Setting the Scene: Topic Insights and Debate Related to the Subthemes of the IGF 2014
02 September 2014 - A Main Session on in Istanbul,Turkey
The following is the output of the real‑time captioning taken during the IGF 2014 Istanbul, Turkey meetings. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you for the information about capacity building. It's something that we are trying to push between the IGF to map the capacity‑building programmes and to listen to what might exist and what might be of interest to you. Before we close this part of the session, there are two more aspects of how you might continue being involved in the IGF from this time to 2015 in Brazil. One is a very, very important component of the IGF. And I think IGF has been instrumental for developing participation and remote participation. For years IGF has the mechanism to participate, not only to follow the webcast, but to really participate, pose the questions, and ensure remote participation. There is a mechanism which exists, and I think now we have the key, and there are many other cities, which people gather there and pose their comments. So in case you or any one of your colleagues, friends in your country, who cannot participate at the IGF physically, there is a mechanism to do that. Use that mechanism and help us simulate the eDiscussions in the IGF, by using the Internet.
The second thing how you might get involved, again, encouragement, we mentioned the MAG, and it is used every year. The end of the mandate of the current MAG is the end of this year. The new code for MAG members will be issued later this issue. The new MAG members will be appointed by the Secretary‑General early next year. It is an amazing experience being a MAG member. Also to try to lead the IGF towards future improvements like the things from best practices and other good options that we had. So I do invite you to consider it is quite a time investment, a personal time investment, but it's a great pleasure and it's a great experience.
We do have some colleagues here from Small Island States. We don't have that much time to pass the mic now, but there were some sessions about Small Island States. This is very important component of the IGF. Veronica wanted to invite you to a little bit of feedback.
>> VERONICA CRETU: Very quickly. What we encourage you to do, please, every time you participate in a workshop, there is a workshop evaluation form, something that would help workshops organisers and us to get your input and make sure that that input and feedback is being taken into consideration for the next planning phases of the next IGF. So on the IGF Web page, in the forum, you will see the workshop evaluation form. You have the opportunity to choose the name of the workshop you just attended.
And if this particular workshop session has been useful for you, I would like to see your hands up. Has this been a valuable experience? Has this been a valuable session for you?
Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you all very much. Please enjoy the IGF and be as active and as dynamic as possible. Have a wonderful IGF.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, thank you, Veronica. So I hope you enjoy and really do give us the feedbacks on that. We go on with the session now. We are turning to the setting the scene of the next session, which will be the topics and the hotspots of the IGF. Stay with us now. I'm turning the microphone to Jeanette Hofmann and our colleague. We are going more through the topics now. Thank you.
>> JEANETTE HOFMAN: Good morning, everyone. Don't go away. This is going to be better than the previous session and I heard it was good. We compete. My name is Jeanette Hofman, and I help to organise the session. I'm going to now hand over to our chair from our host country, Dr. Kerem Alkin, who is director of the University of Istanbul, an economist working in economic policy including in the technology sector.
>> Kerem Alkin: First of all, it is a big pleasure to be the host as a country for IGF meeting. I will like to say a very short welcome and then we will continue with the moderators exactly. Ladies and gentlemen, good morning we will now continue the meeting. I open this morning's session. I hope everyone enjoyed the important orientation session. The setting session will build upon the orientation by providing everyone here and participating remotely with a preview of this year's main sessions and sometimes that will be working on and debating throughout the rest of the week.
We have many experienced expert panelists with us who will guide our discussion for the next hour and a half. We will frame each of the subjects by highlighting later topical issues and we'll also provide participants with the preview of how the subjects will be addressed throughout the week.
Let me remind you what our subjects are and remember these subjects will drive through a long consultative concept with the multi-stakeholders IGF community. They are as follows: Policies enabling access, content creation, dissemination and use of the Internet as a growth and development, IGF and the future of the Internet ecosystem on changing digital trust and Internet and human rights, emerging issues and critical Internet resources.
I'm looking forward to our discussion about these important issues which will set the stage for the busy and exciting week ahead.
I also want to add some personal insights before I give the floor to important speakers. I prefer to continue my words in Turkish from now.
Information Societies are important in terms of production. And it is also a set of social structures. In the Information Society, the main resource is the information and this society thrives on information technologies. In the industrial industries, the industries were important, whereas now we are seeing the focus being put on information.
In the competitive environment of today, in order to generate information, you need to invest in information technologies. And in order to disseminate information, you need to invest in communications. According to 2004 data, electronic communication market in Turkey is 18.6 billion USD, and IT market is 12 billion USD.
In 2012, the IT sector grew slowly compared to the previous years, but this year we are hoping that the IT sector will reach $30.6 billion in size. In terms of access in the last 12 years, in terms of dissemination of Internet use, Turkey has made great strides and has made great progress, especially in the last couple of years. Fiber and mobile Internet usage has increased, especially in terms of number of subscribers.
The infrastructure of this growth is based on the latest fiber technologies. This was thanks to a series of investments and also with the dissemination of mobile Internet use, especially thanks to Turkey's large young population.
Now, I wanted to ‑‑ I would like to give you some more figures about what Turkey has done in this regard. Currently there are 18 million students in Turkey in elementary schools and secondary schools, and about 5 million students in universities. 700‑800 of these students are ‑‑ excluding 700,000 post‑graduate students in the next ten years. Also the number of university students will surpass 7.5 million.
