier facilitate the link between the Internet Governance negotiations and debate with the different communities, but at the same time have made the amount of information and making the debate somehow unmanageable or it's going to be difficult to be managed especially from people, from new actors, actors that expect to try to catch up with this discussion, with the debate, and try to understand how speak up and occupy taking a role in such a negotiation and so on. So the idea of GIPO is not to produce new documents and not to produce now how-toes and guidelines because we do have enormous amounts of documentation and this information is likely available on line, but to make the information more usable and more accessible and to somehow facilitate the, again, a community to increasingly occupy a role in such a discussion, global discussion. So because of this it isn't mean that GIPO is doing this, still is there is a lot of work to do from a technical aspect, technical perspective, but also with, anyway, it's important to understand that GIPO is also fed by the users themselves in terms of increasing the numbers of sources that GIPO can rely on so that, of course, is really important always to bear in mind. In terms of sustainability, of course, there is said that there are many things to do from a technical perspective, but also GIPO needs to also stay alive over time which is important. We know that most of the problems, there are likely a lot of problems around which is a great thing, again, the good element of GIPO is that it somehow is sustainable because it's a crawler, so it doesn't need the many people like man power to feed the platform. And but at the same time, again, it needs to be sustainable in long term. So we know that most of the times when there is a project, people are excited about it, they invest energy and passion and but after a bit this project tends to disappear. And so that's something that cannot really happen with GIPO. So this is, the challenge over the next year is this project and the discussion that is happening and that's it from my side for the moment.. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. Andrea. I think we are going to open the floor for questions, remarks, and discussion. In the meantime, we manage to project the tool on the screens. I don't know, cassia, if you want to briefly say something because I was hoping that to show really the tool. I think that's the most important thing. We can talk and talk, but it's important to have a look at the tool and understand how it works and what could be most interesting for you as well. >> Casia: So briefly, I will show you the tool itself. Let's go to home to show you the first page. So this is the first page of the GIPO tool. You can broad through different issues so let's click, threats go through the journey, for example. So you see the number of all of the results so far. Then on your right-hand side, you are going to see the other issues but you are also going to see the talks so how the information structure according to different talks. If you look at the results you will always see the source and the GIPO observatory tool will link you to the initial sort and then you will see the tacts used for the information. The information is structured along the tacts so you have two levels of taxonomy. So you have the issues, the basic structure, and then each of the topics is actually tax and the tax are assigned to different issues. So the underlying structure are always tax. You can also search for information depending on, so I can click on some tax. You are going to see how many results of the specific tax. And it would be the economic issue. Now, we can also narrow search and go for specific regions so we can see how this information shapes for Europe. So moving on, what I also showed you is the dashboard. So it's a little bit more dynamic way of showing information. I mentioned that you can actually customize it so I'm going to try to customize it for you right now. This is how it looks on the GIPO Internet observatory tool, but you can also decide what you want to have inside or not so you can have search results here. You can decide which queries you want to have or not, and then you can decide which kind of dashboard elements you want to have or not. I'm going to try to show unif possible. Then you can structure it. It's not going to be very organized right now, but I will show you that you can decide which kind of elements you want to have on your side so you don't have to have everything there. Now, we don't want to see the whole thing. We mentioned Africa before. We can go to Africa one more time. As you see for Net Neutrality, we don't have too much information. But that was for Africa and then we see the time, so we can see what is over time. And then it shows you the results. You can check how many ruches are for specific countries in the specific topic. Then you can still limit your choices, and then you can decide how the information is displayed as well. You can export the information by clicking this button, or you can configure the information so, for example, I can decide that on my website I'm going to I just want to have, for example, ten information per page and it's expanding and it's crawling. So when you go down, you will see also how the search results by issues are shaping, so it's kind of a small, and you can see what are the most frequent acts characterizing the issue. But we can also as I told you before decide that this is not something that we want to have, and we can move it around. So this is a more fun visual side to show you how you can actually use the tool if you want to incorporate it into your website. We did it for Africa. I'm going to search for the one that is -- it was this website, here is what we have on African Internet of observatory. This was done in cooperation with axis using the GIPO observatory dashboard. Now, let's come back. I mentioned there are different other options just to show you what I was mentioning before. You can add sources. So here is the list of sources, you can see what is inside and you can add also sources. It's very important to remember that this is an automated tool so you are going to ask yourself why some sources are not there. We are trying to make this tool as automated as possible. That means that the sources have to be in the machine readable format. It's a kind of education process for us also to tell all of the observatories mapping initiatives or repositories that they should provide information in the machine format for the reuse of other observatories for synergies of the future. Now, I mentioned also open data. So hire you are going to have all of the information on how to use RSS feeds, APIs, et cetera, so you can use this link to get technical details and we also provide support. You can get the get started guide which is available in English here. One person thing that was mentioned when we were working on the GIPO observatory tool that there is a need for local lank wages. So initially the tool was meant owns for two languages, English and Spanish but we decided to expand this option. We are not translating all of the information, but we are providing the option for very easy translation of information. So if you are in a country where you cannot use English or Spanish, you can also use other languages. I don't know whether it's on the website, but there is going to be an explanation how to do it very soon. >> MODERATOR: Thank you, cassia and just pinning all on the last point on languages, we also have French. It is really to provide the tool in the six official UN languages that includes Chinese and Russian. This poses some challenges but the idea is that the tool, that the interface is multilingo and all of the metadata, the tags and all of the information that the tool provides automatically will be in these different languages, not the content itself that the tool is going to collect and analyze. I hope you have an idea of the potentialities of this tool. There are other functions that we could not go into too much detail, but I invite you to explore the tool. One important aspect is that the GIPO tool is sort of the engine, the tool that really collects the information from the sources, and automatically analyzes it. That means assigns, tags, and puts information in different cat fores and the dashboard is the visualization, the visual display of that information and it happens in real time. So I would now like to open the floor if there are any comments, discussions, and also my colleague wants to make an announcement more than anything else because we are going to keep presenting and discussing GIPO also in other important Internet Governance venues, but maybe first we could open the floor, see if anybody would like to come in. >> AUDIENCE: My name is Clare and I work for Google. I have a question, do you have statistics on the use of the flat form? Do you know in which country it's mostly used and which other countries may may be lagging behind in the use. >> Casia: We don't have it now but we can send it later on, the GIPO tool is in the development phase so until very recently the number of sources was not very big in size. So we are in the stage where we are really working on the quality of sources. It's already a huge number of sources and now it's, it's starting to be used, but I can share the information. I need to ask technical team. >> MODERATOR: No more questions, remarks? You are shy? Otherwise we can go on and explain how while we were developing GIPO, we realized that many other platforms and initiatives are, you know, mushrooming in the Internet Governance environment, and so the fact that it took us some time also to get this project rolling and to start with the development, it allowed us to really understand what the other observatories are, were doing, the other initiatives and try to find synergies and not to duplicate our work and our efforts. And I think this has been a very fruitful and useful experience, and I think tomorrow there is going to be another session on the interaction that we had with among different similar but different initiatives which in the end are trying to make use of the ICT and of the Internet facilitate our work as we have to address Internet Governance issues. So, of course, all of these initiatives have different purposes, different objectives depending on their focus, but I think also it has been very useful to exchange best practices and to see how do you deal with these very technical and practical issues and can we learn from your experience and then move forward? So I think that was also a very interesting experience. Do we have somebody participating remotely? Yes. >> . The question is how can we contribute at GIPO what is procedure? How can we contribute to GIPO and what is the procedure for doing it? >> MODERATOR: I don't know what kind of initiative was asking actually depending on the stakeholder, but if you want to cooperate with us you can always on a more strategic basis you can contact me or GIPO team for further contributions and, of course, you can also contribute by adding the tool, adding the sources to the tool and using the tool and deploying it on your website as well, but in terms of strategic collaboration and further developments and help in deploying the tool, you can contact me. I'm going to give you the address at the very end of the presentation. Mother question? >> Casia: Maybe I can ask that the involvement of users is very important because they can tell us what they like and don't like and how we can make the tool even better for their needs, and then simply spreading the information because the more people who will go to this tool, then the use, the more useful it will become. So just a point on that. And then if there are no other specific questions or remarks, please feel free to jump in or to interrupt me. Yes, question? >> AUDIENCE: My name is case gay I'm associate professor after university. I'm teaching linguistics there. Can you do cross language statics on a specific issue, a topic? Say, if some issue is discussed in many languages, I want to know the statistic, total statistics rather than statistics for each language? So if, say, some topic is discussed in Russian, some topic is discussed in Chinese and English and French. So I want to aggregate the statistics if that's available, that would be very good. >> MODERATOR: I think it's a very, very interesting and relevant question. I'm not sure I have the answer. This is something we should check for sure. I know that, for instance, from my point of view as a user, I would find interesting to be able to navigate content which is, for instance, in Chinese, a language I don't speak and I don't understand, but to have an idea of what are the main issues being addressed? What are the main topics? And so in one language even if it's not my language, I could get useful data and information about the cross language element, I think it's very useful and I would need to check with our technical team and definitely I think it's something useful. Orc wise you would need to -- otherwise you would need to first do research in one language and another language and so on. So maybe the tool already has the capability to do the cross language analysis, but I would need to check. Thank you for the question.. >> AUDIENCE: I actually think that it does. It does this, I mean, the platform is designed to recognize metadata across multiple languages. And the five or six, the six languages for sure and the idea is to expand the number of languages. So when you are going on the dashboard, you can see already in the map. In the map that was shown before, the color of the country is, of course, based on the number of times, number of documents existing on the specific issues related to that specific country. So the map doesn't show exactly the percentage but the color is end dickitive of the percentage. So that's one of the main utility of GIPO is to recognize and to compare how, for example, the issues of Net Neutrality is discussed, how many documents consider Net Neutrality and in a specific context is discussed worldwide. Probably one of the things of GIPO is in the long term to include some linguistic nguistic entity with expertise. >> AUDIENCE: Mark hover, U.K. Government, thanks very much Christina and the team for presenting the update on the development of this very important tool as it's now launching. I have two questions. First of all, cooperation with other observatories, and certainly I would support the sharing of best practice about observatories and how they can manage and collect data and make it more accessible and facilitate and maintain the visibility of information about specific initiatives. I have just come from a meeting in Strasbourg, the audio video observatory there associated with the Council of Europe. Is there, for example, an opportunity to develop some cooperation there because they have long experience with that observatory, so a comment about that would be useful to know, particularly in context of Human Rights and so on. And secondly, this strikes me as a very valuable tool for the national and regional Internet Governance Forums that we are well aware of across the world. Would the individual national regional IGFs be able to use this and tailor their use of it to improve their access as they are identifying issues and developing dialogue on specific issues, this tool would, I think, greatly enhance their understanding of what's going on elsewhere. Do you have a developing approach to insure that this is picked up by all of the national and regional IGFs? Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you, Mark, for your remarks. On your last question, absolutely, yes. They can do it and they can do it the national and regional IGFs if they have a platform, they can embed the tool in a very, very easy way. They can do it like, you know, we did it also with the African association, but it really required like one day to do it or even less. One hour. Okay. So it's really easy. >> CASIA: We deployed is with the Internet Governance Forum payment as well so it's really a very quick fix. >> MODERATOR: In that sense, maybe just to connect to what you were saying at the beginning, is in the sense we see the IGF, the global Internet Governance Forum as the idea house for GIPO because of the connects with the national and regional IGFs.. So in that sense that is why we are discussing this with the IGF Secretariat and people at UN/DESA. They are interested because as IGF has ten more years or nine, I don't know, nine more years, they also need the tools and to be up to date with new developments. So IGF has now a new website. They are already testing the API, which is the most advanced feature that we currently have, and it worked well. So now we are discussing, you know, how we could possibly have this transfer of ownership of the tool. So let's see, I think this would be the ideal solution really for the global community. We are also aware that things are also not always easy because of the complexity of the IGF Secretariat and structure but also us as European Commission. So we are looking at possible alternatives. So that's where we are at the moment. But in any case, national and regional IGFs can already connect no matter where the tool will be hosted. So, and it will not, you know, there are no specific requirements concerning a server or a space or whatever. They just have a link to the tool which is embedded in their website. So it's a very light solution. >> cassia: Thank you very much for the questions. One of the achievements of GIPO initiative is that we connect it all together with other initiatives. We all connected together. We initiated the process last year. We the the first --ed the first meeting and mapping of all of the observatories, the mapping initiatives, and then 12 different observatories participated. I invite you to the meeting tomorrow at the same time at 9:00 when all of the, when four observatories initiatives come together to discuss the new mapping of the initiatives. So we are trying to connect everybody together to find new suspects and educate each other about, on the possibilities of further cooperation. So tomorrow at 9:00. >> MODERATOR: And also just to conclude on your first question, and I don't recall the exact name of the audio visual observatory. We are in touch with them as well so we have already discussed with them how we can work together, and also to conclude there will be more opportunities to discuss about GIPO, to see how it works and for sure we will be arranging more discussions also in the context of the EuroDIG meeting next year. So my colleague, maybe, would like to say the dates and the venue of next EuroDIG. Thank you. >> Casia: Thank you very much. I am happy to invite you to come to Thailand in June 2017. EuroDIG. It's the tenth anniversary of EuroDIG so it's very important meeting. All of the information is available on the website of EuroDIG which is EuroDIG.org and also the flyers which we just distributed, is there you will also find all of the most important dates on the way to EuroDIG because everybody is invited to contribute already now there are calls for issues open on the website and there are some important meetings and benchmarks also until the 6 and 7 of June when it takes place. So and there is also, there is also a quiz, the lottery will take place tomorrow evening. The main prize is a trip to Thailand so it's worth it to try to make the quiz. All of the questions are not the most easy, but that's why it's especially good. I don't know if you have any questions. Please do not hesitate to approach me later, and ask, and we also are here together with the Secretary-General of EuroDIG. So we are both very much available to answer to all of your questions later and during IGF. And the registration is open for also for the 31st of January meeting. All participants all over Europe and more are invited, and the call for issues is open until 31st of December, so please just take a minute and present your issue on the website, something that you would like to see and hear to be discussed during the EuroDIG. So thank you very much. >> AUDIENCE: The prize said trip to Thailand. So I think. >> It should be corrected, trip to Talin, the capital of Estonia. Less exotic but it's the best time to be there in June. Thanks. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much.. (Concluded at 1 10:00). >> MODERATOR: Good morning, how are we feeling today. So for the next hour and a half -- I'm sorry, we have to wait. >> MODERATOR: So hello and welcome to the session that is aiming to have a conversation and share with you a little bit about the work of the Best Practice Forum on gender and access. That we have been doing for the past year. My name is Jac, I'm with the Association for Progressive Communications and I'm also co-organising this BPF together with ren at a. We have with us a really excellent lineup of discussants who have done a lot of work in this area and we are very excited to also hear what they have to say and share and engage with us in terms of some of the key finding from the BPF, and as we are talking the methodology as well, you will be able to see actually the amount of people who have actually also contributed to some of this work and we are quite excited about it. Okay. So we have with us Clare Sipto from SMA. As well as youth observe story. Lose ease Marie Louis Marie Hurel, we have Alison Gillwald from research ICT Africa, Ritu Strivastava as well as Peter bloom, Mexico, and door even from ITU who may be replaced by Prita in a bit. Hopefully you can join us for a while. Okay. So what we will do is we will present to you some of the key findings and then invite discussants to engage with pieces of it as we go along and hopefully -- I'm bad with time management so I'm looking to anry, please tell me. So hopefully we will have time to have a broader conversation about the discussion with everybody here because I'm sure you have a lot of input to give. So R amendment nata do you want to introduce the BPF in the mandate. >> RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO: Hi, I hope you can hear me okay. I am ren at a, I am from Brazil and with Jac and all of the wonderful volunteers here we are part of the BPF gender which is an intersessional work of the IGF. This means that we are a year long work. We focus on specific themes related to gender. The The BPF started already started in 2015 with a focus on violence against women on line, and ways to, a roadmap of ways to fight against violence against women. And in 2016 our focus was gender and access, how to connect the next billion of people in the world having in mind that 600 million of those are women unconnected in the world, and we have articulated this work with national and regional initiatives. So Brazil IGF, LAC IGF, Asia-Pacific IGF, and many other contributors. It is a pleasure to have you all here today, and to show some of our work on our report which is currently on IGF review platform that you can all follow the intersessional work and comment and give your feedback. So thank you very much. >> MODERATOR: Thanks rine at a. Anri would you share about how we came about this. >> ANRI VAN DER SPUY: I'm Anri van der Spuy I'm from South Africa and the rapporteur appointed to help this initiative last year and this year. Maybe I think Renata touched on this, just to provide context on how this fits into the IGF world, the IGF a couple of years ago decided to do intersessional activities with the aim of having more tangible outputs. One of the suggestions was to have Best Practice Forums on topics that were pertinent or are pertinent to the future of the Internet. And about two years ago I think Jac advocated for a more gender related topic in the IGF. And last year as Renatas with mentioning we had the first Best Practice Forum on gender and that looked at online abuse and gender-based violence. A lot of you were involve in that process. We produced quite a substantive report at the end of last year and this report also to some subsequent folds on that. It is a different topic but it is related. So in general that's how it fit news the IGF. BPFs, Best Practice Forums are free to adopt their own methodology so that's an interesting part as lock as they ascribe to the normal IGF values of being multistakeholder and bottom up and inclusive. So in general, that's what we have tried to do as much in the past two years is to have as many participants from different regions and you will see through our methodology which is informal, we try to bring in participants at different stages of the process. So the best practice form rum this year uses a very similar process than we did last year in terms of having dedicated mailing list where we try to involve more people. We had a section on the IGF website. We still have the section where we provided regular updates and what the Best Practice Forum was doing. And I think one of the things that sort of keeps the momentum through the year is regular virtual meetings. >> So every two weeks we had a meeting of approximately an hour where we discussed what we would be doing. So the process was really community-driven and in the meetings we would decide what the next steps are, et cetera. Because a lot of people don't have the time to join meetings every two weeks we also have other processes to enable people to join at different phases of work. One of the biggest parts we have done last year and this year was to have a survey distributed to various mailing lists. We reached out to people directly to provide us inputs. This year we had 76 responses and for some people that might not sound like a lot, but in the IGF world that is quite a lot. 43% were from Civil Society which I think is probably to be expected considering the theme. We also had more from the technology sector this year. I think last year it was 2%, this year 12%. Still not enough. What is interesting this year is we had a lot of input from not only individuals but also companies and organisations working in the field. So foundation, learn Asia, et cetera. So that was great submitting reports, et cetera. So there was a lot more collaboration in different phases. The other interesting thing about the survey was the regional diversity and input came from Developing Countries which was great to us. 37% were from Latin America, 21% under Africa and it wasn't like all of those respondents were from one country. They were from diversity of countries. This isn't representative at all, but it provides an interesting sort of sample of what's going on around the world in terms of this issue. In addition to the surveys, we also had case studies so poem who couldn't join the meetings could submit background information about initiatives they are running around getting more women on line, and that's actually ongoing. And we used something new this year which I think worked really well, and Renata was fundamental in launching that is having more participation at national regional IGF initiatives. So we organized a couple of meetingsality I think it was Brazil IGF, LAC IGF, and one at APrIGF, the Asia-Pacific IGF, sorry for the acronyms. That was great in sort of gathering stories from different regions and a lot of narratives. So after all of these processes what we do is try to draft a report considering all of this input, and that report is then published on the IGF review platform. It was published about a month ago, the first one, and then we get comments, we collect the comments and analyze and incorporate them to produce the second draft. The second draft is currently on the IGF review platform so feel free to comment on that. We will incorporate those comments in the final draft. That's where we are at, thanks, Jac. >> JAC SM KEE: As you can tell we have been busy in the past year and there has been a lot of contribution, a lot of the BPF communities who participated in this room who have not been named so far, but you can see the full list in the report. So why did we decide to address gender and access? As you can sell, BPF looks at particular topics and we decided that having a BPF on gender is critical. Why are we looking at gender and access? One is to make the link between Sustainable Development Goals and the work of the figure. This is something you have also been hearing in different spaces throughout the IGF this year, and the SDGs, goal 9 is talking access to ICTs and goal 5 talks about the need to empower women, and within that goal C I believe is the one taken to ICTs towards empowerment. So that frames the question around this. Gosh, my mouth went faster than my brain. I suddenly had to pause which means I have to slow down. I will slow down. So one is to make the link with SDGs and the other is to recognize that there has been a lot of good work done in this area. In the past, I think, at least ten years a lot has really been addressing the gender digital gap and this is an opportunity to both look at the work and sort of map out, okay, this is what is happening right now, let's try to aggregate them to some extent and let's see what the work that can be distributed toward the BPF toward this field and we decided to focus on two things because it's the one-year period and it's a massive complicated universe. We decided to focus on, one, looking at barriers to access, what could the barriers be specifically, as well as to map out initiatives that have been done to try and address some of the barriers to access, so to also try and map out what are the current initiatives and how the initiatives address specific barriers to access that we have identified. This is the work we try to do in this year. And so as you were talking about access, what do we mean? We mean we are just talking about not just access for who, but access for what. So does access contribute to the improvement of women's lives and what does this mean? How can this actually translate into that piece? So if you don't see -- so one of the things we noticed in looking at the research and also in having this conversation is this notion of a value lag. So if you don't see the value of accessing the Internet to your lives, then even if you gave out free laptops, et cetera, you are not going to take it on. It's not going to matter to you. It's an additional thing you have to take on rather than something that is going to add value to your life. So especially for women given the actual realities and context that they have is multiple responsibilities, not a lot of time, different kind of socialization expectation, this value lag becomes an important thing to think about. How do you then think about what does this mean? How do you actually pinpoint value to accessing the Internet? And it's an interesting area for further research, I suppose, in terms of identifying the factors toward this. And one more than thing about thinking about meaningful access and addressing the value lag as well is you flip the positionalty of women not just looking at them as users of technology, but as active participants of technology. So you not only will think about, okay, I should spend some amount of my time and money into accessing technology, but also in terms of shaping and defending it, and that sort of matters quite a lot. For example, in the research that we did in APC around on the issue of sexuality and the Internet, for a lot of people who have been discriminated on the basis of their sexuality, access to technology becomes an important thing because a very valuable thing for them in terms of their personal lives as well as their ability to participate in public life. So they look at access not just as a point of, okay, I need to be able to access the Internet for economic empowerment, for example, but then you also then become invested in defending and promoting and shaping the kind of Internet that you want, and that sort of bricks in the whole loop -- brings in the whole loop. So one of the key findings, one of the main things that popped up in the BPF work is that context matters as with all kinds of research really context is a very, very important thing that affects and influences a variety of things in relation to access. This, of course, then presents a bit of a research challenge because as you are doing research in very specific context and trying to pull out the specificity of the context so between rural, urban, et cetera, schou are you able to extrapolate this so you can learn best lessons or how are you able to compare between various factors? How does this, how do we address this in terms of trying to understand this issue more when actually context is at the heart of it. We have to start from context itself otherwise we will end up with a lot of missed assumptions in terms of trying to think about this this issue. The other thing is that renal on matters. We -- region matters. We collected a lot of case studies and toys from various research from Anry from Latin America and Asia and some things are similar but some things are quite -- I want to encourage you to have a look at the reports and then comment the hell out of it. So please put in stuff. The other thing that we observed that is an important factor is also about age. So age differences not just in terms