Orientation Session Day 3
24 October 2013 - A Main Session on in Bali,Indonesia
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.
>> Okay. Good morning, everybody. Sorry for being late. I know that you made enormous efforts to be on time.
Well, the main purpose of this morning's Orientation Session is to do a short exercise. We can call it simulation exercise, negotiating the Rio Declaration. Since the discussion on meeting in Rio next year is important, we thought of doing the exercise.
We are waiting for Vlada to join us in a few minutes with instructions how to do exercise, and what are the different roles. We should offer some coffee because it's really early morning, and I know that Sala is a morning person. I don't know about others.
Oh, this is transcribed. Oh, my God. I have to be careful.
Well, the exercise is based on Diplo's methodology of conducting simulation exercises and providing training in chairing meetings, and basically, it is done through the roles played by people in the world and engagement and supervision by experts who will be involved in the exercise.
Now you will see in a few minutes when Vlada arrives with papers how it is organised. You will play the roles of main actors in a drafting committee. Therefore, this is a morning we can imagine mid-May 2014 in Rio, after a lively reception that you had yesterday and you have a chance to liaison with other delegates and to sort out the last questions about the final draft which should be adopted today in one hour time by presidents, prime ministers, CEOs, and other players in the Rio meeting.
We will have about 45 minutes to finalize the drafting and discuss the last elements of the Rio Declaration. But it seems and it's sometimes part of the negotiation that logistical issues, somebody has an interest to delay the start of the session, you know. And Vlada is -- we are still waiting for him.
Do you have any questions while the Secretariat is trying to prepare papers? Comments?
We have distinguished delegate of Fiji.
>> S. TAMANIKAIWAIMARO: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was just wondering whether the delegation from Nigeria has arrived.
>> Thank you, Fiji, for assisting the Chair in managing the protocol aspect of the exercise.
(Pause in speaking)
>> I can see that our negotiation already attracted a lot of attention. We have some of the most experienced negotiators in Internet Governance arriving. Good morning, Peter.
(Pause in speaking)
>> Good morning everyone once again. If anyone one of you sitting in the back rows is interested to join us for this session, we need you because we can't start with people that are not sitting here, so please come and join us around this table. Thank you.
>> Okay. Since we have more chiefs than Indians today, we have mainly experts around the table and a few participants who would like to participate in the Orientation Session, let us slightly change the focus of the -- this session, and instead of simulation exercise we planned, we will discuss international negotiation, main processes of international negotiations, and the role of the chair.
And as you know, any negotiating process has a few phases. The first one is decision-shaping phase, where the main issues are identified, and to the large extent, Internet Governance Forum is part of decision-shaping process. The issues are identified, discussed, and as you know, negotiation is not conducted in the Internet Governance Forum.
When it comes to the negotiation, it has to be strictly organised. There are procedural rules mainly based on the British parliamentarian tradition, and then adopted and codified by the United Nations. You have the UN Rules of Procedure which specifies everything from the roles of the chair, procedural motions, making point of orders, drafting process, voting, and other details.
And when we were preparing for today's exercise, we thought of organising simulation around the question of the negotiation in which we will have next year in Rio at whatever it's called, the Summit, conference, event in Rio, following the latest initiative by Brazil and ICANN. And that was the general context for the simulation exercise.
We prepared some sort of imaginary roles of the main players, including United States, European Union, China, business sector, civil society, Brazil, and G77, and ICANN, and you will have a chance to consult it and see how realistic it is. It is a simulation exercise; therefore, it doesn't necessarily reflect the reality, but we tried to make some sort of approximation.
The negotiation exercise for the Rio Declaration is divided in three baskets. The first basket is on institutional framework. What is institutional framework for the future Internet Governance? Question of data protection and question of human rights. And as you will see from these instructions, the various actors are different roles in the simulation exercise. For example, when it comes to institutional frameworks, some players are more interested in multistakeholder process, then you have a group of players working to have enhanced multistakeholderism, and then you move towards the other side of this range of positions, you have intergovernmental players who are interested in pure intergovernmental process, whether built around the ITU or the new international organisation on the Internet, which is quite imaginary set of the positions and roles.
And the second basket is on data protection. Obviously, it is highly important issues nowadays, and the question is how to ensure data protection on the global scale. Is it enough just to have the stronger enforcement mechanisms for the existing international convention? Would the better way be to have some sort of self-regulation by business sector followed by enforcement and implementation mechanisms by some public authorities?
And the last basket is about human rights, divided around three sets of human rights of direct relevance for the Internet, freedom of expression and free flow of information, protection of privacy, and right of access and some sort of socioeconomic set of human rights.