As far as the number of post‑graduate students, the total number will be about 2 million.
Of course, this goes to show that Turkey's national broadband policies are really important. It also means that Turkey is going to be one of the leading countries who will be working on making the right policies on these issues.
The Turkish population will also increase up to 82 or 86 million and come 2050, there will be 92 million people living in Turkey. Of course, this means that our working population, which is 28 million right now, will increase up to 48 million by 2040 or 2050. But when we look at Egypt, the same number for 2050 will be 65 million. It will be more than 65 million.
Turkey, in terms of its geography, in terms of its Internet use, will be an example of the other regional countries. We are hoping to be a source for other regions. Currently, as we speak, in Turkey broadband Internet subscribers is 38 million. And I would like to emphasize that especially.
I'm an economist by training. As an economist for the last 27 years, I've been teaching at universities. And during my career in the last 25 years, especially after late '90s, I've been working on IT and new technologies. As a result of these studies ‑‑ well, currently the Ministry of Communications of Turkey is organising this event. And there's an Internet Development Council within the ministry. I'm a member of that council as a result of my academic work. So we are in close contact with all the stakeholders in Turkey on the Internet.
Last couple of remarks, we should always remember why the United Nations was first established. Our targets should be to make sure that we cooperate closely with natural organisations like the United Nations and that we work together to close the gap between people in the world in terms of opportunities or in terms of quality.
As far as I'm concerned, from a technology point of view, it is imperative that we make sure that technologies have a positive impact on people's lives. And I'm sure that there are many specialists here with us today, and I'm sure that with your support, with your contributions, we will always be able to do more. As the global community, hopefully, we'll always be able to excel in what we do and improve what we have to offer to the overall humanity. And the population of the world will probably rise up to 8 or 9 billion. And it is incumbent on us to make sure that everyone has access to the Internet, to communication services, and we need to make sure that we disseminate it all across the world.
Jeanette Hofmann, director of the Humboldt Institute for Internet Society, supported by executive director of APC. Please.
>> Jeanette Hofmann: Thank you very much. Perhaps we should tell you how we intend to proceed. We will introduce everyone and brief the main sessions. And then our speakers will talk about what the main sessions are about and the related workshops, and then we will briefly talk about this and then open up to the floor.
>> Thank you very much, Jeanette. So I'm very honoured to introduce our panelists and I'll introduce them in the order of which they will speak. Our first speaker will be Dr. Stuart Hamilton, International Federation of Library Associations, deputy Secretary‑General, and specialized in policy around content and access to digital information.
Next speaker will be the Rohan Samarajira, founding chair of LIRNEasia, and he's an ICT policy and regulation think tank, particularly in how these markets operate in the emerging economies.
Next we will have Jacquelynn Ruff. Where is Jacquelynn? Over there on my right. Vice President For International Public Policy at Verizon.
Next we will have Ambassador Benedicto Fonseca Filho from the Ministry of Government. Then we will have Marilia Maciel ‑‑ there is an echo ‑‑ based in Rio de Janeiro. She will talk about ‑‑ I haven't gone through all the topics or I should make that clear. Marilia will talk about the critical Internet resources. So I'm just going to go back quickly.
So Stuart will talk about content and continue creation. Rohan will talk about access. Jacquelynn will talk about Internet, and economic growth, the potential for economic growth. Benedicto will talk about the evolution of the Internet Governance ecosystem. Then after Marilia we will have Walid Al‑Saqaf over there for the programme and the master programme in journalism at University of Sweden. Working with him on the topics of human rights and digital trust will be Joy Liddicoat.
Then the next speaker will be, if I've gone a bit out of sequence, the next speaker will be Markus Kummer on my left. Markus will talk to us about neutrality and how that is being addressed at this year's IGF. Then we'll have three other people talking about some of these subthemes that are being discussed. So we will have assistant professor at College of India, Ladies College For Women. She will talk about the ecosystem and how that's being addressed as a main session, a focus session like this one that's being organised on that topic.
We'll have Susan Chalmers. She's not here with us. She's independent consultant working in the Internet sector. She'll talk about the INA transition. I'm not sure if it was discussed earlier this morning. It might've been. She'll tell you about the main session that's focused on that. And she'll be followed by Virat Bhatia. Virat will tell you about the mechanism of the Internet as access. And he'll do an interview how all the other subthemes are being covered at this IGF. So the purpose of this panel is to have some debate, but also to point out to you how you can track and follow these particular subthemes during the IGF.
>> JEANETTE HOFMAN: We will now give the floor ‑‑ I forgot to introduce our remote moderator. Please put up your hand if you do have remote speakers as well. We welcome the remote moderator. Together we will somehow manage this overly complex session. So we first give the floor to Stuart, who will talk about content creation dissemination and use.
>> Stuart Hamilton: I've been asked to bring to the floor about creation contents and use, and I'll talk about digital copyright in that context of content. I'm speaking on behalf of libraries, and libraries love content. We love everybody involved in its creation, including publishers. We need it or we'll become irrelevant.