of young people but older women so the life cycle of ages and different challenges that present itself in interprets of barriers from young women itself to different ages in life. And finally, one thing that sort of came up that we didn't go so much in depth into in the report because as we are having conversations about it, things do tend to come up is the point of access. So are we talking about community access or are we talking about individual access? And then what does this mean when you have these two different points? When you are thinking about solutions or you are thinking about trying to understand the problem? And this is where it becomes interesting also when you add agenda into it because of the kind of socialization and factors that matters at both points in terms of individual level as well as at community level and how do you encourage ownership, you know, ownership and control over the devices itself and the distribution, value, so on. Okay. So a quick -- oh, this is the older slide. It doesn't matter, you can look at the report but what we wanted to show you was a quick-over view on the survey just so that you can see how respondents look, which barrier did they see as most important or most significant and most impactful and so on? As we are trying to figure this out. We looked at existing research that's been done, we pulled out factors and variables that has been identified. It's the right one. It's just me then. And then we sort of grouped them into different kinds of different categories. Let me see if I have it here. So one of the categories was culture and norms, the other was in terms of barriers, categories of garriers of access. Women's ability to participate in decision making roles in relation, in decision making roles, lack of capacity and relevant skills, availability of relevant policies, and availability of relevant infrastructure as well as availability of relevant content and applications. So these are the different factors and then we added another as well. So from that in the discussions as well as in the survey findings, two things that came out quite strongly in this work and also in the conversations that we had in the regional IGFs and in the different workshops, the first one was really the criticality of the role of culture and norms. You can't really start to unpack the issue around gender and access without first paying attention to the issue of culture and norms because all of the disparity, I guess disparity in terms of access to the Internet sits in existing gender disparity of all other things so you can't really say why is there a gender gap and unpack the issue around affordability without interrogating disparate in terms of economic power income levels. You can't think about issues around capacities and skills without thinking about issues around literacy on gender itself. So the good news is a lot of work has been done around looking and measuring gender disparities in terms of a lot of these different areas, some areas are easier to mention than others, income, education, for example. Some are more tricky. And it's lz context space, variable, it interplays with different things so how do you then pinpoint into this and really measure this and think about this in a way that is useable? So what we did in terms of the, in terms of the BPF is from the inputs that we received, we broadly and roughly categorized them into a few different areas. One is the area of gender roles. So what is the socialized role for women and men and how does this translate into prioritization over access to technology? How do you make decisions around this? So, for example, if access to technology is being seen as only valuable for things that you can do in the public domain, so employment, participation in politics, for example, and the public domains and domains of life is already very gendered so private domain belongs to women, household, care, bla, bla, bla, public domain is more masculine domain and the value to technology has been placed in the public domain then you will automatically have a gap that you will have to address in thinking through this. And secondly, the thing, girls and women are also subjected to heavy social surveillance. Social surveillance in the home as well as social surveillance outside and how does this translate into access puzzles and questions, so one of the things that has been discussed quite a lot in Asia, for example, is the small villages, small informal governance structures in small villages where they have come up with even edict to say young women who own mobile phones, young women are prohibited from owning mobile phones so it's basically unmarried women because it will contribute to immorality of all kind of social furor and panic. And if you own a mobile phone, you will get fined and if somebody reports you, you will get a reward.. This is the context in which it's sitting on and this edict of sort offish formal policy is expanding. And Governments are keeping silent about this. If the state keeps silent about something it is, therefore, complicit into the explap lags of this way of think -- extrapolation of thinking about access. So that's one. The second one is already expression and content. So something that somebody said in a disco tech two days ago is that access to the Internet is not just about access to infrastructure, but it's also about access to content. When you think about it from the norms and cultural perspective, what kinds of content is relevant to you? And as we are having conversations also with people who are providing community access points work that has to do with content as well, content generation for women and girls is limited to motherhood and beauty. So this reinforces stereotype and then the stereo type reinforces discrimination and the discrimination reinforces the whole notion around value and gender gaps. Thirdly, again, the digital culture and the value lag that I spoke about earlier, so the masculine culture of technology, how do you prioritize it? Who is it valuable for? Fourth, multiple responsibilities and limited time. This is something we know about women so do you then spend additional time to build the skills, learn things, et cetera. And finally around capacity. So a story that came from the Best Practice Forum on one of the experiences that was shared is that one of the BPF participants shared about their mother. So her mom has no confidence to really spend the time to learn and figure out and play with technology to try and acquire these skills. She really is afraid she might break something so she will wait whereas the father on the other hand has much more of an experimental approach to it even though they are of the same age. So this is where you see age and gender intersecting. So she will wait for the father and brother to finish using whatever it is and then it's her time to tinker. At a micro level it affects in terms of how you faskt at which point and whose access to technology that is? This is someone that Fet said, you know how infrastructure really affects how we can organize and move in a room, no? So it also translates met to for cal viewpoint of Internet infrastructure. What kind of infrastructure do you have and it sort of predetermines what you can or cannot do in this room. I'm glad it is filling up. Come in, sit on the floor, share a Chair maybe and then maybe take a picture and show the Secretariat we need a bigger room next year. There is more spaces at the side. So, Clare, GSM has done a lot of interesting research looking at culture and norms specifically, can you share a little bit about this? >> I'm Clare, I'm head of connective women at GSMA. We look specifically at mobile because in Developing Countries that's the main tool that people are using to access the Internet. And we, for example, did a very big study which we published last year which looked across a number of countries, what was interesting is when we asked women and men, because we look at what are the differences, you know, what are their barriers? I lot of barriers were reported for the same around women and men around cost, access, but what we are seeing is that women are disproportionately affected by barriers because of social norms and I think our research is showing and it's well articulated by Allison's research that things like income and education are huge predictors as to whether you have access and use a phone. O so there are stricture rail inequalities between men and women that are driving the disparity and social norms because technology sit s? A social context. So I will just give a couple of examples from some of our reresearch to highlight financial autonomy and social norms so I mean there are a few general things that came out around women's lack of time, mobility, controls around their restricted controls around their access, but a couple of examples are so I will highlight, for example, one from India, when we did the study in India, we asked who made the decisions around mobile phone purchase, the hand sets and the credit, and in the study and in the group, the survey respondents, only 1% of women said that they made -- 19th% of women. They made the purchase themselves. So of the women that are using their own income and money they are using, 61% said they had to get permission to spend money on a hand set or credit. So this is quite this is sort of highlights the restrictions and it has an impact. So if you are not making a decision to purchase your technology device, it means you are often getting a cheaper device so you are not getting an Internet enabled device or you are not getting the same access that you would if you had more control. So this is sort of these sort of lack of financial autonomy in some of these issues has a significant impact. And another example I will give is that when we did this research, the sort of third biggest barrier that came out for why women were not accessing and using mobile is safety and harassment. This came out stronger for women than men. This is issues around fear of handset theft, being, getting harassing calls from strangers, harassment on line. And these are, again, this is, felt more by women and we asked follow-up questions where people were reporting thats acceptable that it's for men to check their phones. Men were reporting that they were checking wife's phones, but when we asked is it okay to check the man's phone, much less, and it was much less acceptable for that to happen. So there is a lot of control, and it results in, it was resulting in some husbands and men restricting women or not allowing women to go on line because of concerns around them having affairs. They felt that these harassing calls that women were getting from strangers were because they were inviting them. At the same time in some of the interviews and focus groups men were saying if we call a number and a woman answers, we will keep it and keep calling. So this sort of behavior was restricting access. We looked, for example, even in Kenya a year ago at some of what was being downloaded and interestingly, the number two downloaded application in Kenya was a call blocking service. This shows the extent that some of the sort of behavior is having and is affecting. So I would just agree with the comments that you are making that the reason some barriers affect women more is because it's affecting women more with women having lower income, lower education, some controls are being put on them by men and some men using the concern around safety as an excuse to prevent women from having access, for saying concerns around safety to visit an Internet access point or a mobile phone pop up point or to go on line for safety because they are protecting women in their family, so using that as an excuse to prevent access. I would agree that this is definitely a very difficult, but a very important issue to look at. >> MODERATOR: That flows quite nicely into the second barrier I wanted to talk about which is around threats. Before I go there, one of the things, one of the dominant discourse around promoting access for women is it's through mobile. It's cheaper. The reason for is it affordability factor but considering that mobiles, you can see mobile is a device because it's such a personal thing. It is also subjected to quite a lot of, I think the whole social and cultural norms impact. This is where you talk about level of access at a personal level. So is there maybe a limitation in terms of thinking about mobiles as a viable, as the most available, I guess, option for access for women? >> Clare Sambuli channel I. All of the women in our research are showing they really wanted the value that is given to life, the impact it's made in terms of their lives, I mean, there is no question, again, in our research last year nobody questioned the value of it. So I think there is, I would also make a comment, we believe that it needs to be about individual ownership rather than shared ownership. Those who are sharing in countries where there is a lot of mobile phone sharing, women were getting less access to the technology, had much less digital literacy and confidence so it was definitely inhibiting their, and the shared one was going even when it was a woman's phone to be shared frequently, it was going out of the house, men were getting it. We did research with learn Asia last year, on what decisions were made on who had the phone it was the person going out to earn income which was typically the man so the shared ownership was resulting in women having much less access. >> MODERATOR: Cool. Maybe I will ask this question later on to some people who are doing more community access solutions to think through some of the comparisons. So the second thing that came out quite strongly and that's my face, which is a bit disturbing. Where is the slide? Take away my face. The second thing that came out quite prominently in terms of barrier, and this we didn't put into the survey because we didn't see this coming up quite so strongly in the existing research. It came up as we were looking through survey results and as we are discussing this issue as well and, Clair you are also sharing in terms of research is around online abuse and gender-based violence. In terms of security risks to getting to the access points whether you are having a mobile in fear of it being tape away or going to an access point where you don't feel comfortable or receive on route and at the moment of access itself. So once you get on line, the kinds of threats you actually face when you are on line. This contributes to a sense of hostility towards access to the Internet. It contributes to the value lag and it contributes to the form of exclusion. So Angie, would you talk about the youth observatory work and your thoughts around this and the declaration that you share as part. BPF effort. >> Thanks Jac. Good morning, Latin 34ER7B women delegation is a text what young women say and one part of the Internet. It's a collaborative work of women who participate in observatory. The Latin American check clarification is always a voice. The observatory, one of the objective is young people to participate in issues of Internet Governance what happens in young women on Internet? What women think and we state that we have talked about access, why are there so many women with an Internet access -- without Internet access and security and privacy? I have become recording practice on the Internet. We consider the Internet is to empower, if the fact that is environment provides woman confidence and expression. The age is reflects and social and social practice adopt the environment with Internet Governance ecosystem.. But there is a speech say women shall be users, but where is all participants and content graders that this is necessary? And (Speaking Spanish) (No English translation). Thank you, Renata, and all young women in the observatory who collaborate in declaration women young. >> MODERATOR: Thanks Angie and the youth declaration is in the appendix. So if you would like to look more in trying to unpack what are the issues young women face it's a good point of resource. And to bring back to the work of last year's BPF as well which we really looked quite extensively into the issue of online abuse and gender-based violence, what we have produced as a continuation of that work is a roadmap in terms of recommendations or ways forward on ways to try and address some of the issues at different aspects, so in terms of capacity, in terms of policy, in terms of applications and so on. So this is something you can maybe look to if this is an area you are quite keen to address. I'm going to flip the session a little bit. We were going to talk about affordability and infrastructure as barriers as well as content skills and application, but because Doria has to leave soon I think to let's move to policies in decision making. the availability of relevant policies has been cited as being quite important. I can't remember which research I was looking at as well, but a lot of Government broadband policies are quite gender blind. It's quite interesting to see that there is gender blind policy but at the same time there is quite a lot of initiatives that are being done around gender and access. So there is bit of disconnect. Can you tell us about ITU's work in this area in particular around the equals work on mapping initiatives? >> Thank you. Thanks so much. Can you hear me? Thank you for being accommodating. First of all, congratulations for all of the work that you have done since last year. It's really quite impressive, and we are very excited to be working more closely with all of you. I won't get into all of the details about the equals initiative because we do have an event on Friday morning and I would invite you all to come, but simply to say it's a new initiative that the ITU and UN Women have launched back in May, and it very much corresponds to SDG5, SDG17, which is all about partnerships and, of course, SDG9 where we are hoping to insure universal and affordable connectivity for all including women. So as part of our work on equals which is essentially a framework to bring interested partners together under a common umbrella and we are focusing on three specific areas which are all linked, so we are looking at access, we are looking at skills and we are looking at leadership we are looking at women in tech, so how to get more women involved in working in the tech industry, and then eventually how to make sure that those women end up in leadership positions. What's different about this initiative is that we are very much focused on evidence-based. We don't want it to be about just talking. We want it to be about action and in order to be able to take those actions, we want to make sure that we have the right data. And that we are really taking an evidence-based approach. So we are working very closely with academia. Our partner on the academic side is UN university. We are working with the computing centre. And there are other universities that will be joining up under the coordination of UN university. So what we have done, and I would invite you to have a look, is we have done a mapping of existing initiatives that we are aware of. We have some 240 initiatives that are mapped on this digital gender inclusion map. You can see the map on equals.org. And what we have done with those initiatives, we have done interviews and we have done a survey. What we have concluded from our research so far is that most of the initiatives that are out there are very focused in Developed Countries. Only 15% of those initiatives are actually looking at access. And a lot of them, of course, have issues related to funding, and, of course, scalability. So we are going to continue to do our research we are discussing with Anri how can we include a lot of the work that your partners are doing here in the best practice for yum, and we will continue to populate this digital gender map with the hopes of then being able to identify where specifically are there gaps, either in countries or in regions, and then the equals partnership will begin to actually do in country specific activities and I will stop there and perhaps we can lead question. My colleague, Pretem is here so he will stay when I have to leave. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thanks, door even, and I guess if you are interested to find out more come to the session on Friday which we will also be participating in and talk a little bit about that. Now, I'm trying to flip my brain and think about two threats that came up. One is around participation that came up in youth observatory remarks and in terms of leadership and how do we ensure thinking about access in terms of participation. And the other thing that you mentioned is about evidence-based programming., so thinking about initiatives and programming that have to be based very much on research. So let me see which thread to follow. Let's follow the research thread for now. So there is a lot of research that's been done around gender and access, especially around affordability and availability. We have with us quite a lot of awesome people who have done really awesome research in this area, and Alison -- Alison Gillwald would you tell us about the work you have done in this work as well, especially seminal important that you did four years ago in Africa. >> ALISON GILLWALD: Research ICT Africa is a 20 country research network. It mobilizes around evidence-based policy, evidence-based research in order to inform policy around digital inequality and trying to insure outcomes of policy interventions. So I want to congratulate everyone on the effort that's been put into this and the remarkable stories and insights that have been provided by the research and the inputs that have been made, but I do want to highlight that we are still sitting with major evidence problem and a data problem that I think it is really incumbent on us to address if we don't want to come back each year, ten years from now, sort of telling the same tragic story without much progress on how to address them. I'm not saying there is no progress, but I think there is not the kind of systematic improvement that is required to address the problem. So I'm going to speak a little bit now as to what I see as the main problems because that affects the potential policy interventions, but I think basically, and I'm apologizing for those of you who were in the data session yesterday, but I think we are sitting with a problem where we have got these very interesting stories on the outside, but we are sitting with a sort of big hole in the middle of the kind of, you know, public statistics, the kind of national statistics or very context specific statistics that you need. We need, you know, in order to make evidence-based policy, we need, you know, public good statistics, non-rivallous, in the public dough nan statistics. So we have been trying to develop with a lot of support from IDRC for the last ten years in ICT. So I want to talk about this for gender in particular. There is the ongoing of supply side data by the ITU. It's very uneven. The ITU will tell you itself about the trouble it has getting decent statistics from countries and from developing countries in particular, but also from operators, problems around national regulatories have in getting that data. So we have got a big problem with the supply side data particularly in prepaid mobile environments which is where the dominant problem is because you simply cannot get that data from supply, you cannot get the information from supply side data and you can also, I must add because it's become so sexy cannot get it from big data either. So in a prepaid mobile environment, there is a lot of data you can get from big data that is useful and instantaneous, and I do think we need to create governance frameworks that owe bliemg the public data which is actually ours to be used for public good purposes. It should take the competitive edge off operators who are actually investigating these efforts and getting these services to the poor and to poor women limited as it is in most of our countries. That's how it's being delivered. So I think it's important to understand this systematically and that's what we do, and so some of our interventions and our policy interventions are really about addressing the inequality systemically. So let me go to some of the data and it's correct that there has been on the regularity with which we have been doing this. I'm happy to say in much smaller numbers we will be doing ICT access and youth surveys in Africa, in Asia and a few countries in South America as well. And the focus of this, of these studies now is really beyond access. So, of course, we pick up the access data because that's important and once you go into the field you will do it, but it's really only through this demand side data that you can conclude nationally, you know, national statistics. You can conclude. You can actually measure inequalities and differences between men and women. And I just want to say one more point about that, because even where we are getting some countries and valiantly trying to connect ICT access and youth survey data either in this instance it's very small numbers or in the household or community surveys that they do, their annual surveys, this data is obviously, you know, it's limited. But so it's really the only way we are going to get to understand the usage challenges, the, you know, the effects of other structural inequalities on ICT access and use is actually through the collecting of the nationally representative demand side data. I don't want to sound elite and academic and picky about this, but unless you have that data, you are unable to analyze and model the data that gives you the correct answers. So you might be actually concluding incorrect things and I think that's important because the descriptive statistics on their own as they are collected particularly from demand side data but also from the supply side data can mask other inequality. So they can mask the effects or they can actually mask, so if you just look at the descriptive data on gender, for example, it sometimes looks like there is a serious gender problem. If you are looking at mobile voice services, for example, there is generally not a big gender gap on mobile voice services, non-smart Phones, services, et cetera, you are now even the most unequal areas of the world in terms of communication services in Africa, there is inequality at in places in Africa women have more mobile phones than men. When you get to usage, there are differences because they don't have the income to digitally stay on line as much and things like that. These are quite different from the Internet environment. Once we get into the Internet environment we see from the early takeup of mobile broadband which made the Internet possible in most parts of the world we see that there is quite early on a disparity between men and women. What our main findings from the first round of research on mobile use of the Internet is that if you controls as Clair was pointing to for income and education, then there was not a major gender difference around ITT access and use of ITTs. If you control for income and education on ITT access and use there are particular countries, particularly in Asia where there are strong cultural things, women's income isn't the same as men's, there are still disparities around the usage of phones. But it's also very important to get the data in a way that you can begin to do the disaggregation on urban and rural. Urban men and women are, the least disparity around urban men and women around Internet use than you see between urban women and rural women. I think this is an important thing because we speak about gender, you know, women from different income groups and different things all have the same problem. They do not. Poor men and poor women have far more in common around ITT use than gender. And I'm talking about access and use, obviously the intersectionality of culture class and race are not going to often be picked up in this kind of survey and the qualitative rigorous qualitative empirical work is equally critical. I'm sorry, I will make one last point. I can see your hand. So there is a lot of things to say about that but I wanted to say because of these conclusions, a lot of the -- and we work very closely with policy and regulators, but we also, you know, we want to see practical outcomes. So we want to move beyond indignation and outrage to actually something positive that can come out of it. So a lot of our solutions are actually because we understand this as an ICT ecosystem and it's very systematic and if one understands the fusion models and how they take up and first adopters, we will see the cycle with Internet, we should be learning from the mobile round what is happening. You will see this and it will be equalizing time. There will be other issues we have to address particularly around education and skills with the Internet. And in this regard, I want us to appeal that in our multi-stakeholderism we leverage the expertise and the responsibilities of different players in this. So this isn't just an only Civil Society meeting of good and sad stories, but that we actually make Governments accountable for those, you know, public statistics. Yes. So our Governments need to be made responsible for that and our academia and they need to be made responsible for the analysis and stuff that's required in order to inform policy. As I said, you don't just get it from a simple quantitative data. It requires work that we need to be feeding into. There is a lot of literature already made that we are going into it with ICTs as if we are dealing with inequality for the first time. We need to be feeding into the literature, pulling it into ICT and working more strongly on that. So just to go back very quickly then to the policy because it really ties into the previous session. So because we understand the systematic and we are essentially concerned with connecting the poor and getting the poor able to be on line more effectively and I want to express the importance of demand. I'm talking about accessibility and affordable, and affordability is the key in this work, but our solutions, therefore, are, and it's going to tie into the community access thing, our solutions are systematic, are systematic. So what we are promoting, we have done a big project with the World Bank in Zambia on gender and it will be publicized shortly and we are trying to create new methods and trying to get the World Bank to think about this. It's exciting, we have used public data in Zambia that is under utilized. It doesn't answer all of the questions we want and because there is no open access, we are unable to run that data ourselves and do what we want, or we could get them to run it and there was very interesting information on education inequalities and income inequality that produce the kind of inequalities that we see. I just wanted to say also there is lots of data like household data and surveys, labor force surveys. We have extremely useful on gender inequality out of the labor force survey. So it's the data we can use to better understand the ICT environment so very many of our solutions are about improving public Wi-Fi so the people can be on line more, you know, using secondary spectrum and these things to get down the general cost and improve the general access. And because women are concentrated at the bottom of the pyramid and in the poor, uneducated and generally low incomes, those improvements will inherently benefit women as well. And some men which we don't have a problem with. >> MODERATOR: You have thrown in a lot of things in terms of research, challenges, utilization of big data and available big data and thinking about how to link big data as developing a governance structure around that which I am so interested in. And then also about, and then you said something which is about affordability being the main stimulus for demand. And I'm not sure about that actually. I think affordability is at one point of the spectrum but I'm not sure if that is the main and primary thing as in is some of the research that has shown even when it's affordable maybe you don't actually, you don't make that choice that I'm going to actually then utilize this amount of money for that. And I don't have the term for it, but that's kind of loosely what I'm calling the value lag in terms of what does this mean to me in my life. I'm wondering about research in this area. How do you do this kind of demand side and looking at existing research on, say, stuff that is around income, around education. Yes, there is a lot of good work done there, but the other bits that are harder to pinpoint. I think that's where I'm interested to hear a little bit more. Before that, tell us about the foundation on affordability. >> So my name is Nanjaris from the foundation and I will talk about what we have called poverty, income even equality in the case of mistaken affordable. With poverty and income inequality when you look at what the world has given us the measurement of absolute or extreme poverty we are looking the 1.9 billion people in absolute poverty, 835 million in extreme poverty. The price of a basic broadband connection represents such a high proportion