This was the general exercise, and what would be useful -- and Vlada can moderate this part of the session -- I will distribute the set of roles, and you can later on discuss, and we may develop the exercise which could help in not only in the diplomatic training, but also in discussing later on substantive issues.
Now you will also receive the document of the position of the chairperson, which outlines the main procedural and substantive functions of the chairperson. What is the role of the chairperson? What are the main instruments for chairperson that he or she can use? And you can see the controversy starts even with a title. Is it a chairwoman, chairman, which is the dominant, and we decided to pass this agenda test and to use a gender person.
In the document you will have also indications about some sort of requirements for the successful chairperson, what is needed to be to have this delicate interplay between procedural role of a chairperson and substantive. Because the thought is chairperson should be neutral, objective, open for all inputs, and this is the procedural aspect. But also, the meetings and events should have some outcome; and therefore, chairperson is supposed to influence also substantive discussion, but in very, very delicate way.
That's more or less the general framework for discussion.
Vlada, would you like to ...
(Pause in speaking)
Okay. You have now a document on the role of chairperson, position, role, and functions of the chairperson. As you can see, there is a first part discussing procedural aspects. In the second part, you have substantive aspect. In third, what is needed for successful chairperson. And the last one is election of chair and how the negotiation starts.
Procedural aspect is based on the Rule 34, Rules of Procedure of the UN General Assembly. I always deeply involved in training of diplomats worldwide, and the most serious diplomatic services invest a lot in training their diplomats, especially junior diplomats, in rules of proceed. It is not the most exciting topic for training. People prefer to discuss clash of civilization, geostrategical issues, and philosophy. But at the end of the day, what is bread and butter of many diplomats is how to manage the Rules of Procedure. And you can see in the UN General Assembly and the committees of the UN who are the most successful countries in mastering Rules of Procedure.
My advice is you are not -- it's not your main profession -- for some of you it is -- diplomatic negotiation, but whenever you go for the meetings, discussion, obviously, what is the main topic, do background reading of the main issues, but also try to go through Rules of Procedure, especially if you are engaged in the negotiating process. It will help your success in the meeting.
I highlighted here a few elements. One is point of order. Point of order is very often used in international meetings, and it is related to the procedural issues. Chairperson has to decide on point of order. It is not -- the most frequent requests on point of order is on relevance matter. Therefore, a delegation can make point of order if a particular intervention is not of direct relevance for the discussion of the particular meeting. For example, if the -- somebody raises their hand, a delegation, and starts speaking on whatever, bashing the other country or something which is not directly related to the agenda item.
Then point of order is used a lot when delegations want to stop or to distract discussion.
Go ahead, please.
>> Can we use the point of order to ask for a vote or not?
>> Point of order, you have to use only not to make a proposal. You have to react to the intervention of other delegation. Therefore, if you have -- you take the floor and you start talking on the issues which are not directly to the main topic, then Jann, representing the other country, can make point of order. Chair will give the floor to him, and he will say I am sorry, distinguished delegate from the country Epsilon is not following the agenda item 24. Then chairperson can decide and ask the delegate to focus on the issue.
Then there is a whole procedure, if you can make a point of order also and arguing what you are doing, then there is moving to procedural motion, possible voting, and decision of the chair what to do next.
So point of order is just alert about the intervention of the other side.
Voting is the procedural motion. Therefore, you have to make the procedural motion and to request voting on certain point.
Good chairperson is manager of conference time. This is crucial for the success of one human endeavor, but especially important for the negotiation exercises. Because any conference has its own dynamics and tempo, and chairperson has to decide when to speed up the discussion, when to slow the discussion, when to move towards the closure, how to use the fact of the long discussions in the late in the night before midnight, and there are various tricks.
One of the tricks sometimes used in multilateral negotiation is to use the fact that the translators cannot work over, I think, eight hours, and some delegations usually prolong the negotiation exercise in order to get the request from the translators that they cannot anymore translate the negotiations since any negotiation has to be translated in six UN languages. You have de facto blockage of the negotiation and buying the time for the consultations and maybe continuation of the negotiation tomorrow.
The time element is extremely important. Or when you have a deadline, build up towards the closure around deadline. And many negotiations have been concluded by using the successful time management.
Then you have a substantive aspect in a negotiation process. Chairperson can take more active role in influencing the outcome of the negotiation. His or her main role is to find ways and means to overcome the vision and conflicting views and points.
Chairperson has various tools under his disposal, informal talks, mediation, peculiarly consultations.