We know that creators love content, too. They love content, too, because they build new stuff out of what's gone before, and creators love being able to get ahold of that old stuff so they can build something new. As we all know, there is a lot of new digital content these days. We're not talking here about the print materials that libraries are digitizing, but a lot of digital material of all kinds that's massively increasing year on year. Libraries have traditionally played a role in collecting, preserving, and making this content available, but I think the controversial question that I wanted to think about here was can we actually keep up? Can libraries ‑‑ can other cultural institutions adequately support content creation and dissemination and use? I'm tempted to say maybe we can't, because right in the middle of this global content explosion, I think we're actually in danger of having a massive black hole right in the middle of our cultural record.
The reason for this is because the problem seems to be that in order for us to fix this big black hole, in order for us to fix things relating to digital preservation, we need to fix copyright. Now, as anyone who has ever tried to fix copyright will tell you, there's going to be problems with that; big problems: dirty tricks, probably, accusations, recrimination, possibly blood. There is an opinion that the international copyright can't deal with the challenges we face. We are placing more and more emphasis on enforcement over the last few decades and very little on flexibility. From the library perspective, there are countries around the world that do not have any legal framework for library activities such as preservation or lending. It leads library work as very unsure of what they're doing is legal or not. We have very few countries around the world that have electronic legal deposit laws. In other countries, particularly developed countries, we do have copyright exceptions which enable us to preserve content, but they're actively undermined by contracts and licenses. This means that we're becoming to a point where libraries and other institutions cannot share content across borders. We can't truly take advantage of the dissemination opportunities that the Internet offers us. I would like to say this is not just about libraries. The bottom line is that this situation does not bode well for the creation, dissemination, and use of all digital content, whether it's local or not.
>> JEANETTE HOFMAN: Stuart, could I ask you one question about this? If you sort of foresee the discussion in the main session about this, what would be your ideal outcome? Would it be sort of some sort of best practice for libraries across the world? How to deal with this? How to approach the legislature? What would you want to see as an outcome?
>> Stuart Hamilton: There is a very clear outcome; we are working at the World International Organisation to change the copyright framework so there are copyright exceptions to help us make available digital content. Within the context of IGF and why I'm bringing this issue for us to think about, we have an enabling environment for local content, and next door that session is about ‑‑ is taking place and I'll actually have to go there in just a second. But I think what we would want to see as a result of these discussions is a recognition within the Internet Governance community that we simply have to be more than flexible when it comes to creating this environment. We seem to be trying to stuff new problems into old frameworks.
>> Jeanette: Would you also want to say a few words about the workshops related to this main sessions?
>> Stuart Hamilton: I was under the impression that my colleague, Susan Chalmers, was going to handle that when she comes in.
>> JEANETTE HOFMAN: Okay. I see that. Thank you very much for this passionate introduction into this topic. We will now go to Rohan, who will talk about policy enabling access.
>> Rohan Samarajiva: Thank you. My topic is access. One could say that this is a foundation of all Internet use. There are still many millions of people who are not connected. And there is no one‑size‑fits‑all access. In the area that I work in, which is developing Asia, most access is over mobile platforms. In the last month, in Miramar, one of the least connected countries in the world, one million people got connected wirelessly on 3G networks, not 2G. So the great majority of people are coming in on wireless platforms. Several years ago in when I raised this issue in IGF, there was a degree of surprise. Today this is to be taken for granted.
So if you think of Internet as a chain, the chain is defined by the weakest links. Today one of the weakest links is the last mile that is connecting the subscriber, the user, because there are problems that governments have in giving enough spectrum. And that needs to be address. I would say that's one of the most important issues. There's been a lot of progress made in the backhaul, domestic and Internet that will take the data around, putting in the big pipes that will take the data around fast. But we have to make some additional movement in making sure that the access is open access, nondiscriminatory oriented.
Lastly, the net neutrality debates play out in the West differently in our parts. For our people, the most important thing would be how it plays out over mobile networks. And there the zero rating is under criticism for some people, particularly those who are based in the United States and elsewhere. But in our case, I believe that the pragmatic response of zero rating is what will connect our people to the functionalities of the Internet.
>> JEANETTE HOFMAN: You get only access ‑‑
>> Stuart Hamilton: I'm not into abstractions; only concrete things. In Miramar will have access to Wikipedia and Facebook outside their data plans. I think that's a wonderful plan.
>> JEANETTE HOFMAN: Would you want to say a few words with the workshops related to that?
>> Stuart Hamilton: I don't know anything about that.
>> JEANETTE HOFMAN: Thank you very much. We will now hand over to Jacquelynn Ruff, who will talk about the Internet as an engine of growth and development.
>> Jacquelynn Ruff: Thank you very much. I'm from Verizon Communications. We are an Internet service provider, both mobile and fixed in the U.S. and a provider of enterprise services and global Internet networks around the world. So with that background here, I would take off from where Rohan spoke in terms of connecting the world. I want to talk just about two topics very briefly: connecting the world, and then using the Internet for the growth and development; so a lot of progress, indeed, on connectivity. Not everyone, but nonetheless, very good directionally.
Some of the questions are still about remote areas or about connectivity with regions. We have a lot of backhaul and international, but connectivity within regions. Looking at that requires investment. Therefore, that takes one very quickly to the question of having and enabling an environment and public policies that will enable investment to do all of that.
The other thing that is ever more important is the demand side, the use of these networks. That's something I've been struck with, even in the last day in the conversations here, which is now we're talking more about how to find and enable the good ways to benefit from all of that, transformation like telemedicine, distance learning. I was struck by your 7 million students and what can be facilitated there through more and more Internet, mobile banking and Cloud services and Internet of Things. There will be workshops on many of those particular topics that I think are increasingly important.