of their income that they would have to spend on data bundles or any sort of connectivity that those earning average income, and here as has already been emerging and how we analyze broadband prices. We have to look at how it plays out for high income earners, middle income earners and those living in extreme and absolute poverty. So when we are talking about entry level access and affordability as, for instance, is given us a target by the broadband commission at 5% of, 500MB of data costing about 5% of average national income. It's such disparities when you start breaking it down to different income groups. So here then it emerges that women are adding 30% to 50% less income earning 30% to 50% less income. So when we say we are wanting them to be able to own the device but connect continually there are so many other factors that come in. So how are we analyzing that has to be very, very important. So you find that it's not just about that, there is the income inequality and cost of data and the devices. This has been coming up quite a bit. We have found, for instance, women in poor communities in countries that we did household survey research on, women are 50% more likely to be connecting to the Internet and two top things they talk about is lack of know how which has started to be discussed but affordability aspect. So then we, that's the picture we have, but since we also need to push ourselves towards what we need to do there, I think one of the first things you said with meaningful access is if with define basic entry level as 500MB, you think about how much you can do with 500MB in this room. We probably represent a very different dynamic, but how much can we do with 500MB to define as basic entry broadband. If we want to continue with that being the level we will not likely achieve universal access by 2020 as SDG9 is so nicely calling for us faux do. We need a more ambitious affordable target. So we found with the research and data, I refer it you to the alliance for affordable Internet. One gigabyte of mobile data, for instance, should not cost more than 2% of income, average income in the different groups that we are talking about here or else we will be,al Allison said we will be coming back here every other year, every third year and we have the same discussion, and this is something we are working with our partners to actually agitate the Governments who have all seemingly left in our different countries to see how this needs to happen. The data component as has been highlighted is very born, disaggregated data that helps us to understand the gender dynamics in every gender group. So that's how we are looking at it and so then all of these other factors and it's not in isolation, however, which is great for the report you have put together, how all of these things come in context. So I think we can tackle the enemy from one side, but we have to put it all in context. Yes. >> MODERATOR: So now I jump back. One of the things we looked at was around skills and capacities and also around content and application. And as we were mapping initiatives we found that actually a lot more, there is a concentration of initiatives that is addressing this particular barrier, which is around skills, which is around content, it's about getting women and girls into STEM, for example, and this has been around kind of before the current debate around gender and access because it also follows a development discourse. It's pushing for greater skills, greater capacity and so on. And somebody said this in the conversation two days ago which I found to be very interesting is that sometimes development discourse instrumentallize particular bodies so particular kinds of bodies become instrumentallized in the development discourse and push for particular things and this is where participation becomes important, thinking about participation of whom you are trying to benefit at the end of this initiative, this long multiple complex spectrum. And I will now turn to both strip and Pitta who do community an is being projects, one on wireless and one on radio in the sense of how do you think about this notion of participation, how do you engage with different communities about thinking about access at that level in terms of encouraging also ownership, control, et cetera, and how does this then fall back and fall back into policy interventions and advocacy that you are doing. >> RITU STRIVASTAVA: Let me start with bh you were talking at breakfast and saying that there are five men is community network and the one woman is sitting there. So the access barrier starts there. When you talk about technology, the participation of the men and the engagement of the men is very limited. That makes that group as well. And technology makes itself like a barrier like women have stepped aside or they feel that this is something that's not being understandable by the men itself. I work with the foundation where we have been implementing wireless community policy in more than in one centers and across the country as well. It mean that's women participation, specifically in a wireless technology is limited, but when they are engaged, they engage, they want to engage with all terms from the climbing of the towers when they are doing routing and other stuff as well. But, yes, the problem with, again, challenges, why they will do, how will they do, it's difficult for them -- it is difficult for them how will they climb the tower and they do not understand technology. It's like a very easy access mean to access technology, it's easy to access -- it's unable to understand those modalities that technology is meant for men instead of for women or it's only those men are very friendly for men. Where I come from in India, when the women are used to giving a secondhand mobile phones. Women are either the phones are owned by a brother, father, or someone who is holding the phone. The decision maker of buying a phone is sometimes by men or even the choosing of a phone is by men also doing things by who is owning that mobile phone and the cost of a phone itself it is decided by someone else. Similarly, the cost of a mobile phone and how much data it has to go in that phone, how much package we charge you to do it, a woman does not have power to decide it. It's being decided by somebody else. Either it's a person who is deciding on their behalf. It could be because of the various reasons that has already mentioned in the report that the culture and challenge, affordability of that particular income or that particular family that, okay, this mobile phone is important for the family. If woman is still holding it, how much data they can give it that, how many income they can give to that. The second point is when we are talking about public Wi-Fi access points, it's still that the women are unable to reach public Wi-Fi access points in terms of first there is a cost involvement that how will they reach it out, and even if it's closest by as well. It comes through the social political challenge that it's a group of women or men who is accessing that point. You will be -- so specifically in rural villages when we will see that, if there is a centre when has women trainer or women person who is handling that centre, it's more easy for them to access the centre, but if it's men who is accessing that centre or coordinating for the centre, it is difficult for them to access this particular centre or access point itself. Another kind of is the cost of accessing that access point itself is include the social and economic cost. Social cost is that they need to leave their family to access the access points and they are multitasking they are already doing it. How much time they can include for that particular thing and that they can access those centre points and they can access those points. And the economic cost is how will they reach? What is the cost? They will get out of their one day villages. So those economic costs are also. >> MODERATOR: The one of the things we are doing to acknowledge literacy is to realize that not everybody who accesses the Internet is not able to read. So thee use color codes and sound pads on the phone in order to build capacity around skills and on top of social and economic costs you talk about the other cost that came up in some of the conversations is the transactional cost of privacy. So this actually matters a lot even when you think about, especially when you think about things like Internet.org where I have, if I cannot, if I cannot afford the economic cost of getting access, if I choose to pay the social cost of getting access, and then I have to pay the transactional privacy cost also of getting access, which means you extract data from me in order for me to get a particular kind of access to a particular kind of Internet which is also something that they are thinking about. >> Good morning, thank you for the invitation. I'm humbled to be here, Jac asked me to join the panel a few days ago and I said I don't know anything about this topic and she said that's perfect. So to give you some speer spictive from those of us who work on community networks and local connectivity initiatives here in the Global South, I work with an organisation. We help communities build and maintain mobile networks. I think there is some things to draw out, one is the issue of access. Accessing what? What are we accessing? And how is that meaningful for women and how is that going to transform their lives as the definition that you provided into something better? And how do we actually influence that when we don't have control over the networks? So I think there are two ways to think about this. One is the affordability and the real vents issue so how much does it cost and is it relevance to me, is it in my language, is it something that will help me. On networks which already exist but we don't have control over is access to a 2 or 3G mobile connection is that meaningful access? What can you do with that. What services or applications are you actually engaging with when you do that, and how do those services and applications take on any sort of agenda perspective? And as we have seen, many don't. So in the best cases they are sort of ignorant as to what to do, I'm talking about the large Internet applications that many use to do social media and so on and in the worst of cases they simply ignore it. So what I do think coming from the community perspective and sort of the more perspective of the connecting the unconnected, what is the opportunity that we have to do something different? What is the opportunity that we have now to say it's not just about accessing a predetermined thing that not only isn't relevant in many cases but also maybe is harmful to me. We talk about controlling, harassment, so on. But how do we do that from a community context in which we can't deny in many cases there are gender issues, underlying gender issues that are not addressed. So in what ways can community networks be more than the sum of their parts? How can they become something that is transformative in places that perhaps have decided, you know, or the men have decided not to deal with gender issues? And that's, I think, and so I do appreciate the invitation to be here because in trying to prepare these remarks we have been having interesting conversations over on the side of the weird geeks that actually build the networks. So this issue of creating transformative networks I think is what we want to focus on, so how do we actually from the beginning including gender perspective as we build out community networks? And how do you do that in places where maybe they are not thinking about those things? And I think it's a great opportunity to deal with it and you deal with them at the same time. Talking about gender is very hard in many places and so is talking about technology, but nevertheless you have an opportunity when a new network comes around to deal with some of these things so what happens in some of our cases, we see, and it's many of the same concerns that have been raised about when people connect to corporate controlled networks is this idea of subverting local surveillance, you know, local patriarchal surveillance of women. So when we have our assemblies in the communities to talk about how the network is going to be built, who is going to participate and so on, the first issue that ininevitably comes up is are men raising their hand and saying now that we have control of the local data so the metadata stays within the communities, the men want to know how they are going to access the metadata in order to insure that their wives, sisters, daughters, aren't speaking to men that they don't want them to. And the advantage that we have is that we can actually talk about that and actually create our own policies that address that. And so far so good in terms of the ways that communities have as part of the process of putting up the networks have begun to question some of these different issues that maintain these patriarchal systems in the communities and one of those is the way that women's bodies are surveiled and controlled. So I very much think that that's what we can add into this. We think about connecting the next, I think the number keeps getting bandied about, 3.9 billion people. There seems to be imperative to connect them. The question is how is that going to happen and to insure that as it does happen that we recognize the opportunity to do something different, but that's going to depend on the ways that we decide to do the connectivity. So thank you very much. >> MODERATOR: Thanks Pita, and this is part of my secret agenda to get you to suffer with the male geeks for community access. This is how it starts. You start asking the question and you go, yes, actually, even at this point how do we design something that's very different if you are talking about transformation and control and then to break it up a little bit. So now we have 20 minutes. We have 20 minutes for open discussion points, thoughts, oskses things that made you go wow! Or know, I doltly degree. So the floor is yours and please keep your interventions as brief as possible, introduce yourself and then your intervention. Thank you. >> AUDIENCE: Manuela perral La Dominican Republic and youth IGF 2016. I personally believe that I'm though it will reduce the cost for the service for the Internet access service, it's going to be the digital divide because I think there is just a matter of choosing. Somebody has access and somebody chooses not to have. So I was just thinking that you said about the affordability, 2% cannot be more of the income so in the Dominican Republic it's so much more than that. So I just want to know what can we do in order to -- this is going to be involved with any users, so with the Civil Society we usually have the alliance for affordable Internet in the Dominican Republic which is involving that, but there are so many ways that we can do something else in order to not, I mean, to reduce the affordability, to reduce the cost of the Internet service. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: I'm wondering if this 2% thing is looking at a particular way of accessing understood? Is this talking about mobiles or broadband or are we talking about different ways of access which is at the last mile level. We will take four, yes, and then ... >> AUDIENCE: Alain any Gulpi spr learn Asia. I wanted to pick up on this point on negotiating free access in return for giving up either privacy or data. I think that that's absolutely important, you know, and this has come up very much in the zero rating debate. I think it's important for men and women irrespective of whether you are on zero rated content or not, because who gets access to data is a common issue and really is not only related to zero rated content, that's one. The second, however, bringing down to gender, I think we just need to, you know, not make statements like this is a problem. Yes, it's a problem, but why is it a gender issue? Because we know there is a capacity gap when it comes to women in terms of what actions might, for example, protect them and their privacy, how they should not perhaps click on some links and we have seen this gap in the way people are exploited on line. So what do we do about it is not to say, you know, there is this problem and we should just really argue with Google, that's one approach but it is really to build it into that grassroot level work that we do about how you are targeted with your data, and how because you don't have that awareness you might need to respond differently and how women might need to be a lot more aware about this in terms of, you know, algorithmic decision making and so on because it's a capacity issue. So we can frame this as a policy and fight it at one level, but we can frame it as a capacity issue and fight it at another level. I think we need a nuanced approach for this. >> MODERATOR: And as Pita is saying it's at the level of design, at the design of your actual intervention yourself and who you are getting into the conversation, and if you are going to look at agenda, the approach to gendered analysis to this issue privacy risks is very important. And I promise I will not intervene after every single thing. I will shut up now. >> AUDIENCE: My name is wisdom, I'm from Ghana and I'm a MAG member. I just have a brief statement that I want to maybe read out, Internet abduction and the income inequality on economic groups. There has, there is an estimation that the implied effect of Internet adoption on group is negative for some countries, especially within the African countries with high income inequality because the digital divide in less economic group by the Internet. Now, from a policy standpoint this resource implies that positive impacts of Internet on group will be reinforced by income redistribution. Now, the question is how can this be achieved? I'm thinking that this can be achieved by creating an enabling environment. What is an enabling environment? By, one, getting the infrastructure in place. It's true this infrastructure that we can actually solve the issues of gender and access because a lot of our rural communities are disconnected from the cities. And this is where the gender issues are. So we need to address that. And then, two is getting the content. If you have the infrastructure, you need the content for the infrastructure as well. And then opening up of data. We need data to actually inform decision makers. So if Government has the data then the data is not out there. We cannot solve these gender issues and this access issue. So we also need data and data will create jobs, it will bring about transparency, accountability, and then developing -- and we have to look at judiciary and the law enforcement. It's also critical. And lastly for us to show an impact, we have to begin to bring some of our -- to IGF to comment and tell us some of their stories, what they are facing their problems and all of that. It is based on that we can begin to engage Government nor the to solve the problem. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you, wisdom. Can I check if there is any remote participation, any questions? No and we have 13 minutes left. So, brief. >> May name is chat and I work with APC. One of the rereplekses we have we have been working around these issues for a long time, more than ten years so back in 2000 the research actually showed that there has been, that a lot of ICT for development at that time, projects, never had any -- it was gebder neutral or gender blind, and I guess it's heartening now that there is much more attention, there is much more recognition. I see that now, this definitely we need to address. And coming back to currently, one of, I was just -- I think the problem is from, you know, from quite macro up to the community level. So when someone here said that it has to be, I think it was Alison was saying it has to be all of us, it has to be different stakeholders looking at this problem, one thing I think is around definitely around capacity, around approach, and also around -- so if why I say capacity is, for example, I was at ESCAP, we did gender training with the ICT section just a week ago. It struck me that there is one, one of the things they say is that there is a barrier in terms of understanding gender itself and these are the policy makers who make policies around regional policies but there is very little understanding around what gender means and how do you integrate gender in those policies. So I think there is that level of work that needs to be done. But I think also that it's not just about compliance, because what happens is that gender becomes something that you have to write in your policy, and that's fine. It's there. There is a lot of policies around, and if you have it there, then it's okay. You have done your work. It doesn't actually work because those policies have been there for a long, long time, and we still have those problems and they are not being addressed. For example, data, looking at how do you collect data, statistics, et cetera. Around capacity it's the same in national Government. While there is some willingness, there is no capacity. There is no resources. There is little understanding. And I think at a community level it's really about -- so in a sense also in the community level, I do think that the capacity around understanding gender, understanding how then are you able to integrate that into your work is also very important. It's not only about resistance. It's about, I think, the lack of understanding. And but also around acceptance that you have to address power when especially around communities. I think you said that. When you are looking at gender at the community level, you need to really look at changing power relations at that level. So I think that's quite important. And there are tools there I think that we can use to be able to change that. >> MODERATOR: One, two. Anymore? Two, three? Okay. You can go first. >> AUDIENCE: Anya Kovich from the Internet project in India and building on the point that chat made. I think it's great to see more attention for these issues now than I think two or three years ago actually. And in many ways that's really helpful, but what I'm concerned about is some of the discourses that are being pushed actually might end up being counter productive in local context. And the issue I'm particularly concerned about is actually safety and harassment where as more and more players start to get involved in this area, I think the discourse really is one of online safety and even online protection, and we have, for example, done exploratory research around mobile phone bands that Jac was mentioning earlier which have been issued by cost associations in northern India, and what we see there is that really this course of online safety plays into some of the existing patriarchal barriers that are already there, and then makes it more and more difficult because the harassment is really an issue also. I'm not denying that. But a lot of the concerns, the reasons behind the ban are precisely because there is a fear from families that girls end up speaking with the wrong boys, which is most boys in those particular communities, but to kind of forbid them to do that and forbid access on that ground becomes much more easy when there is this kind of generallyized threat perception that mobile phone use is dangerous for gairls and online safety is a real concern. So I think it's important that we start to think about how to reframe the discourses so not to kind of put a few of the dynamics, but really put in the picture that this is about empowerment of women while they use technology and not safety or protection as an end goal, which I think we don't emphasize enough. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. That's the point around participation is quite key. >> AUDIENCE: So a couple of things just to add what Ritu and Chad said earlier when we are designing how to know whether its a gender barrier or not is is very important to look at the social gurn Friday from being diss connected to connected how do we calculate that? Because the moment you go into any area where you want to provide connectivity or access, there is no discourse about inclusion of women. Just the environment doesn't allow you to get there. The first person you meet is a male. The second person you meet is a male. The third person you meet is a male. And when you talk about connectivity there are so many barriers of decision making and you feel extremely happy to have done that connectivity. So the rural poor, they are connected to you are happy job done. The social journey between being disconnected and connected must be talked about in man are of economics, social, in matter of days and time and various systems for giving any cultural system, that's number one. The second is that we are always looking at connectivity from the perspective of inclusion, but not exclusion. We need to look at it from the exclusion perspective because each access point is also disconnecting people and the women are the gender or anybody else from that perspective other than male is always on the other wrong side of being disconnected. So the value of being excluded or the amount of being excluded, economic cost of being excluded is also very, very important in terms of access. The third is Internet and connectivity is looked at as technology, pure and pure technology. It took centuries to realize that pen and paper is not a technology. Similarly the medium and the message we are now using is a piece of technology, and anything which is technology clears further barriers to use in a social norm. So how to transform the value of technology into a social need or the daily need of a society is extremely important because as long as it is seen as a technology, the barrier will keep on increasing. >> AUDIENCE: May name is Mary Uduma, I'm from Nigeria. The point I had wanted to make have been raised by the lady that spoke for the project they have in India, but I want to follow up on the choose not to connect. There are cultural issues, there are religious issues that they may choose not to connect. There are illiteracy, and also there is the personal rights issue. So a woman may choose not to connect and one of the correlation meetings we had with web foundation in our country, that is what we discussed and said that women might choose not to connect, especially women from a certain part of my own country. We have in IGF a subregional IGF at the troubled area of our country did not, we have Bokohara, what one of the women said is that Internet is a problem, that we don't want, don't bring it. You want to radicalize our children, you want to teach them what we didn't teach them, and we don't want your school. So those are things that you choose not to. And some of us, we have television, we can own our television, women. Our children are the ones that use our iPads and they do all all sorts of things on them and we choose not to. So those -- that's a major barrier and I have said something about literacy and how do we overcome the illiteracy. And finally the conversation, this conversation should go beyond to the grassroots. That was one of the issues they raised with us when we had our IGF that we should get to the grassroots. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. It's important to see the factors behind the choosing not to. One of the conversations that happened in some of the, I think it was in disco tech. is more and more people are saying for the Internet to be relevant maybe you don't have to connect to the Internet but to really create local networks where your creating your own local content and that may be more valuable than sort of getting out there. Last words from our discussants you have one sentence. Come on, let's go. >> So we talk a lot about what happens happening in terms of challenges, but the opportunities there are and I will quickly highlight we are trying to work with all of the stakeholders to figure this out through national Action Plans identified by all countries that have participated in the work we are doing. And we hope to come back and report how that's working and we want to see how we can expand that other countries like DR and others so see me on the side. Perfect. >> I just want to say that how much I agree with what Alison was saying we need, all interventions need to be based on research and evidence and we need to stop talking about him as a homo genous group and have the research level to inform interventions and there is a huge lack of data and that's my call to action there. >> Who wants to read the declaration of women young, I can send, be happy. >> I just wanted to pick up on the point that we don't want to strip people of their agency. In a lot of discussions it's a similar point that you were making, I think. We have seen enormous amount of user innovation around the, you know, inequal particlations, so we shouldn't strip people of that, and I think there is also different reasons for non-use, but I wanted to make the point that a lot of things that are driving the Internet for the poor are the same thing that drive the Internet for the rich. So we know from all of our data it is social networking that is driving. So we can frown, we can shake our head, we could be morally outraged. That is what is driving. Pep don't rush to get a mobile phone to get an eGov service. Sadly they don't. If they are there, they will use them. We do know that. So the social networking, we know that that's what's driving the Internet so we should be careful of dumbing it down and doing those sorts of things, but the reason people are buying it is quoo it different. So the certainly note working is very important even though the cost of data might be relatively high it's been used as a communication substitute, which is considerably lower than the voice or text or those services and what we are finding in the early focus groups is that people are now getting, you know, unsolicited images and things they are guessing on what is app and it is I fit thing in people's perception, but in doing that we need to make sure we don't prevent the agency in using these in a capable pay. >> So I think most of the points have been covered but I would like to do chat's example that she mentioned that technology is neutral. Let it be used and explored by women themselves. Let them decide by themselves whether they want to be there or do not want to be there. >> Thank you. I disagree that technology is neutral. I think that women need to be careful about not reinforcing the things we don't want to reinforce and helping to transform the things we want to. Technology might be able to help, but it can also hurt so we need to be critical about how we do these things. >> I would like to give a quick suggestion on some maybe concrete outcome from this wonderful panel. I saw some projects around in the IGF where people were concerned about gender issues, but they don't know how to approach that, so since here we have a lot of specialists and experts on gender, we could have some kind of, I don't know, a mailing list or I don't know, a Forum online that people could consult when they need something about gender. So only a quick suggestion. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: It's written here. With that, please join the BPF mailing list. There is also the Gender Dynamic Coalition that you can be part of to carry on this conversation and thank you very much for this really fruitful and dynamic and engaging conversation. Thank you. (Applause). (Concluded at 11:47). FINISHED FILE ELEVENTH INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM JALISCO, MEXICO ENABLING INCLUSIVE AND SUSTAINABLE GROWTH 6 DECEMBER 2016 0900 ROOM 9 OF13: INTERNET & JURISDICTION Captioning Provided By: Caption First, Inc. P.O. Box 3066 Monument, CO 80132 800-825-5234 * * * This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. * * * >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 12/7/16 DC on Community Connectivity. Room 9. >> MODERATOR: We are waiting for the streaming to be ready. Apologies for the delay. Is it ready?. We are part of a social experiment to know how people react when they have to wait for a session but the social experiment will finish soon, I hope. Actually, we can start providing a couple of information on the Coalition. I mean, it will be on the transcript, so could we start? Can I start providing some information and then we will, ten seconds, okay. >> We are waiting for connectivity. >> MODERATOR: While we are waiting I know there are a lot of people that are involved into community, networks community, connectivity experiment here in the room, would you please wraiz raise your hand who we know who is working with this thing here? Wonderful. Excellent. So we have a lot of extra experts. So good morning to everyone, welcome to this first meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on community connectivity. It's interesting to see so many people in the first meeting of this coalition. We decided to create this coalition last year at the -- it was organized on community networks because we feel there is a -- that it is an issue that has to be explored. There are a lot of people doing amazing projects and have amazing ideas on community connectivity, but those people are not speaking amongst each other and were not interacting and they didn't have the visibility that they deserved. I think we have been quite good at our job over the past eleven months because actually I see there is already some good visibility for people that are doing these great jobs and many of those people, well, not many, some of them because there is really a great amount of doing community networks, but many of them have decided to describe their model, their project in this book, in this report there are free copies in this box. You can download it for free if you go Internet-Government dot GVR. You will have the E-Book for free. So without losing any further time with the presentations, let me introduce you to the speakers. We have -- who is an Internet pioneer and, we will have Nicolas Echaniz that is also the Chair of the Dynamic Coalition, and then have Roger Baig from ISOC CAT and also from the network. We will also have Leandro Navarro, it is affiliated to the University of Catalonia, and then we have Maureen Hernandez who is a independent researcher, Anya Orlova, Carlos Rey-Moreno for the University of Cape Town, and last but not least, Ritu Strivastava from the digital empowerment foundation.. I would like to ask Bob to start the debate with some provocative talks that I know he is always very happy to share. >> I'm glad I'm asked to be provocative because the Internet does not make sense. We are used to the narrative telecommunications where everything is a service that somebody is providing it, and setting a price, and that, and connectivity of the Internet variety is very different. It's the opposite. You don't have built in solutions. So when we have a conversation here, it's very aspirational. People talk about rights, they talk about all of the results they want, but what's counterintuitive is that those results are not actually inside the infrastructure. The infrastructure is really only very agnostic in activity where there is just packets. The way to think about it is not as a utility, but as I tried to explain on Monday it's more like sidewalks, roads and just the passive facilities you use and then we use software to create the services ourselves. And, again, that's a longer conversation, so I really want to just use it to structure the talk at this point. Now, sort of an ideal sort of end game, you would just have raw packets and then anybody would want, be able to create services and we would -- the key distinction between infrastructure like sidewalks that's free to use and free because we have to be sustainable, we have to be very aware of the economic model, and the traditional economic model ties funding to particular services. We want to access something, you pay something for access, you pay for bytes. With the Internet, again, being like sidewalks, you need to find common infrastructure and that's really hard to sell. So part of the confusion we have had is we talk about services and paying for them, but we are really creating this common facility. But we also want to create solutions in the interim. So we have a lot of cases where we build in certain functions because when you talk about more connectivity, if you are very technical, you have to discover what works, that if you have, like one example I use is Voice Over IP. We originally built the system we built in knowledge of telephony into the network, it made perfect sense, you paid a phone company to make sure phone calls work. Voice Over IP didn't happen that way. It happened because one use of connectivity, the Web, generated enough capacity, and then people discovered voice and video worked, and they were free once you had the connectivity. So these make it hard to sort of explain why we need to do it, but also, so the challenge is if you want to provide voice, short term, if you have very few facilities, you might decide to make that a priority and that's good, but you have to think at the same time in the longer term and how do we create and fund agnostic connectivity. The good news is that all of the stories you see about how much connectivity costs, how much wires cost, those are all based on a pricing model of service providers. Once you have passive infrastructure, the community owns it, and that's really what makes it sustainable. You don't have to pay a monthly fee as an owner. So the key thing is to understand that, and once you realize it is sort of passive infrastructure, we have a path towards sustainable funding. And, again, I think I could say more later but I want to give people a chance to talk about their projects and where they fit in the framework. One isality a mondy because it is community on passive infrastructure that people decide how to use themselves but I recognize in the interim we have other models as we work towards that future (Altermundi) >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Bill, for that and an essential element is sustainability and how to foster connectivity in a stoss stainable fashion, and starting from this reflection actually, we decided to do this book not only to highlight the model, the architectural model that people around the world have been using to produce community networks, to establish and manage them but also the governance model that allows people to jointly manage, design, and build community networks. >> One more point I want to throw in, a of smaller networks you talk about people volunteer and contributing, but you have to think of it as a funding model. It's just as valid for the community to pool the resource to hire somebody versus do it themselves and that's an engineering choice. If you have the right people, right skills you can do it yourself, but you have to learn how to use the technology. It's also valid to pool the resources and pay for them as you get into communities. That's why we have Governments. Not because you want to impose regulations, but it's simply the mechanism used when people get together and need a more formal mechanism at a larger scale. So if we start to scale connectivity from the edge rather than something piped in, we have a sustainable model that can grow. >> MODERATOR: Thanks a lot and also another very important element that we want to stimulate on which we want to stimulate a discussion today and in the next years is also to think that so far we have the paradigm that we have used to connect people is indeed to try to connect them rather than giving them the knowledge and know-how resources to do it themselves. So the question here today is not how to connect those 4 million, billion people that are still connected but how to allow them to create their own infrastructure and connect themselves. So we have very good examples, and examples today and I we like to start with Leandro Navarro that is there, that has been doing amazing job. So maybe you can start and you can both speak about the governance with the network and the organisation, the results of the network. You both can share this amongst you. >> LEANDRO NAVARRO: Okay. So my comments or my notes will come from one chapter you will find in the book, which is -- it's about setting the scene. We did it last July in Barcelona to try to put together like all of the main ingredients in implementing efficient collaboration between the main stakeholders which is Governments, citizens and enterprises which are around infrastructures. So we were trying to focusing on -- we were focusing on the three pillars it was the governance of the different participants, the regulation and the implementation of infrastructures of course on the focus on fiber deployments which is the trendy topic and also with the European perspective so I recommend you to try this at kind of meetings, workshops, discussions to clarify this scenario in different regions because the result will be different probably. So in Europe at least telecommunications networking is a public service provided by private entities, and regulated, in a regulated competition. So it's a complex environment. It's one of the most complex services probably. So in the first block like in terms of governance, we were discussing about like the difference between the models we typically know and those that emerge from community networks. Later on Roger will recommend more. We call it the common source models in which we pool network segments provided by citizens or by companies or whatever, and then the result of pulling these network segments in a cooperative manner results in producing connectivity. This is the result of building these comments it's like in natural comments you can think about a forest which produces fruits and then so what we get from these comments is the connectivity, abundant connectivity for the participants. And it's not a club. It's not limited to the ones who can pay the entrance fee, but it's non-excludable but resources are limited. And then we discuss how that maps into topics. But rollinger can say -- Roger can say more about that. We are also looking at how do public administrations shape the landscape because in Europe at least colors like white, gray and black areas depending on the state of competition, and we also discuss about the causal reaction directives which is related to an ITU directive of sharing or infrastructure sharing. And then we enter into the topic of discussion of regulation issues. So in Europe we talk about electronic communication networks and we talk about like sharing similar works through use cost, things related to how administrations, public administrations can provide services like the schools or libraries, specific case. We have recent news about the public Wi-Fi service. Many cities offer public Wi-Fi. The European Commission is now supporting public Wi-Fi. Let's say free for the citizens in the whole, in all of Europe as a kind of incentive for development. It is a tricky point about how operators can occupy the public space, bright operators can occupy the operate space, so we talk about the principles that administrations have to be neutral and act as a private investor so they cannot subsidize competitive deployments and there is a factor to take into account. We also, I mean, the regulation has a principles, but these principles are not fully detailed. So, for instance, in this workshop we discuss about the universal format that ethernet provides to regulate how public use, private use and community use of fiber deployments, but it could be applied to spectrum can be regulated. So it's a kind of template ordinance that is more municipalities can apply to define regulations which are competitive with all of the layers of rules that apply to telecom provision. So this part of regulation was interesting because we could understand each other. We could talk with each other and understand the different perspectives, restrictions and so on and then we move to the process of deployment, of implementation of the infrastructures. And then we got several opinions from the European level, for instance, the European Commission, and how, how let's say it's allowed to legal in terms of investment in infrastructures, and how they talk about market failures, there are many regions in Europe which are under a market failure, and then how the public can support these investments in these areas to create a market, let's say. And, for instance, we heard about the European Investment Bank, the bank commission is about 300 billion Euros into the next period of a few years because they see that development of infrastructures is critical for the sustainability, for the development of Europe, and one of the ways of doing that is by connecting communities and supporting communities to develop their own infrastructures. And, in summary, you would see in the report like there are many, many models. We know about the commercial models, which are based on external investment and profit extraction from the community, let's say, from the users. We also talk about these common models in which it's like when we talk about collaborative community nowadays we think about other things. So it's it's a comments oriented collaborative community in which people can invest and people can get service, and the result of that is really a lot of connectivity. The best probably providers in Europe are community networks, I mean, given the performance numbers we could check. So in a way, it's like, it's like -- it provides viable alternatives for everyone. It developed cooperatively, and, of course, you can use it to provide higher level, higher value services which can be commercial, can be professional, can be volunteer-based, which enables everyone to access digital work and the digital documents. So you will find all of the details in the report. That's why we wrote it, and by the way, I encourage you to try at home to try to put together like the public administration, the commercial providers, the communities, the citizens and try to find ways to go through this strange and complex maze of rules and models and create trust because the interest of everyone in this context is citizens can get abundant connectivity for everyone and that seems to be possible although it takes some time. >> MODERATOR: Thanks, and I think it is very interesting to stress two elements that you mentioned, one that is a side effect, a positive externality of this is the creation of a social organisation around the community network, so the creation of the building of trust amongst community members and also the stimulation of some more social organisations than what already we have, and the second, the second point I think it is very important is the fact that these networks are not only some solution that could be utilized for rural and low income communities but something that could be implemented in urban environment and can integrate the connection where the market does not have an interest to connect individuals. So I think Roger will have much more, other more useful comments on this, particularly on the technical side on which he has been very much involved. >> ROGER BAIG: Thank you very much, and thanks for the invitation. Here we are I'm going to present the third chapter. It's called comment oriented framework for community networks. This is about a comparative analysis of the community networks we know, but probably there are much more, this chapter is structured in three main sections. First we make a review of concept of comments in the context of digital society because community networks resolve around this common concept. The second we present in the framework we have developed for this competitive analysis and then the third chapter we, in the third part we apply it to classify and compare the, some community networks we know. So network infrastructure is made by lawyers. On the lowest we have the passive layer, and then we have to operate 9 passive layer to transmit bits and on top of this we can develop service. So we should identify three layers and depending on how we operate these layers, we will have one more or another in general of how to make telecommunications. We can have very monolithic model where a single layer deploys, operates and provides services. We may have other, and this could be the traditional monolithic, mono poll liftic idea, we could have some sort of cooperation in the lower layers like in the open access models, and then we could even identify a more cooperative alternative which community networks fit in this. And this here, the concept of comments, it's well studied by the noble prize Lynn ole stroll and she was elaborating on the concept of common resource and we found that this concept is very useful to deal with community networks. Community networks revolve around two principles. I guess these two principles would be accepted by everybody because they are political, politically they are required., but if you think about them, they have very deep implications, and these are very simple, non-discrimination, and openness to participation. But this, as I said, these have very deep implications. For instance, on discrimination immediately means open access and for instance in terms of pricing it must be cost oriented or at least there are means to implement these principles. Of course, if everybody can come with another solution, it's welcome, but it has to be compatible with the principle otherwise it's not, the solution does not work. And the openness to participation is directly related to governance. This is something that was already addressed here. As I said, the common pool resource concept works very well, but the problem we found is that most of the works and the literature available analyze not real common pool resources, and here we are dealing with an artificial resource that is human-made resource that must be operated and have, may have strong investment costs, and, yes, and this fits into this so-called digital comments as a specific case and then we have server, it could be another comments, digital comment. We have open contents but in this case we are talking a very specific type of artificial comments and, again, it's one of the last studied by the literature available. So it's also, these terms have already appeared around the rivalry and all of this. When we talk about, and this is already related to the which technology we use. In fiber we have a very interesting case. It's virtually limited the capacity of the fiber. So if we come with a system to share it with a single deployment, it should suffice for at least a lot of people. Another aspect is the stakeholders involved, and this is a common concept here of multi-stakeholderism and so on. We identified three main players here which are on the one hand we have the public administrations. They have the duty, the obligation to regulate the public spaces. So at least to deploy networks, you must occupy public spaces so at least they have to get involved in this sense because in general, we also find that public administrations try not to get involved with community networks. It's something marginal. It's something for the unconnected. These concepts can also be applied in a developed country on a very dense city. I dare say that community networks is a right. So it doesn't depend on where you live, where you come from, you have the right to develop your own network infrastructure wherever you are. So going back to the first stakeholder we have identified, the public administrations, so at least they must get involved in this regard of organising the public space, but they can also be more proactive and here while facilitating spaces, for instance, groups in public buildings for Wi-Fi deployment, for instance, or access to ducts in the roads to lay out fiber and they can be more productive and self-satisfy their needs through the commercial options inside the community networks whichs another concept that sometimes is misunderstood. Community networks does not mean free. It's not incompatible with business. I would say even the contrary. We need business to make them sustainable. And this is another topic. To move forward because I'm getting too slow, in the application section we look at the technology, the membership, the type of members implied. The legal Forum if there is some organisation behind how they are funded and how Internet is provided inside these communities. I'm going fast. We analyze 36 communities and the conclusions are very fast. The community networks appear all around the globe. The communication among us it sometimes happens but Forums like this are very useful to make a common understanding and just to finish technology doesn't matter. Sustainability is a key issue so we cannot skip this, and this implies businesses and so on, Governments, it's also crucial, and then as I said, community networks we must take them as a right so we can implement them wherever we want. >> MODERATOR: Thanks Roger and thanks also for highlighting that actually community network is reach very high level of capacity and they are not only based on networking but also on fiber so it can guarantee kind of good service and now to go from the change of continent but keeping on speaking Spanish, we move from Catalonia to Argentina with Nicolas Echaniz who is going to provide us interesting reports on the alter Altermundi networks. >> NICOLAS ECHANIZ: I wanted to ask how many of you have been at disco tech.? It can you raise your hand. >> MODERATOR: It no, sir a party, but it is an event organized. >> NICOLAS ECHANIZ: Yes. Thanks for clarifying. Trine so . So I will tell a little bit of the Altermundi experience with community networks. We have been trying to stress this during the IGF that as Roger put is very well the community networks are not just a model for under served regions. It's a model we must understand that it's a right of the people to build community networks, and so our particular case is very focused on rural areas and under served areas, but we believe while this is very important because community networks can have a real big impact in those regions, they also are an opportunity to show how different model of networking can be done and can be deployed. So in our case Altermundi the people in Altermundi we had started working with community networks in, at first in big cities in Buenos Aires and many years later after seeing that community networks were not being adopted in such big cities because there were so many options we started to focus on these rural areas because you identified that in those areas there was, first there was no, the market could not get there. The market could not connect the need of the people with the resources. And states also usually don't have a good strategy to get up to the homes. We have seen many deployments of state networks that get maybe to the villages, maybe to the public square or to a school, but then they don't get to the homes. So people in those villages either don't have any service at all or they have services limited to public areas which, of course, is a limited service because you have no intimacy there, you cannot be there to work remotely, for example. So there are many things you cannot do in that situation. So what we at Altermundi have been developing is a model that is focused on these regions where the first thing we identified is that the geek, the nerd population tends to zero, so usually in one thousand people village, it's quite difficult to find somebody who already has some experience working with networks, and this was the main challenge because we were so used to working with other geeks to deploy these community networks in cities and stuff. So we actually decided to build a geek-free model for community networking. And it took quite a lot of time and in fact we are still working on this. We have been developing a software stack and now we are developing hardware component also for five years, a bit more than five years. And so what we decided from the beginning is that we needed a solution that was not capital intensive but centred on the existing human resources of the people that could work to make this happen, and as such we needed a proper technology to this, to this scenario, and the most appropriate was to build distributed networks. So mesh networks. At the time most people said, well, you will have the problem, you know, of mesh networking with low cost routers, which is the problem when you try to build a mesh network with a router that has only one radio is that in every hub of your network when you connect from one node to the next node and to the next, you will lose half the bandwidth in every hop. So this was usually the main problem with deploying mesh networks that they could not have so many hops and that's the most interesting thing about mesh networks. I don't know who is in charge. That's the image of Kintana, the village where I live. That's roughly 1,000 people live there, and so all of the blue dots are the houses that have a node that are connected to the network and the green lines are the paths the data is using to travel from one place to the another. This is an image, but that's built from a real time map that is constructed by the router themselves. They push this information all of the time, so you can check what's the status of the network, and as you see, this network if you want to go from one end to the other, you maybe have seven hops, seven, eight hops, and it still works because the model is based on multiradio routers. So what we first had to do was to develop a firmware which is a software that runs on the routers so we could replace the software the routers come with, and actually support this kind of model which, of course, the software from the companies do not support. At this moment this software is being developed not only by Altermundi but also by a community of people from Italy, from Germany, from Brazil, from many places and we started collaborating to try to unify because there were many options for this, and we started getting together and trying to build something that works for all of our scenarios. And from this group of people, we also identified, and this was a year and something ago, that we would have a very big problem with an FCC regulation that the FCC regulation tells the manufacturers that they need to block the user from being able to change the frequencies the router is using through software. Now, to do that, software manufacturers, the easiest and cheapest way to do this is to just block the ability to change the software itself in the router. And this was a big problem in community networks which was discussed a lot on how to fight back, et cetera. And our strategy was, well, let's create our router because actually in the Global South we are not ruled by the FCC. The problem is that global producers in China mostly will always have the FCC stamp in their hardware even though you are buying them from the Global South. So we started with this idea which seemed quite crazy at the time, but actually we banded up many of us that are working in this are in this room. And we are now actually designing the router, we got the funding, we actually got funding from different regions. We are working on this mainly with Carlos Rey-Moreno and to me the interesting thing is that we have the opportunity to build our router, but let's build the router we want. So we are not only building a router that will not pay attention to the FCC regulation, but it also implements stuff that we think is very important. So it implements multiple radios. The router provides three radios so that we can do mesh networking over two radios that operate in the 5 gigahertz band which is the actually currently is the best band to do this, and then there is a third radio that operates in the 2.4 gigahertz band for client connectivity. The router also has a GPS model so this can be used for many things, and there are no low cost routers with GPS models, and this has created a problem in the development community that there are some things you need GPS for for perfect timing, for example, or almost perfect timing to try to build TDMA solutions and stuff. So we don't work on those solutions because we don't have the hardware to work on it. Now, we will have the hardware. And the other interesting stuff, two more interesting things are the power efficiency stuff that Selenia will be working with and making the routers powered through solar panels. I don't know if you will explain anymore here, but so we have a power efficient router, and also there is another very interesting model that's the TV wide space model which will let this router operate in the TVwide space band using the 2.4 radio. So we will use the 2.4 gigahertz radio with an optional model that will just convert the frequencies so we can use TV wide space bands to work with the same software stack. This is very important because the software stack is very material, the mesh are they mature and now we can plug in any appreciate frequency. and I finish with this, to our knowledge, this router will be the cheapest TV wide space to work with and considering that it will also be open hardware, the whole thing will be open hardware so not just the design, but also the board, the PCB layout. So you can create this router wherever you are. We think this is an interesting disruptive piece of technology. >> MODERATOR: Yes, it is, and I think -- I would start with the first segment of presentation to have some comments and questions from the audience. I'm sure there will be many. So I would like to take three, so if you want to have comments or questions, please raise your hand so that we can identify you. >> AUDIENCE: I'm wondering if you have mapped what the legal challenges we need in order to have more collaboration between lawyers policy makers and communities because it seems to me that we have huge gap in legal concepts in which lawyers are incapable of moving beyond public and private framework. They don't know anything about any of olstrom's comments and the whole legal debate. So it seems that one of the biggest challenges is to build a coalition between lawyers and molcy makers an the communities so we can change the concepts and open room for these community rights to flourish because without this it seems that this will not work. So I'm wondering what is your opinion about this? >> MODERATOR: To reply directly there is one chapter in the report that specifically analyzes legal issues from a European perspective, but this is the first report, so we have started working together 11 months ago, maybe 10. So we have already talked in this stage about what we could do next year, and that would be obviously an essential element that we will through in the work and the report of next year. So, yes, that is a very essential element. Any other comments? Yes. >> The conclusion of this chapter even within Europe, the conclusion is that there is a lot of work to do. So. >> AUDIENCE: An important point though is to be -- this is why I mentioned tole com framing with a lot of legal discussions implicitly assume that there are services and things and rather than using legal frame work for Telecom, because does the legal framework for sidewalks or neighbors cooperating directly, so that, you know, the way I think about it it's very much outside sort of the FCC way of thinking. When you start slowly from the edge it's a different dynamic. >> AUDIENCE: I just want to elaborate in the case if I can speak for (?) the role that lawyer have played to open the space for us to exist is amazing. So please help. >> MODERATOR: So I think -- is there any other comments or questions on this? Otherwise we can switch to the second segment starting with case study and I would like us, Ritu Strivastava to start start with digital em poumplet foundation in India. They have been working some excellent projects and they have connected I don't know how many thousand people over the past ten years so, please, , please, t ten years so, please, Ritu, go ahead. >> RITU SRIVASTAVA: Thanks Luca. So this book is also talking about some of the case studies and one of the case studies is reflecting from India which is from digital empowerment foundation which has been -- >> MODERATOR: Start over. >> RITU SRIVASTAVA: The case study which I'm going to talk about is from India which is the community network which is built by organisation called Digital Empowerment Foundation and we have a about 150 centers and spreading community networks in 150 locations of the country. And it's been increasing day by day as well. The case study which we have talked about is the community networks which is by committee and for committee. And by pooling the resources and human resources and infrastructure resources and so on so forth. So the primary case study is also looking into aspects that how these committee network models are being adopted by committee and how they are making leverage out of their own benefits as well. These networks, these networks are often affordable access to the Internet while building community networks and not only at the village level but at the household level which we are talking with this case study. The second thing which we are also talking with this case study is about civic participation and encouraging them how they are making viable models around their villages and efficacy of networks within that community networks. Last is a case study which we are also trying to focus on through this chapter that how community networks and rural Internet service providers can be leveraged and they can be supported by Government or by other legal authorities that they can be leveraged out of the community networks. This should be recognized by Government, not by Government, by authorities that rural Internet service providers are existing. They are managing these community networks in small packets but they are providing last mile access and I will not use the word last mile because we have been debating what the last mile ceact tift so far -- connectivity so far. So how we are providing the connectivity to the household level. The model which we have talked about is also that model when we are, most of the community community network are paying a small amount of a fee that can own this networks and then they can feel that this is, this is the model -- this is something which they own it. So most of our community networks