Now, there is one important aspect here to raise. It is the so-called corridor diplomacy. Traditionally, you could have followed the dynamics of negotiations by seeing which delegation is leaving the room and who is following, and then you can see that there is something going on in parallel. Now the Internet has changed that to a large extent, and that aspect of diplomatic anthropology of the conference meeting has changed substantially because you can consult easily via Skype, SMS with capitals back home. They would usually use this example as a good illustration how Internet is changing the way how diplomacy is conducted.
In the past, if you see country X leaving the room and country Epsilon following after a few minutes, you can see something is going on. They are probably trying to overcome particular tension on engaging a compromise formula. Nowadays you cannot follow it easily. This is one of the impacts on diplomacy which you should observe.
You have a few examples here. We will also send you the links, and you can consult them on the website, on our website. Position, what are the ingredients for successful Chairperson? It is -- function of Chairperson is one of the most delicate functions in diplomacy. It cannot be easily described by rules. You have Rules of Procedure the Chairperson should follow, but you have many tacit rules, and some sort of art of chairing the session which you cannot easily train people. People have to immerse into negotiation exercises in order to acquire those skills.
Some elements for the successful chair is general culture, understanding on various issues, good time management skills, instinct to detect atmosphere in the room. That's extremely important. That you can see through the body language, through comments, through dynamics, what is going on in the room. Do you have the room with you? Is the room following the chair? Or is it splitting in various subgroups?
It has to have good rapport, good standing of individual, psychology, understanding of intercultural differences, personal qualities. Good sense of humor. Humor is extremely powerful tool in diplomacy. Humor can diffuse the tension. It can bring people to the different contexts while they may search for the compromise and go beyond their sort of realm.
When all of these elements are put together, it makes Chairperson decision made by intuition. If you make analogy to the chess grand master, we can see that chairperson is like grand master to make very often instant decisions with thousand possible alternative types of positions. Still, in the case of grand master, final option could be calculated. In the case of chairperson, like other diplomats, it is not possible. It could be a reason why diplomacy profession is so interesting and challenging for many, including those who focus only on black limousine and receptions. But we have less and less diplomats mainly seeing diplomacy through that, and they are really people who take responsible roles in their activities and towards empowering the world.
I listed two extremely successful chairmen. One is Tommy Cove, who chaired some negotiations, and he was the master of that time management, use of humor, use of dynamics in the room, and he managed, literally thanks to his personal skills, to overcome quite a few blockages.
The other one is Mustafa Tolbert, chairperson at the Barcelona Convention negotiation. It is the first regional legal instrument in the Mediterranean region signed by Arab countries in Israel, and Mustafa told by Egyptian diplomats was very, very skillful in overcoming deep tectonic divides in the Mediterranean region. Those of you who are coming from the region are aware of that. Mustafa Tolbert is one example of a highly successful negotiator.
As you can see, the last point in the document is election of chair. Traditionally speaking, chair was taken by representative of the host country for a particular conference meeting. It was tradition in the 19th century. And for those of you who are interested in history, I strongly recommend to follow sort of events which will celebrate 200 years of the Vienna Congress. Vienna Congress was held in 1814, and it is definitely one of the most successful events in the history of diplomacy. And the chairperson was Austrian diplomat who organised the meeting in Vienna, focusing a lot on entertainment. They had almost every evening the parties. There were excellent chefs in Vienna at that time, and Austrian cuisine is excellent. And he made -- he created general atmosphere which was quite relaxing, and ultimately, he succeeded in making one of the best diplomatic documents which secured general peace for almost a hundred years, general peace. There were no major global wars between 1814 and 1914 before the start of the first world war.
Another meeting which is completely opposite to the Vienna Conference is the Versailles War, where they invested a lot in scientists. They brought scientists to measure peace and to make scientific peace. And as you know, that peace lasted for less than 20 years. It created all turmoil in Germany and Italy and led to the second world war.
This is just illustration two of important historical events, Vienna Congress and Versailles after second World War as two examples how diplomacy should be managed in very sensitive way, understanding dynamics, understanding motivation of different actors, different cultures, and understanding the dynamics of the moment, what is going on in the conference room.
It makes the diplomacy extremely exciting profession, and it makes the role of the chairperson extremely important role in any negotiations. And we will be hosting two events next year discussing the comparison between Vienna Conference and the VersaillesPeace Treaty Conference. I invite you to join us. We basically try to draw lessons, what we can learn from these two historical examples.
Thank you. Vlada is now the chairperson.
>> V. RADUNOVIC: Thank you. We have two colleagues from APC to tell us the topics of the day that will be discussed, the main sessions.