Again, what do you need for that? You need infrastructure, including electricity, digital literacy, rule of law, avoidance of regulatory barriers. I saw a very interesting World Bank study recently that actually calculated the impact on GDP of doing certain types of regulatory reforms, particularly around facilitating cross‑border equipment, data flows, ease of getting authorizations, and getting set up as a small business.
So I think those will be areas to look at, and I would be happy to flag workshops or just note that there's a color coding that takes you to the workshops that deal with Internet growth. But since demand is equally important, also go to the ones that are about content creation and enhancing trust. So those will be my suggestions.
>> JEANETTE HOFMAN: Jacquelynn, since you have observed this regulatory process for a long time already, would you say from your perspective that you see some sort of convergence into certain standards across countries and continent? Or is it rather that every country does its own and has its own way of handling the question of investing in infrastructure?
>> Jacquelynn Ruff: Well, there's certainly a lot of range. I think that the theme of no one‑size‑fits‑all and you have to do things, tailored fit for local purposes. On the other hand, we have seen the proliferation of regulators and competition as important. That's on the infrastructure side. On the demand side, I think the interesting thing is that we're now having to have relationships that are much more, shall we say, multi‑stakeholder in nature, because there's the need for input by users. There's a need for, maybe on the government side, the Ministry of Communications, to talk to the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health.
>> JEANETTE HOFMAN: So these governments that are affected and involved in infrastructure investment, but also more cooperation between governments and private sector?
>> Jacquelynn Ruff: I think that we ‑‑ the multi‑stakeholder values and ways of doing things that we've been using or looking at for nine years now at the Internet government forum are increasingly used. That's a great thing. We hope that this and other events will move in that direction I have been particularly struck on the last point, even in the U.S., Verizon has a very good broadband networks. So do others. We're now trying to develop what are really devices to help with diabetes or different healthcare problems. We have to talk to the people about those devices, those medical devices or not. Can doctors practice across state lines? All of these kinds of things. So those are all about taking Internet and IP‑based services, putting them to maximum use for societal benefit, and it just necessarily has to bring in more parties, users, businesses, and a range of government entities.
>> JEANETTE HOFMAN: Thank you, Jacquelynn. Now, Benedicto will introduce us to the topic of the future of Internet ecosystem.
>> Benedicto Fonseca Filho: Thank you very much, Jeanette. It is a pleasure to speak on the subject. At the same time it is a tremendous challenge to speak in three or four minutes about the evolution of the Internet Governance ecosystem. Since the Internet Governance ecosystem is universe, as recognized by the Information Society that was held nine years ago, the recognized Internet Governance as the overall combination of actions and activities undertaken by the various stakeholders that participate in Internet Governance. Those are governments, of course, private sector, Civil Society, academy, technical international organisations, each working according to each role and responsibilities. Then we are talking about a concept that has natural dimension, regional dimension. So I will not dare to try to speak on the evolution of all those, the constellation of so many processes that deal with Internet Governance, but rather maybe focus more on the role of IGF in that overall architecture. And then I'd like to resort to the outcomes of the meeting we just held a few months ago in Brazil.
We were honoured to host the global multi‑stakeholder meeting of the future of Internet Governance. It was, as you're aware, a meeting where all stakeholders were invited to participate on an equal footing and to reflect on principles and a roadmap for the evolution of the Internet Governance. This fora of participation is very much the one we adopt here in IGF. So that's why relating to this on full participation, the approach, that includes the main concern.
The basic conclusion in the role of IGF is that IGF need to be strengthened in order to duly fulfill its role in the overall system of Internet Governance, the role that was visualized back in the meeting nine years ago that it could serve as a forum for discussion of all issues of interest for Internet Governance, for open discussion, a forum through which the global community understood this combination of government and nongovernmental sectors could reflect on issues of interest for Internet Governance and be able to influence on processes and decisions being made on the various levels. So this is a conclusion that emerges from NETmundial that addressed the motion that encompassed so many areas, so many discussions. Even you will see that sometimes Internet Governance seems to be limited to issues regarding critical resources, infrastructure, but there is also the dimension of Internet Governance as being something much larger than that to include discussion on human rights, security, and issues like cybercrime, surveillance and so on. So it is ‑‑ it was the approach that was taken by the NETmundial document in line with the WSIS outcome, and the IGF in all these discussions, even in regard to issues that are not through ‑‑ in which IGF will not have direct bearing in the sense that they are specific fora for discussion for critical resources, for example, but the role of IGF should be emphasized as an encompassing body, more broad‑based discussion that should influence all those.
As I finish this, as a representative of the Brazilian government, we have been fully involved in IGF through our committee that is a multi‑stakeholder body that governs Internet in Brazil. We have a very particular interest in strengthening IGF besides being convinced of the multi‑stakeholder approach. We'll be hosting IGF in Brazil. This will be the last edition of IGF in the cycle that was decided upon back in 2005 ‑‑ actually, it was for five years, and then extended for a new five years. So there will be ‑‑ we plan to have the meeting in Brazil. By the end of next year, there will be an overall review of all the Internet‑Governance‑related aspect in the context of the overall review of the WSIS outcome. So we are very much interested in working with all of you to make sure that IGF would be strengthened as an outcome of this meeting and in preparation of the Brazil meeting so that the role ‑‑ particular IGF as a forum for discussion and for this very broad‑based forum can be and its role in the overall Internet Governance may be strengthened.