are based on a fee, some membership models as well and they are on a recharge basis as well that they can access some kind of Internet connectivity as well as sustainability is the main portion of our model because the operational cost and running cost which we are thinking about it is usually comes from that when community members are becoming part of community network and community members are engaging in day-to-day operation of networks. How we have built this infrastructure and how we have thought about building community networks is also include giving capacity and hand holding that how these community, these networks work in work and instead of like any engineer that is deploying that network, the operational and the medicationment of these networks are done by local barefoot engineers. Some of the engineers are not like highly educated but they are passed a certain kind of education and they are doing that kind of networking. So overall the community networks that we are talking about through this paper is a social economic viability we are trying to bring it. >> MODERATOR: Thank you Ritu. So we have just passed to the next speaker, Carlos Rey-Moreno, go ahead. >> CARLOS REY-MORENO: Thank you very much. So I don't have a copy of the book so I don't know what chapter I'm talking about, but I'm Carlos Rey-Moreno I'm a fellow at the university of the western cape in South Africa and apart from being a researcher, I have been involved since 2012 in the creation of networks a community owned and operated in marginalized areas of South Africa. And the process of being involved in that helped us to understand all of these different dimensions, legal,ful, technical and social and to try to provide solutions to successfully the people to reduce communication cost one of them being the need to reduce the technical. But also in the regulatory side, in the social side, et cetera.. And we also are going through the process to allow communities to easily replicate it. A year and a half ago since networks attract a lot of attention a movement on freedom of expression and access to information we noticed connections to communities in South Africa which started championing the model as part of their centralized access to telecommunications part of the pain. However, a year after that corporation started nothing has happened. No other communities of Africa has actually pick up the model. So we were starting to wonder to whether how to capture what was the state in orc community networks in Africa as a first step to understand what we were failing to do for other communities to actually replicate what we are doing. So I'm presenting what we believe is the first map on community networking initiatives in Africa and to select those, I mean, those initiatives that are presented in the book. We have started connecting, contacting people that we know that have been involved throughout the years in community network initiatives in the continent and asking them a bit about the community network and what were the reasons, I mean, how it has evolved, how it was replicated, and also mention other community networks on the continent so we could continue to gather more evidence. We have complimented that with Google searches and the terms and we ended up conducting like more than 60 people. In the paper, well, in the chapter you can find on a small description of each of them that were possible has been curated by the people involved in its community network, and although in the paper is appears as a static, we have already uploaded all of those descriptions to Wikipedia, so the map can continue to evolve dynamically by other community networks that may appear in the future in order that we have been able to capture this in the first exercise. The result is a map that I was suspecting to have there, but I didn't, and it's on the page 163 of the book. We ended up identifying and profiling 37 self-defined community network initiatives in 12 countries in Africa, of which 25 are currently partially actives, but the result saw that 60% of the networks are located in South Africa in one country while only one of them are not active anymore was identified in the whole northern Africa. It might be that because we are, both of us in South Africa we are more aware of initiatives that are there, but in any case it shows that there might be issues between the ecosystem of how the South Africa can ecosystem allows the community network to flourish and the regulatory framework rather than in other countries. Now, all of this with the Guadalajara declaration and the framework we presented there is an opportunity to kind of filter around those 37 initiatives and see which ones of those are actually community networks as we are agreeing in this Dynamic Coalition or they are just self-defined community networks, they don't really match those criteria we are commonly agreeing upon. But other outcomes have come from there like identifying the IGF here is trying to create the IGF for next year and it is served to identify actors there that could participate in the IGF processes in other countries and also differentiate a bit how community networks in Africa are different than in other, like, what we traditionally or mainstream understand the decentralized, big massive community networks. In the 83% of the wons that we identified have less than 30 nodes that made them very different than other community networks that are mainly in Europe and the United States that are way, way bigger. But the paper also -- one of the other goals I wanted to establish with the paper was creating some sort of coalition like the Dynamic Coalition we have here but at the African level so people could share experiences and tackle challenges. Well, luckily we didn't stop there, in ISOC three months ago a sponsor contacted me to say now what do we do with this information you have gotten? And they have sponsored for community networks in Africa that took place on the 22 in Nairobi. Where they gather to discuss that and see how we could take this forward onto deeper the understanding we have about community networks in Africa and how to make this model available to a wider number of people in the continent. One thing that came very, very clear from that is that like in other places where maybe, I mean, rather than building up a community while building the telecommunications infrastructure, the case in Africa seems to be the opposite. The community all right exists and the network becomes part of what the community is already doing and issues to enhance the tailly life of those participating on it. This brings a new perspective on the dove in addition that many people may have about community networks themselves and opens up spaces to maybe consider community owned centers or telecenters providing ICT services that could be included in these categories only in the case that the concepts that Roger was explaining in terms of openness to participation and openness to governance are met. So if you are a wear of any of these initiatives that may not be initially considered community networks but with this definition that we are doing collectively here they may be part of it, it would be very interesting because one of the ways forward that happened in the summit in Nairobi was to create a group, like a self-support group where the representatives of these communities could learn together and could share experiences and visit each other and take this process forward. Another thing that I wanted to do with the map was to raise awareness about community networks in Africa because, yes, there are definitely doing amazing stuff in this space, Altermundi, when though talk about community networks they talk about community networks in other places but in Africa there are amazing people doing amazing job and they should be recognized as well. There were three members that were in Nairobi and, Joe, and Antonio from bossco gond da that are here, and I would encourage to engage with them on what processes they are going through and what was their experience in the Nairobi summit and how they are planning to go forward. For instance, they set up together, they submit to the Internet freedom festival to actually have there a host of community networks in Africa to try to continue to discuss how they want to evolve together. Thank you very much. >> MODERATOR: Thanks Carlos, and thanks for highlighting that in many places community already exists and community network would be a very good tool to facilitate the interaction that could be eased by community network, be more efficient, more Democratic, and it is worth trying to do it, and I really want to invite the community network representatives from Africa that are here in the room for the workshop we will have this afternoon and to join the Dynamic Coalition because your feedback, your input is really welcome. Now, I would like to move to Anya Orlova that is based in Brazil from the Foniast jurua project to tell us what you are doing in the Amazon region. >> ANYA ORLOVA: I will present the Foniast jurua projects which takes place in ac car rat, the Brazilian Amazon. This project is a cooperation of the local community members and the university research project of University of So you Paul low.. The report describes the novelty of the technical solution we are developing and I would like to start with providing geographical and socioeconomic background of the project and the area the project is based because I believe this in a way defines the unique characteristic of this project compared to other projects presented in the report. So what is foreign to understand is ac rat where the project is based in the reserve. It's a reserve that was established in the 70s for the production of rubber. And there is no, where the project consists of, we installed six digital radio stations and our main guidance was the isolation and the distance for the communities that are based in the forest. And the only infrastructure that exists there are the rivers. So for you to understand there should be a picture, actually, if you can put it on the screen. No. Okay. I will just continue. So basically in the Amazon forest where these communities are allocated, this is the pick of Brazil, the map and the red is the state of Akarat it's located on the border of Bolivia and Peru and before this certificate belonged to Bolivia it was bought with the condition that Brazil will build their railway station which will connect Akrat to the coast. That still didn't happen. While I'm giving you this information for you to understand that it's extremely isolated area and it's under served in terms of information and communication technologies. There are no, there is no telephony, there is no electricity wires and the only infrastructure that exists is the natural infrastructure of rivers. However, it is also important to understand that during the dry season, rivers get extremely low and some communities get completely cut off from any transportation means so people stay isolated in the forest. Also due to the fact that in the 90s there was a collapse of the rubber tapping industry in Brazil, the majority of population was left without any means of providing for any economic development or any economic income. And many people moved into urban or city areas which actually led to the question of the existence of reserve, because the condition of maintaining ex traffickivist reserve is that the straiks is sustainable and doesn't imply massive farming or lodging. So basically local communities have very low income and they cannot afford expensive infrastructure such as fiberoptic or satellite telephony. And previously in the 70s there were some NGOs from Germany that came and installed radio stations. It was Ham radio so Fonias radios and the communities were using it to the point that the technology broke down because there was no maintenance and no support. So there was a study in 2009 and 2011 and based on this study, 24 communities demanded installation of HF, high frequency radio stations. The problem was that the Government was not able to provide this infrastructure, and with a lot of struggle andest, we managed to collect some money and to install six stations. So originally there is 24 communities, but however, it's just six stations because this is the only way we could provide so far. And this is why we decided to install the stations only in the most isolated communities to provide some kind of communication means. So and this explains our technological solution. So we are applying digital radial Mundial standard and it's something that is opposite to IP protocol because the IP protocol doesn't feed the high frequency radios. The radio station consists of the antenna, transceiver, solar panel, and the generator that collects the energy. And also there is an interface between the radio and the transceiver. The total cost of the solution is pretty high, it's $6,000 approximately, however, once the station is installed, it doesn't require maintenance or it didn't require professional or highly technical expertise to maintain it, and what we manage to achieve is that most of the community members who have the stations installed in their communities all are able to operate the radio stations themselves. So if there is some problems they are even able to fix it and to change frequencies and to also receive, for example, radio Amazon broadcast broadcasting station. So once the station is installed, it's self-maintained by the community. So just to get back to our academic project, we applied the ethnographic method of technological implementation and it was inspired by the ethics of free software. So all of the software that is used is free software. And what we are trying to do is address the local demands of the communities and to provide information and communication technology in collaborate railings with local communities, so all of the demands and all of the solutions were implemented in collaboration with the local communities. And now I want to make an emphasis of why I think this project is specific because it has a particular role within the context of the Brazilian Amazon in particular in terms of environmental protection. So as I have already said, these communities are looking for new means of economic income, and some of them are moving to the cities, however, there is not much they can do and there is a lot of frustration right now in Akara and so, however, the people who stay in the forest, they don't really have means for sustainable existence, and, therefore, this communication can provide them means to develop sustainable businesses. For example, there are now discussions of developing sustainable farming coming back to production of rubber and sell certain goods and products. However, they are completely cut off from communication even with other Brazilian states. So all of this aspects points to the need of the new sustainable ways of staying in the forest, and basically if there will be no people living in the reserve, there will be no more need for the reserve. And that means if there is no more reserve, that would lead to mass farming, lodging and basically deforestation and endangering the 578 Ma done forest. So what is important to understand it's a constellation of factors. It's the community, the technology that might provide them sustainable means so staying within the forest and the forest they depend on. And there are ways of doing micro farming or producing various little goods which they are ready to sell, however, they need some means of communication to maintain these new practices. And as a political aspect which is important to. >> MODERATOR: Can you wrap up in one minute, please. >> ANYA ORLOVA: So another aspect due to this geographical conditions a lot of times communities are being cut off from education, so, for example, children are not being picked up by the boat to be taken to the school because the water is low or sometimes there is no service, people don't always work as they are supposed to work, and, for example, there is a severe shortage of medical assistance. And what this technology can provide is information, educational information, access to health service is, health assistance, political news, and other services. And on a bigger scale it's important to say that at the moment in Brazil, the legislation needs to be updated when it comes to the use of spectrum over the high frequency radio band, and the current legislation dates back to the 70s where there was no real discussion about the digital transmission and this points to our recent, most recent development in the project. We went there in September and we managed to do the first digital transmission of digital files and digital images. And the project received also the grant of Freda which supports this experiment and the next year we will be working to develop this functionality. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. So I would like to, as we started with ten minutes of delay, I would like you to stay ten minutes more if you can, and the last presentation of Maureen whom I ask to be quite concise, if you can, and to have some room for debate. >> MAUREEN HERNANDEZ: Thank you to have me. I will keep it short because spectrum is not as important as food right now. I understand. There was, this was something that was brought to me by Andre yays Moret, you may know him and when we are trying to set up a network, maybe we can use fiber or in other cases we can use the wireless space. And there was not an economic way to sense that spectrum. And also you mentioned that the spectrum policy needs to be updated and we believe that as well. And I needed to build something that was less than $200 and was easy to set up and was easy to maintain to develop. And it was to build a spectrum analyzer with a Raspberry Pi and hand held spectrum, and also an SCRLTR dongle and I built a system that is able to manage all of the sensing on the spectrum and to put that in a platform that you can actually visualize the data. So why do we need to do that? Because when we are asking maybe to update the spectrum policy, we need to have a fact sheet, and it's not enough to say the spectrum is not being used. We have to prove it. So this is what this small tool is trying to do. In all of the cases, in all of the configurations that I made, all of the costs that are below $200 in total, so it's something that we can actually make in those Developing Countries or developing villages, and its quite easy to do. I had to prove that this was actually a good spectrum sensor and that it was reliable. So with the spectrum, with the simultaneous devices at the same time, and then compare those results with the actual, the official table of spectrum sharing in the country. And after that we did also another one. So we proved that with all of the devices the measures are reliable and we are able to have fact sheets and then collaborate with the lawyers and the spectrum policy people that want to help us to acquire the spectrum and say that we already have the amount of usage and that it is absolutely possible to deploy on the networks there. >> MODERATOR: You are done. Excellent. >> MAUREEN HERNANDEZ: I'm hungry. >> MODERATOR: If you have some comments or questions, please go ahead. Yes. Okay. >> AUDIENCE: Just to point something, some issues and some incentives that are occurring in Brazil too in the regulated environment that we are coming to get a new resolution that will allow community networks using Wi-Fi spectrum. And some that we are doing in Rio in 2008, in the next report that I think it's possible to put in sentives and with the partnership with Article 1. 19. We are trying to experiment with social activism to maintain these networks in communities. It's more like it is the model that we are applying in Brazil. And I wanted to point this.. >> MODERATOR: This was March sell Sardonia who is the rock star of community networks. >> My name is Michael Logia, ISOC Ambassador. When we talk about helping to extend the benefits of the Internet to the unconnected, that process is happening because of people like each one of you on the ground. So someone that appreciates the tireless work you do, I want to say thank you. >> Since I'm supposed to be controversial, provocative, when I hear people talk about spectrum policy and problems I think it's like running out of the color blue. It's legacy of 1920's radio broadcast technology and between things like ultra wide band, packets, the fact that we go wireless, wireless mixture, we need to start, we work by David Reid on this, that we need to start thinking about moving beyond. And the real strategy of spectrum when we shifted from railroads to roads, railroads were very controlled medium. Roads are open. People do their own driving. The reason this has not happened that the equivalent of the roads, the open wireless space has been locked down due to a 1920s model so we have people thinking beyond spectrum and beyond the idea that we need to regulate it because of old technologies. >> MODERATOR: Do we have a roving mic? >> AUDIENCE: Hi, everybody, I'm Stewart Hamilton. The Deputy Secretary-General at the international federation international federation of library associations and the convener of the Dynamic Coalition on public says in libraries so this has been an extremely interesting session with me and I was looking to have a good chat with members of the DC yesterday. I'm not sure how many you are aware but there are 320,000 public libraries worldwide, 230,000 of those are in Developing Countries. It seems to me that it would be really interesting to come biopsy the massive network with some of the projects you guys ever working on and see how we can take it forward at a community level maybe using libraries. There are a couple of things we already maybe talked about, I would like the Dynamic Coalition to think about this, we could put a work program together for the next year or so we could map where we have people, some projects going on where you guys have got expertise, see what fits, see what we could get off the ground in a few pilots and then we could that I about how we could send that information to the library so they understand how to set up community networks so I'm willing to offer the whole network that we have in a next work program for the next 12 mornings. >> I just found out Wiki pedia people working on it, if you want to go to something like Wiki pedia, you don't need to go all the way. When you have that on a disc drive and a server that aces more like a local library. O there are many ways to extend connectivity. >> I would personally want to thank Stewart also for offering this this potential partnership because it's obviously manage we want to consider. I think there was owe Sam Ma and then the gentleman there and then Carlos. >> AUDIENCE: Gentlemen, I just wanted to -- yes, I wanted to comment a you few things that most of the community networks whenever we want to implement is subject to restrictive policies rather than proliferation oriented policies. All of the policies are restrictive. For example, here in India, in the network that Ritu explained and all because of regulation we have not been able to do it, height of the tower in rural areas when you go you don't have construction, so, therefore, you don't have height. For example, we have five meters is the only allowed height without permission, and, therefore, you need height. And if you go to a LAN which is public, you know, most of the land which is vacant where you want to go on the height, it's Government-owned land and you go to the Government. So, you know, and private buildings are not enough there in rural areas and, therefore, you are always restricted by various things, and once you are connected, then you are, again, so what I feel is that one of the approaches that we need to take is a spectrum is a public property. It is written everywhere, but and most of the public has not been able to use it. So the places where people have not been able to have public access to a spectrum because of the regulatory process, we need to go to the public and take a signature of all of the public that here there is no provider of a spectrum in a manner that we can access and, therefore, we take control of the spectrums ourselves and build over it. Like democracy, you know, you take signatures, you take everything. So that's the least that we can get even if they are not user of the access of the network, they have a signature that here there is no road, something like there is no road so we are using our own vehicle. So similarly we don't have access provided under the purview of the spectrum, and then how do we use public to use those spectrums which is not publicly available to us, we take into control. >> MODERATOR: Excellent comment. So the gentleman there and then Carlos. And then we can go have lunch. >> AUDIENCE: Hello, everyone, I enjoyed a bit of the talks that I have listened. I would like to mention that network for Mexican university in the south part I'm a librarian and I'm representing the international federation of library associations. I would like to mention a couple of things that you could probably take into account. I was in the Amazon, Brazil four weeks ago speaking at the university level Conference. And I learned what some university libraries are doing for the community, not only for their own academic community, but, you know, the suburbs and so on. So get in touch with them. I also was in Venezuela last week at the Catholic university, the library is doing a community work in borrow types. So libraries have three things to over to you, access, content, and information skills training. So I think we can join efforts and offer these three things because access is one thing. The other thing is skills. People need skills and we are good for that. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Carlos and then Ritu you have the final words. >> CARLOS REY-MORENO: Just to build up on what Bob said at the beginning as a way of a wrap up and something that has been appearing in the three sessions that I have participated today is, and Peter mentioned it in the previous one about gender and access is that we are talking about connecting the unconnected or empowering the unconnected, but in many of the examples in Africa, Internet is not a requirement. They are building their own local networks to provide themselves with their own local services to meet their own local needs. So it might not be that they need the Internet. They need just to communicate among themselves and provide themselves with the services that they have identified that they need. So the Internet is an add on, but sometimes it's not necessary to establish that in community networks. >> MODERATOR: Ritu, final words. >> RITU SRIVASTAVA: I think Osama has well said that the spectrum is one of the public sphere and how in a few years back when we were talking about the Internet needs to be seen as a Human Rights and Internet as an access is a Human Rights now it's time to talk about the spectrum is an access, provides an access and it needs to be seen as a Human Rights as well, the location occupying the spectrum is very much required as well. When we, in India when working in some of the restrictive policies are there, restrictions are already there. There are legal challenges, social challenges and there are some of the challenges we are trying to meet with. But some of the innovations which are happening is by the committee that leverages itself, that it's the committee can make such kind of a committee and it does not require too much of technology as well, but it does require the human resource as well as certain resource structure which is already available in the natural kind of resources as well. Lastly, the one content is content by committee itself can be shared with the larger world as well. It's so much consent is already available in that community.. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much to everyone. Thank you earn perfect the participants to the panelists for the comments. (Applause). (Concluded at 1:35> >> >> >> >> Test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test. >> >> >> >> , , 12/7/16 Number 14 ICANN Open Forum. Room 9. >> MODERATOR: Good afternoon, everybody, welcome to the ICANN Open Forum. I'm Chris Disspain, I'm on the ICANN board. I will moderate the session. This is your session, our ICANN CEO Goran Marby is going to make open remarks and then it's up to you to bring up tonics that are relevant to ICANN and at the close we will have our Chair Steve Crocker make closing remarks to Goran Marby. Goran >> GORAN MARBY: Thank you, Chris. Many of you have heard my speeches over the last couple of weeks and months so I will not repeat myself. Instead, I got a question several times over the last couple of days chai are you actually doing now after the session. So in the opening I would like to share some of those things, some of the philosophies I'm doing at the ICANN. And my job is really to make sure that the train runs. That is what I'm supposed to do after the community has made decisions and given them to the board, as you know there are bits and pieces we have to improve. One of them is above everything else is transparency. As we are trying to improve the transparency factor by adding more information. I don't know if you have even the CO report now, but when it was first released there was a perfect description or more transparent description of what we do. We are also working to make some of those things a little bit more predictable. We are working on how to handle, we are writing down how process actually works so we get a better view on how we do this. We are in the period where we are trying to implement things that the community decided after its incision. So that is the closest concerns we have. Some of the observations I'm doing noun is two going back to the work and I would like to thank everybody who was involve in this issue. It's about accountability for the whole system. One of the things that's become apparent for me over the last couple of days and weeks is that this multistakeholder model gives us an accountability but it also gived us mandate. Now, when we are talking about the accountability, I would say that the multi-stakeholder model as it's proven itself over the last couple of years ending up, and you can work together and produce accountability the way we are doing it. Going forward one of the things we are addressing more and more as ICANN is how we are going to hand in hand with the next generation of uses of Internet. We certainly at times during the couple of days found that we have 3.6 billion users and they are the easy ones because they are urban people, educated people coming on and now we are trying to reach more people in rural areas. We don't have the same economic factors going on. And I think we together have to think about how to address them in ways that they actually see the need of going on the Internet, which means that we have to be better probably working with local scripts, working with, giving the opportunity for local content because a lot of those people coming on board will have that need. And I'm looking forward to work with the community on that one. But with that, I'm more open for questions than for giving long speeches so this is one of my shortest speeches ever and that doesn't say very much, thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thanks. So I can see a number of faces that I know really well, and I number of faces that I know less well and a number that I don't know at all so that's really great. This is your session. We will take questions, discussion points from anybody about anything to do with ICANN, and there are board members in the room who can respond or staff that can respond, so I'm going to throw it open to the floor and anybody who would like to speech or ask a question, please let me know, raise your hand. Sir, gentleman over there. >> AUDIENCE: Hello, everybody, my name is Floren, I'm from the youth IGF project from Austria and I want to specifically know if there is any plans for ICANN to expand their next gene and fellowship project because right now it's the fact that you can only attend if you are from the same region as the ICANN meeting is under and if there are my plans to expand that and put more money into investing in young people in the Internet Governance sector. Thanks. >> I'll not specifically answer the question but I will try to tell you what we will try to do. We are in a process where admittedly some of the -- this is really something that the community has asked us to look into how to foster a new generation coming into the ICANN community because that's what we need. Even if I assume myself as very young, I know I'm not. But what we are trying to do now and we are putting in place which we will come out and sort to the board and also the community is something called more demand driven engagement policy where we actually go out and ask the community, when we say community, we use it broad terms, but going forward we have to better understand the needs of the specific group within the ICANN community or even different countries or different languages, and we have to be better at understanding how we will get more people engaged. What we had in India where we had the ICANN meeting was the longest and largest meeting ever we had a thousand participants from India, which is great. We also need to make sure that they come no the next meeting which will be in Copenhagen. I challenge Parliament members yesterday that at least a thousand Europeans go to Copenhagen. We had a thousand people from the African continent at the Americas meeting. I would say we are in the process that we have to work from a more bottom up process when it comes to engagement where your question actually fits in perfectly because I don't have the answer to it. I'm happy that you are here, by the way. >> AUDIENCE: Steve Dabianco: For youth to be engaged means far more than to attend a meeting. The work of ICANN is not at the meetings it's done in working groups that work at all hours of the night for several months often in a deviflt approach to get to consensus so we are anxious to have new participants but not just to the meetings, but to engage, and the way you do that at ICANN you will learn quickly by attending a meeting where is the natural place that you would gravitate to, the at large, the business constituency, non-commercial, you will navigate that acronym SOUP until you find a place and our job is to make you feel welcome and get you to join as a participant, and, again, that has to extend far beyond the meaning to where you sign up and participate at working groups so please do. >>Py agree with you, Steve, to build on what you said I met a young lady yesterday who a year ago was on the ICANN next generation thing and I can't remember which meeting and she new very, very little about ICANN and within a year she is now working with the Minister of , in a particular country, specifically working in respect to ICANN. So these programs are incredibly important, and make a huge difference. As Gorgan said I can't tell you that all of the information we get is going to be taken back and looked at so thank you very much for raising it. >> MODERATOR: Who would like to go next? It will be a quiet meeting. >> AUDIENCE: Alfredo Kaldero from Puerto Rico and a couple of you know me because I was one of the cases he is mentioning actually but I'm not a young person. I went to ICANN 57 with Eduardo, he has been my enter since then, and actually right now I'm working in a few groups with Allen and Tijani and other people that are here and are members of the board itself. But you know what, it's not only the young people. I have the same problem. I can only go to meetings if somebody gives me a fellowship or I can get somebody that sponsors my expenses. So think about also us, the not so young people that would like to get engaged working with ICANN but don't have the funds to travel or, you know,. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. Next question. Sir. Go ahead. >> AUDIENCE: I'm a member of the European Parliament and in this session I should like to know more, a little bit more about your key crucial points that you are standing for. Yesterday we had an informal contact with Michael leaks and members of the board already and there we could express our gratitude to the changes that have taken place, et cetera. And you are better positioned to keep the worldwide Internet open and to make the thing run and this is extremely important what happened and also the IANA new approach. But can you tell us a little bit what are your main three points that you are really struggling for in the ICANN? It might be important because it looks like it's fixed now and they will go on, you know? >> GORAN MARBY: It's a very good question, but it shouldn't be asked to us, not here on the board because it's actually -- I'm now -- I can't represent -- this is one of the fundamental things that's so important for us, it's the community who makes that priorities, and they have to make the priorities. We are the ones who implement the priorities of the community. There are a lot of discussions within the community too right now. If it's going to be a new DLT program, what can we learn from other ones? How do we better support local scripts? How do we streamline thing things? How do we end up not having too many Conference calls at night? There are structural things. The work stream 2 discussions about increasing accountability. So there are numerous steps, but I will always reframe back to say that speak to any given member of the community and you should have that answer. We are the ones who are implementing their wishes. I think that the overall, why are we doing this is because we believe in Internet has to be monitored. The other way the partners, the technical community, the people who work with protocols, we are in this because we think Internet is a real changer of people's lives. So until everybody is connected, until everybody is online working on the system, I think then we will stop talking about any of it. Maybe other problems will arise by then, but that gives you some of the answers. >> MODERATOR: Thank you, Goran. Does anyone want to add their own voice to that. >> Tijani: You should answer it. >> MODERATOR: Okay. >> AUDIENCE: Allen green bird at large committee in ICANN. I think Goran gave the answer, I will give it in words. If you ask every person, you will get a different three answers and that's part of the strength and part of the weakness that, you know, the multistakeholder group with so many different people represented each have different motives for being there. They each have different targets, they each want to achieve different things. Each of us believe we are here for the right reasons, and we will fight with each other over what those right reasons are, but that's I think what makes ICANN strong is because we have different people trying to decide what the important things are. And ultimately we, you know, people, what's the expression, we. I can't remember the expression, but where we decide to put our effort is where we end up doing the work. So if enough of us want to work on IDNs then that becomes a priority. If enough of us want to work on privacy issues, then privacy becomes the important issue and so on, so forth. >> MODERATOR: TIjani. >> AUDIENCE: Thank you very much. It's not about that. I would like to comment on what was said our friend from Puerto Rico. TijanI. Vice President of alac. I hear you, but there is no solution, everyone cannot be funded to come to the meetings, it's clear. But why ICANN is doing their meetings all over the world, it is especially to make people from this, from the country of the meeting to come to the meeting and to be more involved. With the new meeting strategy, we created this small meeting where we don't need very huge venues, and in this case we will be able to go to the small countries and to make meetings there so that people can be involved from those countries, but to bring everyone, I think it is impossible. >> MODERATOR: Thank you Tijani. Steve. >> AUDIENCE: So I listened to your question and I listened to the answers that we are giving, and I maybe step a little bit further. It is certainly true that if you ask each person you may get a slightly different answer so I will give you three answers that are my answers but not necessarily the only answers that you would get. (Steve Crocker) we spent the last 2.5 years with enormous emphasis on accountability and closely related topics. That's still a key concern, but I will put that third on my list. One of our primary and enduring and continuing concerns is security and stability, smooth operation in every respect. We are not responsible for overall security of the Internet, but we do have a role to play in pieces of that, and we are quite vigorous about that. And in the areas that we do have some responsibility, particularly the Domain Name System and the registry and registrar system, improving the credibility and legitimacy and trust in that how do we make that a marketplace that is more orderly, better understood, and more trustworthy? So that's one sort of answer number one I would say, number two which you have heard various echoes of is access. How do we make everything more inclusive. The Internet itself, ICANN as an organisation, all. of the different aspects of reaching out on a core basis for the multistakeholder model. And then coming back to the third one, we have gone through this long process of revising our bylaws and trying to expand the model that we have and now there is actually a substantial amount of work that isn't, doesn't attract a lot of attention. It's not glitsy it's not glamorous, but getting these pieces to work right, absorbing the changes and it's fine grain activity. It infuses every single part of the organisation speaking just about the board itself, we spend a certain amount of time thinking about, okay, how can we not only adhere to the letter of the changes but how can we adhere to the spirit of it and what processes, what changes do we have to make in internal processes, and how do we do that in a sensible way rather than in just a for show. So those are the three answers that I would give you. I don't think that they are contradictory with anything you have heard, but maybe they fill in a little piece. >> MODERATOR: Thank you, Steve, any other comments on this particular issue or topic? Okay. So who would lick to ask t he -- like to ask the next question or make the next comment? You are very well to go again. >> AUDIENCE: So if nobody else has a question, I take the second chance. So for the part that I'm following in the NCUC discussion, I have seen several members expressing concern about Trump and his views, so I would like to know maybe from you, but also from everybody else in the room what are things that are a real issue and is there anything that ICANN can do? And if I'm correct I understood that the Internet archive is trying to get crowd sourcing money to move their data storage to Canada, so maybe there is something that I would like to know your opinion. >> MODERATOR: I have a sneaking suspicion that Dr. Crocker would like to say something. >> STEVE CROCKER: Bruce dekale is a revered guy, a friend of mine, and I understand his concern about the Internet archive, and prudence and preparation is always welcome. You asked about Trump, that's a kind of local and temporary phenomenon. I wouldn't pay any attention to it. >> MODERATOR: Anyone else want to tackle the Trump question? Allen Lusevis. >> AUDIENCE: I won't answer the Trump question but being from Canada, they want to set up a copy in Canada, not move it to Canada. >> AUDIENCE: Lose I'm on the ICANN board, but I want to make a personal reaction because I have political background. We see a lot of recurring nationalism in many cases and Trump is one example, but there are builders and there are all over the place. The amazing thing about the internet and about meetings like this is precisely that it connects us all regardless of borders, regardless of nationalities. I just came from a session on Sextortion. There were people from all other the world who want to do the same thing which is to make the Internet safe for people. And if you want to say what can we do? This is what we can do, keep the Internet open and interconnected and make sure we tacking the problems that there. That's the reason I'm passionate about it and that's the best answer. >> MODERATOR: Okay. Anyone else game to respond in I will take the silence as a no. Fair enough. Next question, somebody at the back there. Okay. Somebody at the front then. This is going to be a very, very quick meeting. Jordan. >> AUDIENCE: Thanks, Chris. My name is Jordon Carter I'm the CEO of Internet NSEZ the CCLT manager for the domain among other things. I didn't want to answer your question because I'm not at the table and there are more senior people here than me, but you can, I think, observe as Louise has just said a kind of, a fracturing of the liberal consensus of you like that was the foundation stone for Internet Governance the way we do it today. This institution of ICANN that we are talking was set up in '98 and there is a long history of American support and patronage for and and challenges from other parts of the world politically. I don't think the Trump thing is as interesting as to see what is the implications are if there is a broader turn away from open market and open trade and open politics. And I agree too that the way that we can help solve that in our communities is by keeping talking to each other and not accepting that the kind of song of nationalism is the thing that should get in the way of that. I don't know if any of you want to answer that non-question, but there you go. >> MODERATOR: Thanks Jordan. >> AUDIENCE: I am, of course, not going to answer that question either, but one other thing that is coming after the decision, and I said this a couple of times and I want to say it again because I think it's important. I realize that we always said that nobody, Internet is like a car, you actually don't know, you don't have to know how it actually works. But I'm starting to think that I have been wrong because there is, for natural reasons right now there are a lot of people around the world and Governments to start to get a grip on that Internet changes everything. We can say domain names, but the whole concept of a boarderless society built on electronic data is something that changes everything. And we still live in a fiscal reality. I live in a country with laws and borders and those two things right now under the sentiment of cybersecurity, terrorism, refugees, a lot of countries in the world are now under financial problems with auto Ms.Ization, with all of these things so what we are seeing now is starting the process of discussing it. I'm starting to think that sometimes I hear legislative proposals and discussions that is based not on how Internet works, because everybody thinks that, I lot of people think that Internet is a national resource. It's a lake and you just jump in it. There are sharks around, but it's very pleasant, but it actually is a machine that needs to be oiled, managed, developed. And sometimes there are even policies that I see around the world that comes up for good reason. You want to protect your citizens, protect people, protect them from something and some of those policies can be against interoperability of the Internet. So I'm starting to think to myself maybe I have been wrong maybe we as a community, I'm not aing iquan but we all scroffed have the obligation to train ourselves and train other people how Internet, not the big words about policies but the technical under pinnings of Internet. Because if we end up with legislative proposals or discussions that actually has a negative effect on interoperability, we can really fragmentize Internet because of ignorance and knowledge. And a lot of discussions centre around the fact that we are trying to tell people Internet doesn't work that way. You get on line, you have 3.6 billion users. But it's one interoperability system. So maybe we have to figure out a way of working together, educate people how Internet works and maybe that can solve a part of the problem. And as I said to Steve, I'm still looking for the off switch of Internet in my office. I haven't found it yet. Steve says I haven't been on board long enough. Thank you. And that was for the record a joke. There is no off switch. >> MODERATOR: The two things with will take from this Goran is one that you suggested it wassen off spif and secondly that four times you Sid that might be wrong so we will take that away and remind you.. And I agree, I think, I mean, part of the problem is that we have conversations built around discussion of what ICANN does in respect to the Internet when actually what people are talking about is the Worldwide Web they are not actually talking about the Internet and we involve ourselves in the discussions. And we have got to find a way of making a clear distinction between those two things so people can understand. The gentleman at the back with his hand up. >> AUDIENCE: Hello Henry Rodriquez from Estonia. I have a question regarding security and the late (?) entered a tax in October. What is the role of ICANN in securing those Internet backbone systems and responding to similar cyber attacks. What is their role. Thank you? >> STEVE CROCKER: So you asked what's the role of ICANN with respect to the Internet of Things based DDos attack on Dine. We do not have a premier front line role with respect to that. The underlying issue which I suspect you recognize is that the devices that were bot based attack on Dine have been fielded with inadequate security, so they were enlisted into a botnet and then trained on Dine. They could have been trained on anything else in which case it wouldn't have had, it wouldn't have looked like a DNS issue. It would have looked like an Internet attack (Steve Crocker) just the same. The real core of this is how easy is it to enlist those devices and I think there is quite a lot of discussion in various Forums about maybe there should be standards or should be testing or should be good practices or there should be something so that the devices that you buy off the shelf and install in your home don't serve something else's purposes quite so easily. We are paying a lot of attention to that. We have been sort of up to speed. There is not a whole lot that is directly related to the things that ICANN is directly involved in, but it's quite regrettable that that happens. The other aspect, of course, is that because of an attack on Dine which is a major DNS provider, you can also ask the questions in what other ways are DNS providers at risk? That's, again, a somewhat more complicated question, and a DNS providers are very much like any other kind of provider, they are businesses that have servers, and whether it's a DNS provider or Google or Amazon or Facebook or New York Times, you know, Al Jazeera or anything else they are subject to the same sort of attacks. And that's another evolving area that's sort of one or two neighborhoods outside of where our core is. We pay a lot of attention and we keep up to speed on it, but it's not something that we have either direct responsibility or direct control over. >> MODERATOR: Steve, do you want to say something. >> AUDIENCE: Not on this topic but a new question. Would that be all right? >> MODERATOR: Let me finish on this one and then I will come to you. Allen, go ahead. >> AUDIENCE: Not related directly to the attack, but the management of the attack process does use domain names and the abuse or misuse or ill use of domain names clearly does fall within our remit to the extent that we can have any control at all, and certainly there are people in ICANN who are looking at that and saying is there anything that is within our power to do? Of course, not being in a position to to when I registered Allen green berg.org whether I will be running a botnet with it or not, but it's an interesting challenge but that's the intersection of what we do and the mechanism of the attack. >> MODERATOR: Steve. >> >> AUDIENCE: Let me chime in. Thank you, Allen, I should have referred to that aspect which is it is true that the controls that are used for triggering these bot botnets sometimes make use of a larning number of pre registered domain names. This came up very strongly and vividly in the Confikr bug, worm attack that we saw several years ago. So working out mechanisms to counter that that are both technically feasible and fit smoothly into the contractual machinery we have or to put it another bay to keep the contracttual machinery from interfering with smooth counters so that is an area we have had dealings with and try to be helpful on. I think it's still fundamentally a supporting role rather than a primary role but it's one we attention to. >> MODERATOR: Henry, does you want to say anything. >> >> AUDIENCE: Goran reminds we do have DNS security in the form of signatures added to records at the root level, the top level, and domain level and every level down below and we are in the process of rolling the key signing key, that infrastructure is a very powerful infrastructure whose value is going to pay off not only in the integrity of the DNS infrastructure itself, but a platform on which other stuff can be built and I think that has, is going to pay off in ways that are going to take a while, but have a really pervasive impact over time. >> MODERATOR: Just as the answers build upon each other so do the technologies we use. The fast flux technology that is used to control botnets is also used for good things to provide routing to some of the heavier used sites on the yrt, so you can't just top it from working because then good parts of the Internet stop too. It makes our life interesting. >> MODERATOR: Thanks, Allen.. >> Going on the analogy with the car and DNS is when the first cars were out there, they looked very different from the cars we have now and with the increased amount of car we built in safety measures and there has been great standards out there so DNSS E6789 k but on top of that Dane and DNS over TLS has been standardized and IETF. What we sadly see is the adoption of that is not by far as we should want, and it also goes really quite slow. So what can ICANN do and what should we do to make this go, to make this go faster? >> Actually what ICANN do and what should we do to make it go faster, we were listening hard for the answers. >> Well, it could easily be said that open DNS package is, which provides DNSsec is hardly easy to deploy and I think much can be done to improve the ease of deployment, help registrars deploy it and create more awareness among end users who have websites to enable that, or perhaps work on enabling it by default as has been done by Acme and lets encrypt which was a huge improvement for the security and proliferation of security on the Internet. >> You just pulled on a thread that's got a lot of things connected to it. The general picture at least as I hear it in sharing with everybody is developing software packages and getting them to be adopted and that's a complex marketplace problem, and it's not as simple as, well, just put some money in this and that would help. I mean, that might help a little bit, but it's not a complete sustainable package. So I think it's an important and worthy problem. And I think it is one of the areas that as a community we might study. I have been concerned, for example, about not just about specific packages like that that are improvements, but even the whole DNS infrastructure depends upon a relatively small number of software packages that come from extraordinarily dedicated but under funded non-profit mostly operations. And I think that when we lift ourselves up from the immediacy of this pressure we have been under with all of this accountability and so forth and start focusing on as I listed number one as security and stability issues that that's an area that ICANN does not have the man date or the resources to be in control of, but it's one that I think in conjunction with many other players in the community, we would want to bring to the surface, (Steve Crocker) >> MODERATOR: Steve, thank you. I want to say something about this. I think to go off of what Goran said when he was talking about the list of three things and that that's up to you. The times that the ICANN organisation and board gets it tfl into trouble which with we tell you we would like to concentrate on this or we should do that. If the community comes to us and says we would like to facilitate us to work on the things you have talked about, and that's what the community wants, then, you know, that's our job. Our job is to facilitate that and make that happen. That's how I would -- we have to be very careful that we don't -- if we try and top down this, we will end up in heaps of trouble. Do you want to respond and then I will go to Steve. >> AUDIENCE: A quick response I think it is within the scope and mission of the board to insure that the DNS runs stable, and for that if there is a dependency only software packages that might fall within the reM.I.T. and perhaps that not just waiting for the community but proactive work may be done, for instance, security is to dependent on a package like NTP. NTP has no funding at this moment whatsoever, so I think it does fall within the responsibility and understanding of the ICANN and ICANN board to see how we can have this healthy technical infrastructure on which we depend. >> Just to make sure we are talking about the same things and unpack, you referred to NTP, network time protocol, so you are suggesting that the network time protocol is now within the scope of ICANN's concern? >> AUDIENCE: I would definitely say that to be able to make use of SSL, which is important to make use of PGP SEC, we are dependent on NTP so we cannot say we have nothing to do with it. I'm not saying it falls under the complete remit that it should be managed like that but we should be concerned that there is no maintenance or security testing nor an audit -- >> >> AUDIENCE: Please get a two other people and then we have a quorum that can say the community is interested in this. >> MODERATOR: Steve. >> Steve Dibanco: A new coppic our mission is clear to coordinate unique identifiers for stable and security delivery of packets and yet there is relentless permissionless not just at the applications layer but at unique identifiers layer and I have heard talk over the last several months of the attractiveness of alternatives way as such such as digital object architecture and I would ask what the organisation ICANN, because the community I don't have any idea if the community has discussed this sufficiently yet, but I would be interested to know if the corporation is watching the discussions about DOA and because I think we would learn, we would learn what problems is DOA solving that we are not solving with our current names and numbers? And if we are not solving those problems, let's take the steps to do that. In other words, we can learn if alternatives are being considered and introduced, those alternatives must be doing something perhaps we could do bet. And the second alternative is to embrace. So we might learn but we also might embrace that some other form of identifiers could well be an area where policies, policy making is necessary no matter how you do your identification, but the policy competence of ICANN could be a ready resource for even alternative forms of unique identifiers. >> MODERATOR: Thank you, Steph, I will little Goran to respond first. >> GORAN MARBY: Everybody jumped on this. But I will give a general answer and I will hand it over to Steve. But one thing that I think many people forget in this is that Internet isn't built up, you don't because you always remind me it's a voluntary system. We have actually accepted a way of doing this forget with the friends in the numbering community and the protocol community and the end users, and we all came into a voluntary system and I would say we have to deserve the right to serve the ICANN community. Someone gets better at doing what we do, we should be replaced. It's actually in the bylaws and that's the same thing for the whole of ICANN. If someone comes up with an alternative method that is better than we do to support the Internet of the W06R8D, we should try to involve ourselves to be as good as we can be, but we should also be competition in terms of technology. I think that's very, very important. But with that said, I don't think that DOA is the answer, I mean, we follow is and we look into it and try to understand it. That is one of the technologies you have talked about, but I think that is a very important assumption from the beginning. Steve? >> I think the question you asked is what is a good Forum? And I think there is frankly a lot of confusion about that. The underlying idea of a digital object architecture is somewhat more complicated and reaches at a different part of the problem space than the Domain Name System, but then the question arises where is that line and why, you know, are they both needed or can one replace the other? And I think there is a certain amount of cone fusion that needs to be untangled there. I would much matter have Adiel speak on this than me. >> I think Steve mentioned it clearically that imAdielAplog technical engagement at ICANN. So you mentioned the confusion that is out there around the DOA and we are looking at that very closely from ICANN technical engagement perspective. Last week we had a workshop specifically dedicated to that and how we can also follow the work that the ITU is doing in that area in Study Group 20 where this is being discussed to, one, understand the different length and prepare to see the linkage as you mentioned but also to help people to understand the confusion. What is it providing precisely? People talk about persistent identification, what does it mean? Is there a standard that exists developed by the IT that has solved that problem? How can we promote them? Are we solving a real problem? Is the industry taking it? So there is a lot of work that will come or position in the coming, but it is something we are following and we will probably provide more information as we get on. >> MODERATOR: Thanks Adiel. Allen you wanted to say something? >> Allen: Just briefly, those of us with acronym phobia. DOA means dead on arrival. Thank you, Steve, for actually saying what it meant to those who might not have known. >> MODERATOR: Steve, did you want to -- >> We want to coordinate unique identifiers for the purpose of delivering for registrants and users reliable pack delivery and unique identifiers may be more than names and numbers so I'm glad to hear that management and the board are aware and open to investigate and to educate themselves and the rest of us in the community about what are the actual versus speculative benefits, try to compare them, there is no need to be defensive. We have to welcome competition, we are in the Internet business. And I think that's the right attitude to take and by engagement at the ITU is entissue appropriate. But I would look forward to having a discussion of that sooner than later, perhaps, even at the next meeting (Steve Dabianco) >> MODERATOR: We have time for one more question if there is one. Yes, sir. Go ahead. >> AUDIENCE: Hello. My name is Sarl Gam oh, cho I'm from Mexico, from the youth observatory. I have a question regarding the database because we live in an era of personal information flowing every day, every second on the net. So here in Mexico like a couple of years ago we were having like an awakening on the importance of personal data. So people started asking questions regarding why I have to give my personal information when I register a domain name. I understand that it's for a public purposes because I'm related to the Domain Name System, but a lot of people out there, they don't have an idea, and they are very concerned that they could have maybe a person personal information data breach because they have to make public their personal data. So my question is what does ICANN do to maybe start preventing this data breaches on personal information? Thank you. >> So there is a lot of work going on in ICANN at the moment with all things to do with registry directory services which is the new who is, I guess. This is a very, very difficult and complicated problem. The ICANN community has been discussing who is for as long as there has been an ICANN community, who is predated the ICANN community, and it's a very difficult issue. There are many conflicting opinions so law enforcement, for example, and I'm generalizing here, but law enforcement is very keen to have as much available data as possible (Moderator) the privacy people are keen to have as little data available as possible. The registrars would like much as long as it doesn't cost them money. So there are lots and lots of competing views on this and it is something we are working on consistently and constantly. I don't have answer for you other than to say if you would like to involve yourself in the debate, it's available, you can do so. You can be involved on line. You don't have to be at a meeting. You can involve yourselves in working groups. Now, I have Akram who wants to stay something and Leon. >> AUDIENCE: Thank you, Chris, so the community has actually looked at the issue, and there is a few PDPs or possible development processes 245 that address the current who is and there is next generation who is that is looking at it from a blank sheet of paper answering the questions from the beginning. In the meantime also there is a proxy privacy program that is in place that allows a restaurant to use a proxy registration so that they don't reveal their information publicly, but the information can be retrieved if needed. So there are some avenues to address the issue that you are asking. >> MODERATOR: Leon. >> AUDIENCE: Thank you very much. I think I'm familiar with the context of your questions since we are both from Mexico, and the who is, I mean, you technically don't have data breaches from the who is data base because it's a public database. So there can't be a breach. And as far as concerns from people not wanting to have their data all around, widespread on the Internet, well, I think Akram as provided a right answer to your question, and you have to think of it also as when you buy some kind of real estate, you have a public registry for that. So it's no different than that, right? The data is public, and if you want to keep your data safe from being widespread on any other databases, you should protect them maybe with one of the services, privacy services. So that would be. >> MODERATOR: Thanks Leon. Renalia, did you want to say something? >> >> AUDIENCE: I'm renally afterheim, member of the ICANN board. There are people who experience moments of awakening on specific topics when they engage at the IGF or at ICANN meetings or in regional meetings related to ICT or the Internet. The challenge is whether they are interested in it because they want to know more or because they actually want to actually get in and do something about it. And I think when it comes to ICANN, one of the challenges is that being able to present information in a digestible way so that that someone who is not very knowledgeable about it can go to a site or a page and actually have a good surface level understanding of what it is and then can decide whether they want to engage and then can be channeled properly to where they can be more active. And I think that that's a responsibility of the organisation to help make that happen. >> MODERATOR: Thanks Renalia, I have been reminded for completeness sake it's worth mentioning that there is a replacement protocol to the who is protocol which is called L dap which is much more flexible from the point of view of the information provided and gating and so on. And that is something that is being worked on at the moment, the introduction of that which will make some of the problems easier to handle. Anyone else finally on this topic? Okay. So I will ask Steve to make a few closing remarks and then if you can come back to me at the end, Steve, I have something I need to say. >> STEVE CROCKER: First of all, thank you, Chris, for moderating. Thank you, everybody, for coming. I don't think I recognize my fellow board members, how many we have here Renalia, Lusivic, Goran, Chris, Martin, did I miss somebody? Good. We hope this has been helpful to all of you. Probably an overriding message from our perspective, you have heard the thank yous many times. The other part of the message is we are bearing down on getting work done, sort of going back to all of the things that are backlogged plus the digestion process as I call it, the absorbing the changes that we have agreed to and that we have begun to make and will continue to implement. And it's a pretty exciting environment. And so one of the things that I say each and every time is there is plenty of room to get involved and there is even plenty of room at the top because soon enough all of us will be gone and you guys will be in charge. So do it. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you, Steve. Before I close, I would like to just ask you all to consider finding, consider people you might want to recommend, put their names forward to the nominating committee. The nominating committee selects members for the board at large committee CCNS country code name supporting organisation and the generic name supporting organisation, and it's a way that icab has to bring expertise from our side of our community into the leadership of the organisation. the 2017 nominating committee is now sitting. It has its web page is about to be updated. Their job is to find people to take seats at this time next year at our IGM. Three members, one men of the CCSO, three members of the at large advisory Council with two year year terms and two members of the GNSO Council with two-year terms so applications will be opening in the next week or so. None com ICANN.org is the Paque to watch. Its critical for the nominating committee to be able to do the best job it can, that it has as wide a range of people putting their names forward for all of these positions, not just the board, but the others ones are justify as critical, just as important and I would encourage all of you who would to consider the possibility of doing so, and also if you know of people who you think would be useful candidates, please encourage them to put their names forward as well. With that, I would like to thank Goran for his opening remarks in answering most or not answering most of the questions. And Steve as well, and all of ICANN org for putting this whole thing together and you for coming and participating. Thank you all very much. (Concluded at 3:55). >> MODERATOR: I'm Paul Mitchell and I'm your host for this afternoon and I hope we can have an active session, the Internet of Things is firmly entrenched in the vocabulary and we daily have new things joining the network, thermostat, baby monitors, delivery drones, traffic signals, television sets that listen to you, remote controls an the list is endless. The question for our work today is how can these contribute to addressing the US Sustainable Development Agenda and achieving the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, I suspect everybody in here is well aware of what the goals are but just in case you isn'ted the SDGs are the successor to the millennium goals the world's most complex challenges reduced to 17 goal weds 169 measure pable targets. No hunger, no poverty, gender equality, quality education, clean air and water, et cetera. The Sustainable Development Agenda is the United Nations Member States agreement on priorities for development, and the goal of today's workshop is to highlight how the Internet of Things is already playing a key role in supporting local and global initiatives and at catalyzing inclusive and sustainable growth. Our panelists here will discuss policy options on how the global community can harness the Internet of Things to realize these goals and we will run this workshop in three parts. See first we will hear about examples how how IoT is or can be used to realize the goals from different perspectives along the panel, and then we will have some interactive Q and A from all of you. Next we will hear about the technologies and systems required to make it all work again followed by some questions and finally we will hear about the policy approaches and options that might apply to accelerate progress. I think we have a great panel of experts including in by remote which Gian here is going to ep us with. Before we get started with the first panel I will start on my left and ask each panelist to introduce themselves starting with Jennifer and maybe two or three sentences about who you are and what you do. >> JENNIFER CHUNG: Hi, now you can hear me. My name is Jennifer Chung and I work for DOT.Asia organisation. We are a Top Level Domain registry so it's DotAsia and I work for them in the capacity of Internet Governance. My official title with them really doesn't describe what I do, but I am the Director of corporate knowledge for them. So that's what I do. Thanks. >> I'm Jackie Roth with rear size done child abuse indications we provide communication services, Internet services, Internet of Things in the U.S. and around the world outside the U.S. often enterprise services and I am with the international public policy group. (Jackie Ruff) >> RICARDO PEDRAZA-BARRIOS: My name is Riccardo and I work for the Colombian regulatory commission which is the national body responsible for setting communications policy for the Government. I'm pleased to join this panel and looking forward to share some of our experiences. Thank you. >> Hi, I'm Peter major I Chaired the un commission of science and technology for development. In fact, I think I am a substitute for the colleague who couldn't make it. I'm going to talk about the role of the CSC in my short intervention, but just to flag that we have two main mandates. One of the mandates is the over review of the WSIS process and the other mandate is the traditional science mandate of the CSC, but the two things are kind of converging and I was just happy to take up this road to drop in as a substitute. Thank you. >> I work for the Internet Society the Asia-Pacific office, and just a little bit about my organisation, the Internet Society is a global not-for-profit organisation so we work in the areas of Internet policy, Internet standards and Internet development. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. Now, I will twing over to Gian and the first additional panelist I will let him introduce ourself and then begin, we will begin with sort of his intervention. So Gian? Over to you. To introduce our first remote participant. >> So our first remote speaker is Paul Rowney from AFLCTA and he will be speaking remotely. Hello. >> PAUL ROWNEY: Hello, can you hear me? My name is Paul Rowney I'm from the Africa ICT alliance, which is a private sector net alliance African associations corporations and companies that is driving the acceleration of ICTs and development in Africa. >> MODERATOR: Okay. And, Paul, while you have the floor, you actually get to start with your initial set of remarks and then we will move back to the rest of the panel. >> PAUL ROWNEY: Okay. Thank you. I will start the process. The Internet of Things from an African context, what we are looking at here is there is a lot of talk about the Internet of Things, is Africa ready for the Internet of Things, is it a priority? Should our Government be looking at the Internet of Things as one of their top Agenda Items and will the regulators and bases in this process (Where). As we know a lot of the disconnected citizens in the world are in Africa. When we talk about Connecting the Next Billion, a lot of them are here. Our Governments in Africa, they do recognize the Internet. There is a lot of talk on the continent about Internet as an enabler. It's in most of the national development plans now that ICT is one of the pillars for development at a regional level. We have a lot of talk on the political landscape about the Internet, but there is a lot of challenges as we know. We are starting to connect citizens. Our mobile operators are driving mobile broadband mostly in the urban areas, but slowly into the rural areas. There is a lot of new technologies being adopted to address the digital divide, particularly technologies around the IM bands and Wi-Fi and super Wi-Fi such as TDY space. But still the majority of the citizens are not connected. Now, when we start talking about the Internet of Things, predictability, reliability without good infrastructure, without good telecommunications, the Internet of Things becomes a bit more problematic. We, we are striving towards the basics of universal access. There is digital divides across the entire continent which we are failing to bridge. A lot of this is down to legislation regulation and, of course, lack of capacity where when we look at Internet of Things, it is an enabler for the continent to start to meet some of the Sustainable Development Goals. The question is as posed here are we ready as a continent to bridge that gap? I think in general there are pockets in Africa like South Africa and others where infrastructure is stronger, but we have got countries where in the continent where electricity is off most of the time if it exists at all. And without electricity the Internet of Things tends not to work. We have got a lot of countries where as I mentioned earlier, there isn't accessibility to connectivity and where there is connectivity, it tends to be poor, and it's not well supported. And then when we start looking at other issues around Internet Governance and around cybersecurity, these things are relatively new to the continent and we are still starting to develop our skills around those areas. So I'm saying right now that I'm not convinced that Africa is ready to reap the full benefits of the Internet of Things. I think it needs to be on the agenda. It is becoming on the agenda. Governments are starting to understand the role that the Internet of Things of things can play on the continent, but I think we have a long, long way to go before it becomes reality, and become that enabler for social change that we are hoping it's going to be. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Now, I will switch to the first person on my level, Noelle to provide a little from a technical perspective, and just I will ask everybody in this room to apparently get very close to the mics because otherwise it's not working too well. >> NOELLE FRANCESCA DE GUZMAN: Thank you, Paul. So I would like to share some of the things that are happening in Asia-Pacific. I suppose it has a lot, the region is quite diverse, but it has especially the Developing Countries in the region have a lot of in common with what is happening in Africa, but we do see, you know, sensors and devices that are starting to be used for developmental context, but these are mainly sensor-based. We are not talking about self-driving tractors here for farming or, I don't know, even devices that have actuators or devices that can do, you know, physical things like open fences. So, for instance, one of the projects that we are supporting through our community grants program is a maker space. This is in the Philippines where university students are now, they are currently trying to develop wireless detectors. So in the Philippines you have very densely populated areas including low income informal settlement areas that use liquefied petroleum gas, LPG for cooking. Now, this is quite safe if you have, say, a smoke detector at home, but for many areas that are slum areas that are kind of makeshift materials and very, very close together, leakages have in the past led to whole areas being burnt down. So these sensors can be quite valuable to be able to alert residents that there is a leak. Another example are in India, there is connected thermometers so these are in cold storage units so if you are delivering vaccines to rural villages and rural clinics, they try and monitor the temperature inside, also quite valuable when it comes to health. Another example I suppose is in Vietnam, so in Vietnam they are starting to use solar powered sensors to monitor changes in temperature, changes in weather, from soil moisture to wind speed as an early warning system to be able to alert citizens or communities if there is a higher risk of flash floods or landslides. Another example in the area of disaster management this time in rescue and recovery and I'm trying to give examples on disaster risk management because Asia-Pacific is the most disaster prone area or region in the world. And this one involves the use of mobile transponders so if an earthquake just happened and you are one of the victims trapped under the rubble, you can send signals, you can send messages that these mobile transponders that are going around can pick up, and they will relay it to the rescuers who will be able to know where you are. So this, the last example relies on what we call delay tolerant networks and, Paul, correct me if I'm wrong, but these, they -- they store and they transmit data incrementally until it reaches its destination, and this is quite valuable when we are talking about areas with low or unreliable connectivity. And I guess this brings me to I suppose the first thing I would like to highlight is there is not a lot of clarity at the moment or it's in some cases it's actually quite restrictive with regards to the policies that would enable the use of IoT devices and sensors and systems to achieve development goals to enable this kind of experimentation to happen. An example is TDY space so countries are deliberating and some of them have like Singapore has been quite advanced in it, but a lot of countries in a lot of countries it's difficult to implement these I suppose or experiment and implement these systems if there is not a lot of regulatory clarity or clarity when it comes to policy. The second thing that I would like to highlight is Governments, Developing Countries, they get very excited when it comes to using big data to solve development problems or, you know, problems that they are facing. But there is not a lot of discussion going on at the moment on what this means for user privacy and security. So we need to able for data protection policies to be able to catch up with what is happening. On the user side, it's worth considering that when we talk about deploying Internet of Things to achieve SDGs is that we will be deploying them in areas that are quite resource poor. So this means, and obviously that have populations that either have yet to go on line or are just coming on line. So when we talk about digital literacy, for instance, we also need to consider how do we incorporate these principles of privacy and security into these programs that we have just to be able to ensure that, you know, the beneficiaries of using IoTs for SDGs would also be aware of what implications data sharing or data collection would have on their security and their privacy. I would like to end my comments there. >> MODERATOR: Thank you, now, we are going to go back to our remote moderator, Gian and I believe we have air aerial on line and you can introduce yourself first and give your intervention. >> My name is air rail Balbosa I'm a colleague from Colombia, I work in Coronado. It is a local organisation based in Bogota. We are working on the use of ICT for social Government. I don't know if it's time to share with all of you my idea, iOT FOE Internet Society or I have to wait. Hello?. >> MODERATOR: They are working on it. >> I was saying that Coronodo is a Civil Society organisation based in Colombia since 1994. We are working in the strategy of Internet and social development. Our cross cutting topics are gender, sustainable development and Free and Open Source Software. So it the sound is good? >> MODERATOR: Yes. >> Okay. Cronondo are developed in sustainable development, poverty reduction. So the strategic use of ICTs (Colnodo.). Next. >> MODERATOR: You are back. Okay. Keep going. >> Okay. Next please. Our vision of Internet of Things -- please one, please. Previous one, please. Previous one. We are a Civil Society organisation and our vision of Internet of Things is things and objectives will be active participates in information of social processes. We believe that these things, smart things and objects will be interacting and communicating among themselves and with the environment reacting alternatively to the real world created actions and created services with and without human intervention. In this presentation I have two probable he cans I want to -- projects I want to share with you. Next. Next. The first one is a project called deplasma the detection of an environmental link to asthma. This was a project made in the (?) Spain it was made almost two years ago. Next. And the idea with this project was to create a real time air quality monitoring platform to avoid risk situations for people with asthma. The solution that it creates aims to integrate monitoring and the communication of air sampling, data mining and (?) of environmental parameters. The main goal of the project was depending on the environmental analysis of the platform. The platform sends SMS to registered users with asthma. This is the first project. The second and last project I want to show is, next. This is a project we are now developing is the Internet of Things for (?). The idea is to implement it here in Colombia and it's called own it. It is focused on potato producers. Next. The idea with this project is the use of drones to take produce and crops. The drones send their photos for chrome mat to analysis for a mini lab located in the same farm. And depending on the color in the picks a system will send water or nutrients to certain parts of the crop. Next. So this is going on, this is just two projects that we are now developing here in Colombia and I just wait for your comments and questions about it. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much for that. Now, we will go back over to the panel here at the front, and pass it to Peter if the UN perspective. >> PETER MAJOR: Thank you, Paul, in your introductory remarks you mentioned the SDGs, the continuation of the MDGs, in fact we have two tracks. One track is really the continuation of MDGs, but the other track is the sustainability. This is a kind of older initiative of the UN. The overall approach of the SDGs ask to leave no one behind, and that is very important. It is important because we tend to forget about the human factor in the smaller IGF or IG environment, and we tend to regard only the technical part. And as we can just experience right now that the human factor is extremely important and we should concentrate on that as well. Having said that, I just want to make some remarks about the mandate of the commission on sharing. I ought to mention it is the focal point for the WSIS follow-up within the UN system, and the other task of the commission is to act as a Forum for the examination science and technology questions. And I already spoke on one of the -- in one of the main sessions that to me science is not exclusive of the natural sciences or engineering, but also social sciences. So I will encourage my fellow Commissioners to concentrate on the human part as well. Getting back to the topic of this session, I would like to mention that the commission itself this year as usually it does, one of the priority themes which it treated was the digital force side and this is a part of the report of the Secretary-General to the General Assembly of the UN. And in this report, naturally we have extensively dealt with the issues of IoTs, big data and so on, so forth. And I really recommend you to go to the website of the CSCD where you can download the report of on the digital force side where we have really made an extensive survey of what is going on with real examples. I don't really want to quote here. Now, as far as policy approaches are concerned, it has been already mentioned, I think, the white space has been mentioned which is also part of the management of the spectrum and this is an issue which will come up, I think, with IoTs as well and there is a big competition naturally for the spectrum itself. And white spaces may be used and it is, I think it's in the remit of the national administration that is for the spectrum managers of the national administrations, however, this is one aspect that should be kept in mind. The other aspect, I think, is the deployment of IPv6. And probably you may know that we are lagging behind with the deployment of IPv6 which is quite an issue and it should be dealt with. I think I will be more -- we will go into details about these things probably in the third part of the session. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Just a quick summary of what we have heard so far. We have seen a couple, a few examples most recently the ones from Ariel on using IoT drones for agriculture as well as the environmental monitoring for Spain, both of those tie to agricultural goal, an environmental goal. Noel talked about IoT sensing devices in the detectors for LPG gas leakage, connected thermometers for in health context. So we have got, we have got clear connections between the applications of this technology here in the Noelle's examples. In the African context Paul did a nice job of explaining what the challenges are and summarized it by saying he is not convinced that Africa is ready yet for a various right of reasons related to connectivity, lack of connectivity, lack of money, et cetera. And perhaps lack of capacity in Government. At this point I would like to open it up for the next ten minutes or so for questions that you in the audience here or anybody who is participating remotely may have for any of the panelists who have spoken up to this point in time. So please don't be shy. Ask your questions. If not, then I will have to ask them questions. So I will go and ask Noelle a question because wu have brought up several -- you have brought up several examples of real world applications of sensor technology. I wonder if you could talk about what you have seen so far as some of the obstacles to being able to bring those technologies into play to actually solve the problem? >> NOELLE FRANCESCA DE GUZMAN: Thank you Paul. I think I already mentioned some of them, but I think that at the moment it's scalability and that has to do with the cost involved. I mean, from our perspective sensors, the cost of sensors, for instance, have fallen drastically, but if you are talking about low income communities being able to utilize them it may may, I mean, $50 may be still very unaffordable, and then we also have as I mentioned there is granted that there is increasing coverage of, well, actually almost ubiquitous coverage of 2G and to a certain extent 3G as well, but not so much I suppose in rural areas and this is important because despite your rapid urbanization, you still have countries, especially countries in South Asia where the majority of the population still live in rural areas. Another I suppose obstacle would be just, well, I don't know, where do I begin? I think I will end there. If anybody else wants to pitch in. >> MODERATOR: Yes, Peter. >> PETER MAJOR: Thank you. Maybe hearing my panelist colleagues the opportunities that they are seeing in different sectors, I want to just share some news I read this morning about the Mexican economy, and it really surprised me to learn that the income from agricultures in this country now surpass the income delivered from any other exportation or and even the tourism which are really, really big, but from now on, the Mexican economy is getting the biggest part of their GDP from agriculture exports. So that makes me think really about the opportunities the Internet of Things could have in bringing the agriculture productivity in Mexico even more productive. So for many developing economies that usually have depended on oil minerals or tourism, this is a new opportunity with the Internet of Things to set or to align with a new sector that is more compatible with their capabilities. So I think that it is just one sector. I think it's, it is important to have in mind. And the other one is transportation, I believe. Most of the developing economies doesn't have a modern public transportation system, and because it demands huge amounts of investment, and the economies has trouble with many other demands from their societies. Just bringing about some simple Internet of Things solutions on traffic management could really improve the quality of life of many of the citizens of these economies which are usually big cities. So I believe these two sectors I would like to just say it has a huge potential especially for developing economies thank you. >> MODERATOR: I wanted to come back to Paul if he is still on line. So the question for Paul in the African context, you identified a concern that Africa is not really ready. I wonder if you could talk a little bit about what you think the necessary levers are that the sort of multistakeholder global Internet community could pull to actually help facilitate Africa's readiness. >> Thank you, Paul. I think a lot of our challenge, is one is lack of understanding, one is lack of capacity, and there is a lot of other priorities facing the continent. We look at connectivity, it doesn't mean our leaders want to connect citizens, they are also blocking Internet. We get Internet lockdowns, we are bringing in cyber laws that are impeding people's access. So I think from a continental perspective, we have got a long way to go. One thing I wanted to add to that as well is that when we look at connectivity, I think connectivity is one of the keys to the success of the Internet of Things, particularly around sustainable development because we need to get these things out into the rural areas. In Namibia we ran you one of the largest TDY space trials very successfully, but our regulator is quite hostile towards TDY space. We are struggling to get regulation in place whereas this is an enabler and globally it's been shown to bring connectivity to rural areas. Even this morning we had meetings with our regulator around type approvals. Now, when you look at the Internet of Things, that means bringing in new devices that are not necessarily type approved. We are going back five years in the way, how type approval was done. We are not taking supply declarations, pretty much everything now in Namibia has to be type approved. We have backlogs of six months. How do we start to bring in new technologies into the market? We are blocking progress through regulation through policy, and we need to be breaking down those barriers to enable the Internet of Things. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. That's maybe a good jumping off point to move over to Jennifer now and let Jennifer provide her thoughts overall on the IoT and SDGs. >> JENNIFER CHUNG: Thank you, Paul. So I wanted to focus a little bit on fully, thinking a little bit about privacy because Noelle touched on it earlier when Developing Countries are really keen to use big data for IoT, but then there is questions surrounding data privacy, security and all of that. So how do we reconcile this? How do we mitigate this? One piece of this could be using DNS sec to address the security issues. If you build on trust, you need a trusted Internet. Trust requires both security and privacy, and this can be enforced by mass encryption. What I mean by that is really not a bad sense. You have devices, you know, Internet of Things, devices can talk to other devices. This is why in this kind of environment you need two models. The model that people really do know about on Internet of Things is the Cloud model. So what that means is each device is connected to a Cloud. You have, you know, the data, you upload the data and it talks to your device and that's the big data model. A second model that is kind of in development and we are in development with other partners is local within the devices so this is a local ecosystem, a local network and keeping that data and computing local. So why does this have to do with security and privacy? This gives the use ire, the user gets to consent whether or not his or her data gets used. The Cloud Computing model is a big data model. Now, consent could have been given before, but in this local network, local ecosystem model, every single time your data is accessed, you need to give consent. So how does this kind of tie back in? Why is DNS sec important to mitigate this privacy issue here? Each device would have its own, for example, domain name, and it would be within the local network, it would use a DNS sec so the public key infrastructure, the public key and the private key would be used within the devices to connect to each other and that's how we could use DNS sec to realize, you know, to mitigate the security issues that is prevalent or is on a lot of people's minds when we talk about Internet of Things because back in September there was this big news Article or very big news that happened when people were like oh, no, you know, Internet of Things it was used it was hacked, now what are we going to do because it's in your own home. You are confused why these devices can be used to aattack other things in a very big way. This is for the very first time home user, like user's home networks have become an indispensable part of the global Internet infrastructure and I think I'll stop there and I can carry on with the policy implications in the third part. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. And I will turn next to Jackie. >> JACKIE RUFF: Thank you. Well, I think this has been a great discussion so far and very, very much exhibit with the ideas that I was -- consistent with the ideas I was thinking about trying to come in and do a useful intervention here. I tried to think about examples of IoT that our company and others are doing that would be directly related to the goals, and so it was interesting that you raised the, Noelle, I think the vaccines because that is something, and even in the U.S. right now, we have recent legislation about being able to track the supply chain for medicines and pharmaceuticals to make sure that they are safe and that they are not counterfeit and so on. And developing those uses of IoT could easily be applied in the developing world. The other one that I, of course, immediately comes to mind is the Smart Cities with all of the traffic management and so on and optimizing traffic flows. And then the third one, and this, I think, goes somewhat to what our colleague from Africa was speaking about, you know, I was asked to think about what would be a few necessary elements to make IoT succeed, and the first one that came to my mind was actually having expansive and reliable infrastructure. That means different things in different markets, but clearly in some markets it means just the fundamentals of building the networks. In other markets it means taking the next generation, usually a wireless network, so in some cases we will be moving even to the fifth generation of wireless. In all cases, it requires, of course, spectrum investments, commitment by all players and expectation that different types of networks will be built in different situations. So that would be my first element to say that we undeniably need. The second one and I think that's already come out in conversation is that we need to expect a wide range of uses. And there should be, therefore, a regulatory environment and I think we will come back to that later that is friendly to try different things, to have innovation so that type of flexibility. And that looks at ways to simplify. I was very interested in the comment about sort of type standards that are being imposed because there are certain things like permitting or licensing or device registrations or mandates on which identifiers and numbers you can use that prevent having the wide range of uses as may be appropriate to the type of service or to the market. And then my third element and last would be that in so many ways the services that have been discussed and will be potential, we don't even know what they are, of course, but it's pretty safe to assume that in large part they need to be seamless across borders to at least have that potential. And Cloud platforms may be appropriate in some cases. In other cases it may be more of a local type of arrangement, but you can see if you look at pandemics or a lot of healthcare issues, things like that that it really does have to go across borders. And we need to figure out the right policies on that. Right now we do see somewhat of a trend of localization requirements in creating barriers. Sometimes in the name of privacy and security. Totally agree we need to deal with privacy and security, but we need to be careful that it doesn't create a barrier to exactly the kinds of services that will be so important to achieve the SDGs and other objectives. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Okay. Now, I would like to turn it back to Jen and Ariel who is on the line. >> ARIEL BALBOSA: Hello? Can you hear me I will just add something about the presentation about the importance to have a private network, private ecosystem. In the Colombia project that I already mentioned security was one of the first concerns of the potato producers. Those private networks must be a valid and proper solutions to implement Internet of Things. I think it's important this topic of privacy because from the first question for those was is it going to be located in the Cloud or what kind of Cloud or what is going to be the privacy condition of that? So I think you mentioned already the point about privacy and security of information, and this part of private econetwork would be a good option. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. I would like to open the floor to anyone in the room or other remote participants that have questions. Yes. >> AUDIENCE: List out what are some of the challenges at this stage and discuss solutions and policy terms because I don't believe there is anybody from Government here and I think that would be an important perspective and I could present that if that is agreeable. >> MODERATOR: That would be appropriate. >> AUDIENCE: Okay. Thank you. My name is Viad Peratti, MAG member and Chair the largest ICT committee of about 200 members in India which has a full range of industry partners and telecos too, search engines and everything. So we are dealing with this stuff firsthand, and you can take it that what I'm suggesting is roughly true for South Asia which is about 35% of the world population. My friend from Africa spoke about not being ready and that goes to the heart of the paradoxes that we have. Let me present three paradoxes so we can get a sense of where the developing world sits today. I will take an example and you can expand that because it's a large example that can be used. On the list of connected citizens in the world of the 197UN countries, India is the second with 350 million population connected. On the list of unconnected citizens of the UN 197 countries, it is number one with 900 million unconnected. So that is the level of the policy paradox that we are dealing with the basic thing called connectivity. I will come down where M to M goes. Let me say another one. They put a spiesship on mars at the fraction of the cost the United States did, one of the few countries that put an orbiter on Mars and there is a photograph of that, and yes, sir there are 400 million Indians who have yet to make their first phone call from their own phone, 400 million Indians have yet to make their first phone call from their own phone. So when we talk about readiness as a nation, the Government is dealing with just a huge amount of things at hand. It could sort of go on about the paradoxes and it's an unending list, but let me just say here are the four or five things that the Government are looking at. I will present their perspective because we deal with them every day on these issues as an industry representation. Fist, they are looking at machine to machine and IoT as an extension of telecommunications. So their starting point is telecom is regulated, how do we regulate IoT? So all of these fantastic examples I have heard of, that's because the Government hasn't gotten its teeth in it yet. They are looking at this as oh, my God, there is something going on and it sounds like telecom. We have to do regulation now. So keep that in mind as we look at this. The second point I want to say is that security is a huge aspect. I think she spoke about it. It's arch incredible aspect especially in South Asia which is terror prone and because human intelligence is down and digital intelligence is up. They are depending on digital intelligence and IoT come is right in the middle of national security. So the guys dealing with this are intelligence agencies, not the police force. So that's where decisions are being made about issues of privacy, surveillance and all of the stuff that IoT is concerned with. And there are two more things and then I will sort of rest it. This is just the problem definitions and we can talk about solutions. The users of IoT as has been defined are various ministries, Government departments, rural development, women and child, sanitation. As you know there are more phones in the world than people have access to drinking water or sanitation put together. So that's the stage. But none of those ministries are discussing IoT regulation which has been planned in an office in some department of telecommunications or department of Internet, whatever the Government set up is. There isn't anything wrong with it, but this is just the reality of what's going on. So the users are somewhere else, and the regulators are somewhere else. They think this is a telecom thing we need to regulate. I will close by saying unless we can invest very quickly into getting the regulatory piece right, we could be in for a very long delay. I will close with the last example. We took ten years to go from 1 to 24 million mobile phones. After the regulation was established and the use case came in, we went to a billion phones in the next ten years, 24 million in 10 years and a bill none in the next 10. So we don't want to get stuck with IoT in the same situation where the growth is so small that the innovation starts hurting. Very last thing, technology will find its way. I mean, there are brilliant technologies and use cases sitting all over the world. They will invent stuff to find every solution to every big problem in the world. The real issue is to make sure that the hands are freed and this can actually go and deliver to its full potential so I am saying this because I don't see a Government representation of this and their perspective is very different from what we are bringing to the table. Thank you. >> CHAIR: I was going to hand it over to Peter who probably is the closest to Government. >> PETER MAJOR: I change my hat and want to talk about regulations from the ITU point of view. It was interesting to listen to some delegates who brought up the issue of Wi-Fi causing harmful interference to hearing aids machines. Persons with hearing impairments had problems of interference. Basically they couldn't use the devices in a Wi-Fi environment. Now, iement afraid the regulations will not come immediately. The result that was achieved in the radio assembly of 2015 last year was to give instructions to one of the Study Groups in the ITU to look into this mat every which means that we will come up with recommendations by 2019 and I'm not sure whether the radio Conference of the ITU will take up this issue because it is not on their agenda. So it means the discussion about regulations on a global level and which we will go down to the national level will come earliest in 2022 so it means that we have seven, and this is a very optimistic estimate aso this is a major obstacle in addition but has been mentioned including electricity which is, of course, I have been to (?) just three weeks ago was an issue even in a village where it is, I have seen a school with computers and interesting laptops and when we asked why laptops we were told because of the electricity. So they didn't want to rely on unreliable supply. And laptops are ideal for these purposes. >> MODERATOR: Pedro, go ahead. >> AUDIENCE: Hi, Riccardo from the Colombian Government. So, yes, there is a representative from the Government perspective. More specifically from the regulator, the communication regulator and not the telecommunication, and I agree with you and with Paul from Africa the digital divide is undeniable. It's undeniable reality in most of the developing economies. And I believe you mentioned one in your exposition you mentioned one of the key elements is the mindset of the Government. And that's maybe the first step to try to change from the telecommunications mindset to the communications or to the ICT sector. And I believe that that has been our reality moving from telecom, Ministry of Telecommunication to a anyonetry of ICT and -- ministry ICT and the regulatory bodies, telecommunication regulatory body to a communications body with a mindset of trying to foster and promote ICT sector, not with the idea of regulating in terms of forbidding or limiting or trying to tax initiatives that go beyond the telecommunication side, but instead to try to develop policy and promote programs, initiatives that could help the private sector, the society, the full Government to embrace the ICT opportunities. It's a long path. It's not from one day to the other, but I believe it's the beginning of a possible solution thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you, Andrew. >> AUDIENCE: Thank you. And drew Mack not from the Government, from private sector. We have a firm that works a lot with the Global South. One of the things that I think is really interesting about this conversation and a lot of the conversation when it references the Global South is we have a tendency to think of the Global South as being behind in this discussion, and more of a taker. I would like to suggest that we flip that. When we are thinking about the SDGs, SDG17 is about partnerships and there are substantial possibilities for partnerships with the private sector on this. And then there is SDG number 8 which is about building the economy and building jobs which is a major, major issue in the global sowm as well. I would like I would like to suggest that we might want to look at the Global South as being a data super power, a future data super power because of the seven or eight billion people on the planet. Very little is known about an awful lot of them who live in the Global South and that should provide a lot of opportunities that that could be unlocked by IoT. I think it's a big opportunity and one that could conceivably bring a lot of jobs and a lot of resources to the Global South. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. And we have Paul also on line with Gian. >> AUDIENCE: So Paul has a question for Peter. Is there a reason that the ITU is relatively quiet on the issue of TD wide space in the broadcast bands. >> It's easy and not easy probably ITU regards it as a national and a local issue and ITU is involved I think in the global regulations and that is the short and long answer. >> Just to be specific there is a foot note that say national administrations are free to do it that there is not a problem with the existing regulation. And -- >> AUDIENCE: My name is again is I work for next work information centre in Brazil, and I'm head of (?). I would like to add my two sents to this whole discussion, and also probably I will follow Peter's major's line when he said think about the human in this whole thing, you know. My point is that you are not talking or very little has been talking about the interface in IoT things. A lot have been talked about the devices connected divides and about life, but the interface is the way that people will interact with the device. So we have to talk more about this interface. From one side you have to talk about the standardization of interface. In the other side we have two talk about usability of interface. So that's the way that people can interact and also take decisions on how the device can work or in their favor or can just say, well, stop being connected because I don't want this device to connect. So the interface is very important. I know that the organisation -- the privacy organisations think about that and they call it the Web of things but that is not enough. We have to talk more about that. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much and we will turn back to Paul or someone else.this is Ariel again. >> Okay. I would like to add about the IoT policy. It's really important to promote Civil Society participation in the laws and regulation. For instance, and this is not only in Colombia but in many countries of the world where users are starting to use part of the spectrum for wireless rural networks bought I think we are too late because the current regulation did not take into account the alternative uses of spectrum. So now we have opportunity as Civil Society to participate in the constriction of IoT regulations. Civil Society must be involved from the beginning. >> MODERATOR: Thanks very much for that. I would like to go to Jackie, and, and you are passing to Edmund. >> JACKIE RUFF: My comment is on discussion on regulatory policy -- >> AUDIENCE: I wanted to have a brief response to the interface. I think that's a great topic. I think that is definitely one area that is missing in a lot of the discussion. And the reason why I think that's important is as mentioned, I think my colleague, Jen, mentioned that the first time we in the home have these devices that form a critical part of the Internet infrastructure, so users need to, well, for the last 20 odd years the computing industry has moved towards what is called simplification and believing that users are pretty dumb. Well, I think users are starting to become a little more sophisticated over time, and it's important that those interfaces allow users to stop things or control them and configure them more intelligently and control it. Because things that come out of a box and doesn't allow you to do anything about it actually are vulnerabilities because things change on the Internet so fast. The user can't stop it, then it becomes a problem. Of course, there needs to be a balance. I mean, there are more sophisticated uses and there are less sophisticated uses but the interface needs to be able to, you know, those advance buttons and stuff needs to be in there, and that needs to be part of the standard, I think. That's a very important part of what we call security and privacy into the future, I think. >> MODERATOR: Thank you, now, I think we are firmly in the time slot for the regulatory stuff and I want to get to Jackie because Verizon is one of the sort of global leaders in innovating on delivering services on networks, on security, on a whole host of things and having to navigate the world of sometimes conflicting Government regulations in different parts. So I'm very interested in your view on sort of what's it going to take to put all of the incentives in place to make this come to life everywhere? >> JACKIE RUFF: That sounds like a very ambitious deliverable, but I do want to talk just about some of the trends that we are seeing around the world. So I appreciate what Verat said and what Mr. Pelazzo said, and we are seeing, and I noticed the comment from the colleague from Brazil. So we have been seeding countries really looking at these issues. Some of that was expressed in the ITU initiative. And probably in many cases the first instinct is to say, okay, how do I do something like a traditional telecom law that's labeled IoT? And we saw that a couple of years ago early on, and so you might see something like new licenses, registering every device possible, maybe even looking at rates and charging arrangements and so on. I believe that it's probably safe to say that some of that has now been seep to be unhelpful, unnecessary, possibly imposing barriers. So there is, I hope, a little bit more of a view that a lot of the policies we need for IoT we have in existence for other types of services. So that the best approach is to really try to figure out what's the maximum that could be done with something particularly if you can call it an ICT service or a communication service? How far can you get with what's already there? What barriers might need to be removed? What are the gaps? And maybe those gaps are quite narrow and maybe they are more about sector specific, right, than about IoT, per se? So I would say that that is sort of a constructive direction, and that in that analysis it's very important to have multistakeholder input, and that we are seeing that in countries, and even in the U.S. which is, of course, not a developing country but nonetheless relevant our agency that coordinates policy for the Government on communications generally has launched a consultation very open come tell us what you think the issues are, not with the assumption that we will do regulations, but that we can try to figure out what are good enabling policies. Because I do think in this area it's so innovative that it's not well designed for an expectation of intrusive classic regulation. So need to deal with the issues, need to deal with the people factor, but those are just some overview remarks. Thanks. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. I want to swing back to Jennifer and, you know, this past couple of years we have seen the largest expansion of the Domain Name System with a huge number of new Top Level Domains including internationalized domain names which might get a little part of some discussion interface and acceptance, but I am wondering from the perspective of someone involved in the expanded domain name world, what are some of the challenges that you see in terms of operating, managing security, and fitting into the sort of global ecosystem of domains? >> JENNIFER CHUNG: So I think I just also want to jump off of what Jackie did mention before there is infrastructure in place. There is legislation and there is already regulation in place to address a lot of these concerns. And there is some music too. Music is the spice of life -- that can address these things and when we are looking at expanded Top Level Domain space, when we are looking at things like IoT we have to remember that sometimes policy priorities for the Global South are different than policy priorities for the Global North, and going back to the SDGs insuring that no one is left behind does mean you have to level the playing field. When you look at, for example, the SDGs quote, unquote, to help the developing economies, having policies that, you know, can possibly be more inducive to localized or local startups or local technologies and that kind of sense makes more sense than to give perhaps an advantage to establish companies or established providers or established services that already exist. Going back to the expanded DNS and expanded Top Level Domains, that pretty much does come back to consumer choice. And having that, and having that as innovation, I think that is extremely important because it comes back to, you know, the individual having no one left behind. You have a choice to do this. Going back to IoT, for example, the privacy issues, you have a choice whether or not to consent to your data being used, you know, different from, you know, big data, you already, the data is already being used without your consent, without your knowledge and that's going to be a very big issue. So that is why SDGs, sustainable development of the technology, of the DNS is really important when it comes to thinking about policy development. >> MODERATOR: And coming back to Noelle and then we will open it up for the balance to the folks in the room. So you happen to be in Singapore which has a fairly modern regulator, an integrated regulator in terms of the info com development authority. I wonder if you could share your thoughts on how the process in Singapore has worked in terms of enabling sort of the, pretty much the complete wiring of the entire country in a way that's very far ahead of many others? >> NOELLE FRANCESCA DE GUZMAN: I would have to make a disclaimer, I'm not based in Singapore. I'm based in Manila. The office is in Singapore though so I report to the Singapore office, but I will try and say something as well. So Singapore is in a very unique position because I suppose especially in Southeast Asia because it's an industrialized, it's an advanced economy. It also has a very, very good I suppose they have a very good system in place for Governments so they are very -- if you want political will power, then Singapore is the best case example that you could have in Southeast Asia. They get things done pretty much. And when it comes to connectivity, it's just they have, they had an objective to connect, I don't know, I think at the moment it's about 96 or 98% of the population is connected in some form to the Internet. So they are now, what they have done most recently is that they, they have actually done a number of countries in the Global North have done, like the U.K., they have merged the media regulator with the information and the, well, the ICT regulator with the media regulator and it's now called IMDA. And I suppose it's a way for them to be able to deal with all of these kind of cross-cutting issues. And Singapore is also, they are advancing very rapidly. They are now testing in terms of IoT, I wouldn't say for SDGs because they are quite developed, but they are now, they are now talking about connected homes. They are talking about, I think they are going to pilot connected cars and having, having monitors for the elderly. So I guess at the very basic level it just comes, comes down to political will power. So they know what they want, and they know how to get it done. >> MODERATOR: Thoughts in the room? Verat. >> AUDIENCE: Thank you, since I stirred the pot with the biggest problem, let me try and offer some thoughts on what the solutions could be here. I work for AT&T so I will present that point of view. First, I want to talk about Global South is being spoken about but let's talk about Developing Countries. I want to submit that I think we should be very comfortable with the fact that the Developing Countries would come up with the best technological solutions with the worst challenges we have to address the issues of SDGs. They are innovating at speeds we can't even imagine. And to solve the problems of the poor, because as you know, the vast majority of the money and the research goes to solve the problems of the rich. This sector is going to solve the problems of the poor. So we can be happy about that, and you can take it that they are developing technology at a pace you cannot imagine so that will come through. We are confident about that. I also want to commend the Government of India which is not in this room who have been con sooting for the first time in ways that they have never done with people outside the telecom sector so the first time in 70 years we have seen car manufacturers in the department of telecom saying what are you doing here when there is IoT discussion going on. And logistics companies so lone cult, consult, consult. That is something the Government can do. So here are some of my offerings very quick on what could be recommendations. I also want to plug in for the organizers of this session, ICC has this book and Page 4 has specific recommendations for policy makers, some really good ones. Here the ones that I would like to continue with, one, IoT sector needs to work with legacy networks. If there is this expectation that some brand new networks will come along. That will take a long time. 95% of the population is still covered on 2G. So we would have to find ways in policy to work with legacy networks which is billions and billions of dollars. Second, at additional spectrum needs to be allocated. That discussion needs to occur early. However, the spectrum is, whatever ITU has, whatever any other body has that discussion needs to come fairly quickly. Build a broad ecosystem for startups and incubators. They will drive the use cases so if there can be policies which help these kinds of things coming out, even low tech users that will help the developing world. Promote data centers. Large -- unless large number of data centers are promoted the data will become useless. Other ways it's just data flowing out which is just wasted. Two more, interoperability standards being spoken about telecommunications is basically a local business that has some international calls and some interconnectivity issues. IoT starts globally. And local use cases are important, but it is inherently a global business, so that mindset needs to change. It has to be interoperable across world. Everybody needs to work with everybody and that includes multi-stakeholderism and the last one, point that Jim spoke about, trust. It's a huge issue. We need to resolve that, not leave it to the end because it will come to bite us. National security is an issue, privacy is an issue, network security is an issue. These need to be addressed right up front and very quickly. Otherwise they can significantly delay the rollout of IoT in the world as we hope it will. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Anyone else have a question in the room? Yes. >> AUDIENCE: Just to say who I am, December ray Losovich I'm an organizer of hack-a-thons in southeastern Europe and this year I will be organising I think probably the third one. And I think we have not mentioned, I think, really the impact that these events have to build community, to really get and adopt goals that are a part of how we are going to transform the world. They are going to improve not just knowledge in these parts but there are a lot of communities. There is probably a hack-a-thon, an IoT hack-a-thon taking place every week somewhere in the world, and these communities are somehow disconnected from the regulators and from the private sector who sometimes funds them, but I do think that this community is growing very fast, and there are a lot of bridges that need to be built in order to really harness the potential of the community. I think there is a lot of problems we are solving and there is a lack of communication about availability of the free spectrum and how the IoT is going to be used. So I think if we could really try and utilize these events that are already taking place at every ITF, even ICANN recently had a hack-a-thon they sponsored in India where I met a lot of really good developers from universities that come up with these new ideas and you have been mentioning. It's really fascinating and energizing what's going on. And it would be good to really bring next time some of the practitioners to really hear from them how passionate they are. But the reason I think we have a lot of issues that we need to overcome such as vendors and the devices of not mentioning just the security of those, many of these devices coming with vendors lock in default pass words and we discussed this at the recent IoT workshop at the ITF. This is something the regulators could take home because unless you can change the password of this device we are going to have the Internet of broken things, and that's where the accent should be. Thank you. >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. So we just have a few minutes left, so I'm going to give each of the panelists who have participated today the opportunity to have more or less the last word. And we will start all the way to my left, and just come down this way. And in a minute or less your final thoughts. >> JACKIE RUFF: We have heard a lot from the panelists in the room and all of the concern about IoT and how it relates to the SDGs. It does cut across all of the SDGs because it's part of individual life and globally. You have networks of things, you have networks of people and you never have to forget the human element of having, insuring that no one is left behind. I know we have talked about the Global South and the Global North and all of the policies and regulations that are needed for that, but what is really important is faux not to stifle innovation and innovation local and personal and that kind of solution to address local problems. And that's pretty much my last take away for this (Jung)Chung >> JACKIE RUFF: I think this conversation has demonstrated the positive potential for IoT. I hope as one who works on public policy and regulations, I hope that we also come away with a sense that we don't need a heavy regulatory hand. We don't need things for IoT specifically if we have the right tools already in place, and that there is a, you know, so much tremendous potential ahead if it's done right, thank you. >> There is a CDG is a set of goals extremely challenging especially for developing economies. Paul from Africa, VaraT and many other interventions have said the digital divide is a clear reality for many of these economies. Most of the unconnected users come from these developing economies. And the efforts that have been deployed by Governments is still huge and the Government is struggling to try to connect all of the remaining users, Internet unconnected users. Nevertheless, the Colombian Government believes that the IoT represents an opportunity, and an opportunity that I forgot to mention that our local people develop solutions for our poor people who are the ones who are really needing. And that makes, that brings out the responsibility to capacity building program on network people to develop, to identify these opportunities, and to develop and to use it. So it's a huge challenge and but it's a clear path on believing that our citizens can solve our problems. Thank you. >> What I heard today is that IoTs are in all of the SDGs either directly or indirectly. I don't agree with that. I heard two important remarks concerning regulations from Varat we heard that IoTs are being considered as a national security issue, and there was a call for regulation that is to move from telecom regulations to ICT regulations. I am not very much fond of regulations. I have to admit. And how -- I'm a bit pessimistic that regulations will come (Major preanal) and it will have an effect on the smaller community of the IGF and the Internet Governance and it might change also the approach we have that is the multistakeholder approach, but I hope it is not going to happen. So I will do all that I cannot to have it happen, but we will see. >> NOELLE FRANCESCA DE GUZMAN: What we talked a lot about today proprietary standards and a lot of things but I suppose what hasn't been brought up is really what kind of IoTs can we deploy with the resources that we have in these communities, which would bring me to my next point is that they need to be simple. We need to start Tim simple. And they need to be low cost. And that would mean having policy in place that would have bottom up innovation. Innovation from communities themselves. We can't rely on donors giving us things and hoping that when it breaks down some technical expert will come in and repair it. Communities need to be able to do this by themselves, and we need to be able to help them do that. >> MODERATOR: Thank you, and is Ariel or Paul. Okay. In that case, then we are exactly at time. I just want to follow my list first and then -- I need to make a plug for a workshop that is in this room tomorrow at 3:00 which is on Internet of Things for sustainable growth which you like this room which doesn't have too much external noise and has natural light, 3:00, this is the place, this is the place to be. Okay. Very quick. >> AUDIENCE: Very briefly, there is a good reference resource published from ITU with regard to the relationship between the IoT and SDG. It's called harnessing IoT for global development, and in that resource there is a query identified 12 out of 17SDGs, IoT will play a critical role so in case you have not had a chance to have a look at that resource, I thought I would just point it out. >> MODERATOR: Thank you. I would like to thank all of the panelists. My personal take away from this is that there is an abundance of opportunity in the IoT generally, and it's sort of ours to turn into an opportunity which is Andrew's perspective, and we should get out of here and actually go do it. So with that, we are at time. I would like to thank you all for taking your afternoon and I wish you well. (Concluded at 6:00) Copyright © 2016 Show/Hide Header