Just a short question back for you. How do you see all these things you presented in context of the IG negotiations in the IGF? Because it's not a typical negotiation. So to what extent the chairing and all these other aspects are relevant in the context of IGF and IG negotiations?
>> Let me tell you one anecdote from yesterday. I think some of you attended this meeting. I founds one room with excellent wi-fi connection. I think it's around the corner. And I usually go to that room, sit and do my work, preparation of documents, and the workshops were going on, people were -- nobody noticed my presence. Nobody asked me to comment on anything. You know. I think 50% of us are really present when we are physically present. Most of us are browsing the net and doing something else.
And I was doing that, and then there was a workshop which started at 4:00, and of course, I was concentrated in drafting my documents, and then I started hearing keywords: Persuasion, listening, negotiation, engaging. And you know, I tried to switch off, but the mental process, those words started -- I said what is this workshop about? Because I didn't have a clue. I was just sitting there and doing my work on the good wi-fi connection. And I looked at the programme of the IGF, and I saw that it is the event on Internet Exchange Points. I don't know what is the exact title. You can't find a more technical topic. Then I intervened, I said what you are discussing, it sounds like a discussion on diplomacy. And that was really fascinating insight.
These people who deal with very technical issues, how to establish Internet Exchange Point, spend most of their time negotiating with different actors, convincing different actors, and the delegate who made the lovely input by saying that he spent four years trying to convince different players in Vanuatu about the need to establish different Internet Exchange Points. And he spent 14 days, 14, to establish that exchange point technically. And it was really, really a fascinating insight for mu. Therefore, that explains and answers your question. I think even when we are dealing with technical issues, we are dealing with human dynamics, and that's -- this is diplomacy. And quite substantive diplomacy.
And I ended the session yesterday, my intervention, with calling them Your Excellencies, but in the genuine term of Excellencies, not just the protocol, because they were doing diplomacy in the most effective way.
>> Hi. Just to follow up on Vlada's questions, and I understand what you are saying, it happens in normal day-to-day negotiations, negotiating IXPs, et cetera. But to take Vlada's --
>> Sala, we need to strengthen the voices of the small Pacific Island States.
>> S. TAMANIKAIWAIMARO: Louder. Is that loud enough? I am loud in my own ears. Sorry, apologies.
So I was wanting to take Vlada's question a step further and take it to declaration level or in terms of potential instruments, whether it's declaration or convention or treaty, in the context of Internet Governance.
The question I have is how would a chairperson deal with situations where negotiation on text, whilst it may be something simple like a declaration, but concerns multiple potentially treaties that -- you know, because you mentioned in terms of the different baskets, like we strengthen -- one of the baskets is strengthening existing mechanisms. And so what happens when you have instances where certain aspects of Internet Governance is canvassed under WIPO or other under WTO, other things under ITU, other things under different things.
So in terms of the negotiation of the text, how would you set the context or narrow it, or should you narrow it or not? Or is it something left to players around the table? A question for you.
>> Sala, concretely speaking, this simulation exercise on Rio Declaration, it is a rather generic document establishing principles. I don't expect that, for example, next meeting we'll deal with specific aspects of intellectual property rights or e-Commerce, which you mentioned the question of the WIPO and WTO.
>> S. TAMANIKAIWAIMARO: Sorry. Just to follow through?
>> Please, go ahead.
>> S. TAMANIKAIWAIMARO: Sorry, just to follow through. In terms of the 87 nations that just signed in Seoul, 87 nations agreeing there needs to be greater cooperation in terms of enhancing cybersecurity, things like that, and then pertaining to issues of, you know, what are the forms of cooperation or what actually do the players or governments like Brazil, what are they looking for, so the question I have is even in terms of setting a simple thing like a framework, a declaration, what is it really?
>> What is it?
>> S. TAMANIKAIWAIMARO: What is it really? Is it thematic? And you mentioned it is no not going to be on thematics. So I am kind of -- I guess what I am asking you is how do you think it's going to play out or how would a chair deal with something that has so many variables and to establish a simple thing like a declaration? I apologize if that is a really dumb question.
>> It is a tough question. I am sure that our Brazilian colleagues will spend quite some time before the Rio meeting -- Rio Conference engaging with different actors and trying to see how it could be done.
One can use the metaphor of the cameras, this sophisticated cameras with zoom in, zoom out. This is one possible metaphor. And most likely this type of document will be zoom out. The risk is they go for the least common denominator. Therefore, the regulation could be watered down, although not necessarily. There are examples from recent history, 1972 and Stockholm Declaration on Sustainable Development, which was one of the very substantive soft law documents.