>> JEANETTE HOFMAN: I have one follow‑up question. You mentioned several times that the NETmundial statement says the IGF needs to be strengthened and that this is a general consensus. Many people call for that, strengthening of the IGF. Is your impression that we all mean the same thing when we say we want to see the IGF strengthened?
>> Benedicto Fonseca Filho: First of all, I think this sentiment is not shared by everyone. I think many participants' stakeholders needs still to be convinced of the importance of the failure of IGF, and one of the points in that regard that I have been stressing in many different settings and discussions here is the need to maybe forge a better relation between multi‑stakeholder process and IGF embodies with the governmental process.
As a diplomat, I am concerned that what we do here has maybe a limited influence in intergovernmental negotiations, in New York and other discussions.
It is beneficial as a whole if it would be a dialogue as what we do here. Maybe an answer for you for your question is I think much more work needs to be done in order to have a single understanding what it would mean to strengthening IGF in that regard.
>> JEANETTE HOFMAN: Thank you. Next is Marilia Maciel that will stake about critical Internet resources.
>> Marilia Maciel: I'm talking about the transition of the function and the globalization of several workshops. But the two topics are kind of complementary. I know that you have heard about the transitioning in the first session, but for those that were not here, maybe in a nutshell, what we're talking about when we mention the IANA functions is the most sensitive one. And the one we are mostly referring to is the DNS root management, which means making changes, additions and deletions to the highest level of the DNS name space, the root. These are administered through a contract through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and TIA, connected to the U.S. Department of Commerce, and ICANN is the functioning operator. I think that the debate gets a little bit complicated because there are many actors that are in the play. They play different roles. You have ICANN that is a policy maker for the DNS; so it has a policy development process. Every time that that new DTLD, it goes into a process within ICANN, when decisions are made, then IANA is the one that is going to operationalize that. That's two different steps.
First of all, it contacts the administrator of the functions, which is the NTIA. And the NTIA is responsible to approve the changes that have been decided upon in ICANN policy development process. So it's more like function of not evaluating the decision, but taking into account that the decision made by ICANN is going to be implemented in the root. So it kind of oversees the whole process.
At last you have Verisign, which is the private organisation that manages and maintains the roots. And it has the role of going there and actually implementing the change in the root zone. I think one thing that is it empowers the U.S. to have this oversight role, but also because the contract is not permanent. It has been renewed every three years. Every time there is a moment of renewing the contract, is also a moment in which the U.S. can change the contract, or, for instance, make sure that ICANN remains based in the U.S., under U.S. jurisdiction or change in any way through the contract. Every three years is a moment of kind of tension.
I think this situation was meant to change. It was meant to be temporary. Since '98 there are documents from the U.S. government that are mentioning this process of transferring the stewardship of the IANA functions, but it has not happened so far. I think the political environment has changed since last year. There was a statement issued from the main organisations from that technical sector. ICANN itself, ETF, Worldwide Web Consortium, and they issued a statement calling for the globalization of ICANN and of the IANA functions.
This was an important political thing. And also NETmundial happened last year ‑‑ this year, sorry. And in that it was clear that the community wanted to discuss that as well.
After that the NTIA announced the transition of the IANA functions. Some of the conditions for the transition, for instance, a new model to administer the functions it has to enhance the multi‑stakeholder model. It could not be a government centric or government led. It has the security, stability, and resilience of the DNS system. It has to meet the expectations of the community and maintain the operation of the Internet.
In order to this change, the coordination group has been created being composed by different communities inside ICANN. And they have the role to develop this transition plan and to reach out to communities not only inside, but also outside ICANN to develop this plan.
We will see that there are several workshops here related to the IANA transition and also to the globalization and accountability of ICANN. Because if there is not a contract with the U.S. government anymore, then it's important that the community has the tools inside ICANN to make sure that ICANN is more and more accountable to the community.
>> JEANETTE HOFMAN: Thank you, Marilia. Could you, perhaps, say a bit more of how the future relationship between stakeholders and governments is envisioned once the transition has been completed?
>> Marilia Maciel: It should not be a government‑centric or government‑led plan. Of course there are different tensions inside ICANN, for instance. So right now the role of the GAC is being discussed again. What is the weight of the GAC and the policy development process? There is a trend that I think is a positive one to try to involve the GAC earlier so the process can give warnings, or concerning human rights issues, one of the topics being discussed in the GAC. Not only this relationship between stakeholders inside ICANN, but in the outside I think there is it is important as well that other stakeholders get more and more involved with the organisation.
But I see this as a positive step in terms of the Internet Governance ecosystem, because this oversight role of the U.S. government, it has historical reasons, how it's been built, but it is not sustainable politically. There's not one reason for one government to have this role. It will release tensions from other topics that we are discussing in Internet Governance if this transition is successfully completed and being reinforced in the model because it has to be conducted in a multi‑stakeholder way.
>> JEANETTE HOFMAN: Thank you, Marilia.
Next Walid and Joy, who will talk about Internet and human rights.
>> Walid Al-Saqaf: First of all, let me break the mold a little bit and start with a personal story. I like to start with stories because that's how I grab your attention. A few years ago I come from a country named Yemen, a country that suffered from oppression from the Internet. My website got blocked. Since then I have become more of an activist. I'm camouflaged.
It is no surprise to see that the biggest chunk of the workshop proposals were in the direction of Internet and human rights. The idea behind human rights spans through many aspects, including access, child rights, crimes, even, privacy, as you may recall. Surveillance is one of the biggest hot topics nowadays. The bottom line is if we were to begin rethinking the way the Internet is managed in terms of human rights, you'll have to go through all these different aspects of it, which is a tremendous challenge for someone like me having three minutes to talk.
But what I'd like to emphasize here is that the global aspect of the Internet makes it impossible for one government to dictate what and how the Internet needs to be controlled. We no longer live in a nations state ideology. Things have changed. Today, a few hours ago, I was browsing the Internet and I stumbled upon a website that was blocked. Luckily, I myself developed a program for unblocking, and it works quite well in the hotel.
Governments are not able to control the flow of information on the Internet. That puts us in a position where we need to rethink the way we consider how information is shared and controlled. No longer are we needing regulations that can be imposed, but we need to promote the idea of sharing ideas, common practices, good practices, things that we can voluntarily apply. Nothing that can be enforced on the Internet would work. It's been shown over and over again that if you ban Twitter, it fires back. That's what happened here in Turkey. So the idea is that in order to change or to approach the subject objectively, we need to consider the merits of why certain things are bad for you and why we should begin considering awareness campaigns, ideas that change the way you think of Internet content. And that's one important aspect.
Another important aspect is to consider the multi‑stakeholderism aspect of the Internet as something we can learn from. In fact, I was one of the MAG members in Algeria. We had an interesting debate. We were sitting on the panel with activists, government officials, private sector and technical community. For the first time governments felt threatened. They shouldn't be feeling threatened because if they had not done anything wrong, why would they be threatened?
The idea is that for the first time the Internet opened the door for us to hold governments accountable. No restrictions, no rigid walls that can eliminate a particular opinion. So instead of fighting this trend, we need to embrace it. We need to understand how would the Internet as a human right accessing it, as a human right, enforce or enhance lives of people, how it will develop growth, how it can create better, more transparent governments, instead of having governments fight for their survival.
We have seen Arab spring, I don't have time to go back to that, but it shows certain moments people's opinions cannot be suppressed, no matter what you do. The Internet is changing the way we think of communications. It makes us rethink the way that the old system was built. It's, perhaps, also the reason for governments themselves to consider multi‑stakeholderism within their own institutions, within their own capacities. No longer will they have to be in control of everything and manage everything. They need to share responsibility, share ideas, and exchange views.
We were at the ‑‑ in Yemen recently being the chair of the Yemen Internet Society chapter; I was privileged to have ICANN write another institution's local, as well as government bodies, manage to understand that perhaps we need to have a paradigm shift. Human rights needs not to adapt ‑‑ I mean, the Internet is not something that we need to adapt our old rules for, but, in fact, it is the source of inspiration for us to change our regular lives and change the way we think of things. So that's where I come from. And, obviously, I've not touched on the practical matters because luckily Joy here will deal with those aspects.
>> JEANETTE HOFMAN: Can I ask a question first? What would you say if I say traditional human rights expert would say to you, "Governments are the ones who have to protect human rights. Those are the ones to be held accountable. They are the ones that need to help us in exercising our human rights. And multi‑stakeholder approaches sort of blur this role and that's why we should not become too romantic about it"?
>> I was one of those who thought that way in the past. I learned if you put them in a confused corner, you will not gain much. You need to extend a hand and talk about their worries, concerns, and obligations. Oftentimes we do not foresee what challenges governments have unless we are put in their position. So instead of having this idea and thought, I would argue that an approach that has more of an equal footing setting, when everyone shares an opinion is the right way to go. After all, that's how the Internet was built, an open, accessible resource and platform.
>> JEANETTE HOFMAN: I have no doubt this would be a really lively main session. Now over to Joy.
>> Joy Liddicoat: Thanks, Jeanette. I want to talk particularly about the enhancing digital trust and the Internet human rights streams. To see a little bit of context for these and what's been happening in this area since the last IGF. You recall there was a main session on human rights and some very strong, almost subtheme, unofficial subtheme of the last IGF was human rights. We see this since the last IGF, I think we have come to a crossroads what the discussions in the IGF and the discussion of human rights and the discussions going on outside the IGF on this topic of human rights and the Internet.
So we can think, for example, that some people might say it's fantastic that the NETmundial document references human rights and that this is a watershed moment. I think you might have others who would say, really? That's a watershed moment? These references were included in the Tunis Agenda. Is it really so groundbreaking that we would affirm something that we've already agreed many years before?
I think the key question at the moment, the subtext, if you like, for these sessions during the IGF, is what is it that multi‑stakeholder groups wants to say to those institutions outside the IGF about human rights and the Internet? So if we look, for example, at the analysis of workshops in these two streams, we see that at least maybe 47 out of 87 workshops at the IGF relate to the Internet and human rights.
In the enhancing digital trust area alone you've got 11 workshops on privacy and surveillance. We have got ccTLD cybersecurity. In the Internet human rights stream, we've got 14 workshops. We see new norms emerging, an African declaration of Internet rights and freedoms, the Dynamic Coalition of Internet Rights and Principles, looking at progress in implementing the charter. And I think these are very relevant to the main theme of this IGF, because if we're talking about connecting enhanced governance and what that means for economic government, can we really have economic development without strong human rights? What does it mean to have an enabling environment if that's not an enabling environment for human rights?