And when you zoom in, you usually go into the more specific and legal obligations and more precise drafting. That's the general principle. But it is a difficult exercise to find umbrella document for Internet Governance, and is there a need to have umbrella document? It is also another question that should be answered.
Another possibility, another method that one can consider is, for example, IGF where we are meeting these days, will be some sort of the waiter in the prestigious Internet Governance restaurant receiving orders from the clients, the guests, who are stakeholders, governments, private sector, and then passing the orders to the kitchen, and kitchen could be the organisations, international organisations, but also private, nongovernmental, who are dealing with specific issues. Collect orders in the Internet Governance Forum and pass to the organisations like ITU, WIPO, or the private standardization organisations, to follow up on the specific issue that global Internet Governance community identified as important issue for the future of the Internet. That could be one of the possible metaphors, restaurant metaphor, if I can use.
And that could provide flexibility or not having to engage into very detailed negotiations, but in the same time, providing the space for the organisation specialized in specific field to act and to adopt the necessary documents.
When it comes to the global document, one cannot -- I think it's very difficult to imagine what's happened in the Law of the Sea, drafting of some sort of the Internet and global convention, the Law of the Sea Convention was drafted, and that was a long period. It does not mean we cannot have the customary international law and some sort of codification of existing rules, which are now emerging, how states and different players are using the Internet.
Therefore, the question of the different legal techniques, international legal techniques, is important and should be used with necessary flexibility.
>> V. RADUNOVIC: Thank you. If there are no further questions about negotiations, any other questions, or should we end up this part with the last part, which is what are the topics of the day today?
So today there are two main sessions which are following in this main room, and one of them is openness: Human Rights, freedom of expression, free flow of information on the Internet. And the other one is about access and diversity, Internet as an engine for growth of sustainable development.
With us, we have two colleagues from the APC, Shawna and Mike, who are not directly involved in the two sessions but are definitely involved in the thematic areas. So maybe briefly just to hear from you what are those topics that are likely to be touched upon during today's main sessions? Shawna, you want to start?
>> S. FINNEGAN: Thank you. So as you mentioned, the main session that's happening this afternoon starting at 2:30 focuses on openness, human rights, freedom of expression, and the free flow of information on the Internet. So this is the first time that there will be a focus session specifically on human rights, which I think is quite important, particularly in light of the recent revelations around mass surveillance.
So last year in June 2012, adopted a mass resolution in which governments agreed that the same human rights that apply offline also apply online. So some of the things that this main session will be considering this afternoon are what is this resolution? How is it relevant to Internet public policy making, and what is the impact of mass surveillance on taking this resolution forward? And some of the key issues that will be discussed are Internet intermediary liability, so what is the role of online intermediaries, including ISPs, including companies, in upholding human rights?
There will also be a focus on sexual rights and the impact of the Internet on women's rights, LGBT rights. There will be a focus as well on freedom of expression and surveillance as well as privacy as well as net neutrality issues and access to knowledge and Internet privacy issues broadly.
So it will be quite a dynamic and open session, and it will be quite important considering this is the first time that human rights are in the Focus Session.
>> M. JENSEN: Thank you, Vlada. In terms of the issues around the Internet and the access issues, I think it's quite appropriate to follow on from the human rights session as I think it's been increasingly understood that access to the Internet enables a lot of human rights. One needs to make the distinction that access itself is not a human right except defined by Finland so far, but it does enable the achievement of many other human rights.
In terms of it being a vehicle for growth and sustainability, I think it is now fairly well recognized how important it is for achieving increased social inclusion and increased economic growth through improving the access to markets for farmers, for example, through improving educational levels in areas where there are low levels of resources for teaching, for improving the health of populations through access to telemedicine, for example.
Now, in this respect, access is a public good, and we are still in a situation that's been discussed in a couple of panels yesterday that we have not yet, despite almost 15 years of intention, achieved sufficient levels of access to the Internet in developing countries in particular, but also in certain sectors of societies in developed countries. This is particularly the case in rural areas and in various disenfranchised groups. This ranges from women to threatened ethnic populations to senior citizens, institutionalized people, and the disabled. So there's a long way to go in terms of ensuring that we have this global inclusion of all of these groups.
And there was general recognition amongst the panels that there cannot be, really, a universally accepted objective for the degree of inclusion in terms of Internet access, but that each country, each region needs to make its own -- set its own standards in terms of affordability, in terms of uptake and penetration, and in terms of reliability.
>> V. RADUNOVIC: Thank you, Mike. Sorry for cutting, but we are up to the time, and the next session is ready. Join us tomorrow for the Orientation Session. We will talk about what's happening between the IGFs and how to stay involved. Thank you.
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.