I was cognizant about rolling out the access plummeting, but at the same time women's rights groups expressing a lot of concern about the amount of violence against women online, about the role of the private sector in this, and the need to have conversations about the Internet.
So I think we see a convergence and a challenge here for stakeholders in this IGF. And we focus this also on the roundtable on workshop organisers in the enhancing digital trust and the Internet and human rights roundtable on this Friday to look at is there a message that the IGF participants might want to see to the council, because the human rights council is next week, on Friday the 12th, having the digital rights privacy in the digital age.
One of the mandates of the IGF is to focus on outcomes, things that it might want to offer to other UN institutions. The IGF is an UN mandated institution. What does it say on these topics? I think those that want to follow these things, there is a richness there. We're at a good moment in time for those discussions to happen.
>> JEANETTE HOFMAN: Thank you, Joy. When you talk about outcomes, did the ‑‑ did it have sort of ironic sound to it or did I misunderstand that? Are you sort of asking for strong outcomes that make the point of privacy on the Internet as a sort of condition for exercising human rights? Is that something you would want to see?
>> Joy Liddicoat: I think the outcome is difficult because it creates an allergic reaction of oh, my gosh, we'll be negotiating and processes or trying to reach agreement. I think we need to relax about this. I think we need to ask ourselves is there some kind of message, some kind of way in which we might want to choose to communicate to others about the discussions we're having here? And if so, what might that be. It could be that the output is an input. In other words, an offering of something from the IGF experience to others who are focusing on this issue. And I'm thinking in particular of the human rights council, because the high commission of the human rights has said we need multi‑stakeholder input. They need guidance. They need help. The question is are we willing to offer that, and if so, what form might it take?
>> JEANETTE HOFMAN: Okay. Thank you very much. Joy, we will have Susan talking about IANA.
>> Susan Chalmers: Thank you very much. Just to follow on the intervention of Marilia, I would like to give the audience a bit of information on the IANA main focus session as well as the workshops that will feed into the IANA panel. So the main session on the IANA functions will take place on the last day of IGF, Friday, September 5, in this room from 9:30 to 11:00. The 90‑minute session will be split into two 45‑minute parts with a panel for each part. The first panel will focus on the transition of NTIA's stewardship of the IANA functioning of the multi‑stakeholder community. The second panel will focus on accountable with within ICANN.
How are these two panels related? One might ask, at present, there does not seem to be a widely recognized answer to this question. But to borrow language that has been used before in this discussion, the NTIA's decision to transition IANA stewardship is like taking the training wheels off. As Fadi Chehadi, president and CEO of ICANN, when those training wheels come off, is it sufficiently accountable to the multi‑stakeholder that it serves?
The IANA functions as a safeguard. The new model for IANA stewardship, whatever it may be, should also feature the safeguard in the event that ICANN ever fails in this accountability. As an announcement, the NTIA must be four principles. The community, however, has called for accountability to be addressed and ICANN responded. Further, this morning, Larry Strickland from the NTIA made it clear in the town hall meeting that although accountability was not initially linked to the transition, they are now very much connected. This is the reason why we have organised the main session to feature two panels: one on the IANA stewardship transition, and the other on ICANN's accountability.
Just very briefly, a number of workshops on this topic will occur during the week and I wanted to share those with you leading up to the main session. Tomorrow is a particularly important day for the topic, with three workshops taking place. So if you wanted to have kind of a cycle experience, the IANA transition, tomorrow, you'll have that opportunity.
Workshop Number 23 will take place from 9:00 to 10:30 in Workshop Room 2. That's accountability and multi‑stakeholder regime, and it will focus on how it's achieved at ICANN under the multi‑stakeholder processes.
Workshop 185, ICANN globalization and the affirmation of commitments, constituency, and the IANA transition. This will take place tomorrow from 11:00 to 2:30 in Workshop Room 3.
Workshop 19 is ICANN globalization involving ecosystem. Tomorrow from 2:30 to 4:00 p.m., Workshop Room 3. Like the main session on Friday, this workshop will examine ICANN accountability and transparency mechanisms as well as the globalization of ICANN and the transition of NTIA stewardship of the IANA functions.
Finally, Workshop 114, Developing Countries and participation in global ID. This workshop is organised by the noncommercial stakeholder group of ICANN and will take place on Thursday, September 4 from 4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. in Workshop Room 5.
>> JEANETTE HOFMAN: Susan, I think this is too much detail. If we will do that for all workshops, we'll spend probably the entire day on it. Tell people about the color codes so they are able to identify the workshops.
>> Susan Chalmers: The color code for everything? Okay.
>> JEANETTE HOFMAN: Any concluding remark?
>> Susan Chalmers: No, I was just identifying those feeder workshops. That's it. I'll save that for my session.
>> JEANETTE HOFMAN: Thank you. Next person is Markus Kummer. He will speak on emerging issues, which this is net neutrality.
>> Markus Kummer: Yes, you may wonder why we call net neutrality and emerging issues, but they emerged from NETmundial. It was one, if not the, single‑most controversial issue there. There was even lack of agreement whether the term should be used or not. In the end we had a term "net neutrality" in the outcome document. That provides the basis for the discussion we are going to have.
The session will take place tomorrow. There's already a session dealing with that. We have a Dynamic Coalition on Net Neutrality that is meeting right now. There will also be workshops.
As I said, the main mandate for this session came from NETmundial. NETmundial, with some difficulty, found some compromised language and it said it should be the discussions ‑‑ the discussions should be carried on in other forums, such as the IGF. So for the IGF, this is, I think, very important recognition that NETmundial actually saw the IGF as a venue for continuing the discussion which was nothing but ‑‑ far from conclusive in Sao Paulo. Several people have pointed out passion of the issues; understandable that human rights is always an issue. Much passion goes into, but also copyright, as Stuart mentioned, is an issue where people invest lots of feelings and passion.
Net neutrality is an issue whereas much passion is invested in. It may sound surprising, it is a technical issue, but people care passionately about it. Either they're in favor or against. I can assure you there is a lot of passion devoted to this.
We had a very open preparatory process with various calls on this and we came up with a structure which may look rather complex and complicated. We will look at it from different perspectives. We start with technical perspectives, move on to economic perspectives, and to end user, social, and human rights perspectives. And we are looking at a regulatory lens and also through a development perspective. So we are looking at these issues from different angles. Already that was quite controversial. Where should we start? Some said it was wrong to start with the technology. We should start with social issues. But in the end, the view prevailed that let's look at how the technology actually worked.
Here, I think the IGF, again, is a privileged place for this discussion because we do have technologists that can explain to us and at the same time it is important to have people who bring in human rights perspectives, social perspectives, but also social perspectives. All of these issues are important.
Also, the secretariat, IGF secretariat, had asked for questions, policy questions. They started that last year. Again, the lion's share of the question came around net neutrality. Again, it illustrates that this is an issue people really care about. But we will look at the first and foremost at NETmundial language as a starting point for framing the discussion. And I read this out. On net neutrality it says it is important that we continue the discussion of the open Internet, including freedom of expression, competition, consumer choice, meaningful transparency, and appropriate network management and recommend that this be addressed at forums such as the next IGF.
So we're going to discuss all this tomorrow. Now, do we expect closure of the debate ‑‑
>> JEANETTE HOFMAN: That would have been my question, of course. You're answering my question.
>> Markus Kummer: I don't think we can really suspect that we would sing Kumbaya at the end and I do think we are moving closer to the understanding of what we're talking about. One of the questions actually related to what is the question came in from the community to the IGF secretariat, what is the role of the IGF in all this? Sometimes it will also be devoted with what role the IGF should play in taking this discussion forward. One possible outcome could be that we continue intercession of the discussion on the way.
>> JEANETTE HOFMAN: Intercessional?
>> Markus Kummer: That's a possible outcome.
>> JEANETTE HOFMAN: Institutional innovation as a way of solving this difficult issue. As a long‑time observer of this debate, would you say, Markus, that broadening the empirical basis might be a way forward to solving this impasse?
>> Markus Kummer: Could you repeat the question?
>> JEANETTE HOFMAN: I was wondering whether you hope, because you sound quite confident, that if we only broaden the empirical basis of this debate, that it will help us overcome this impasse we see in this field?
>> Markus Kummer: Well, I'm a great believer in dialogue and democracy in debate. Various speakers have pointed out how we have moved on since the first IGF, how the discussions have matured and evolved, how we're able now to discuss hot issues without having nervous breakdowns or heart attacks. So this is obviously a controversial issue, a hot issue. And I think in one way or another, a continuation of the discussions would certainly, I think, help diffuse the tension. And if that can be done on an empirical basis, all the better. We have to.
Again, the IGF brings all these people with different perspectives together. So I think it is well placed for this discussion. If you hold the debate only in a technology environment, then you lack the other perspectives.
Before we ask the last two people to present, give us an overview of streams workshops, the idea is to now give the floor to the audience and see whether there are any specific questions or suggestions based on what you've heard so far, which was quite a bit. There is ‑‑ there is a mic over there.
>> RICARDO PEDRAZA BARRIOS: My name is Ricardo Pedraza Barrios. I'm from Brazilian government. I work for general secretariat. I was at the coordinator's offering at NETmundial in Sao Paolo and it was with parallel with NETmundial. And I'm here to present the workshop. We're going to promote on Wednesday at 2:30, with the experience that previous to the NETmundial and that we conducted with the hub on the remote for the NETmundial.
The workshop intends to talk about the experience of the consultation, but it's about social participation in general. We are going to discuss about the participation in the NETmundial process itself with some numbers and in general. The focus is social participation.
>> JEANETTE HOFMAN: Thank you.
>> RICARDO PEDRAZA BARRIOS: If you have time, just to finish, if we have time, it depends on the people attending the workshop, we intend to have hands‑on session on creating consultation closer to the consultation we had in NETmundial. But if there is interest and if you have time, it's short time.
>> JEANETTE HOFMAN: Thank you very much. Actually, we thought we would discuss what we've heard so far instead of expanding the information. So are there any concrete questions about the main sessions and roundtables that we introduced in this session?
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you. I have a question from Walid. Do you think that governments banning Facebook and Twitter and others, do you feel they are not achieving their goals, or do you think they are actually achieving their goals? It occurs to me that sometimes there's a disconnect between what the top‑down leadership intention is with using blocking as a tool to stifle political protest, and the intended outcome. Or is that intended ‑‑ that unintended outcome actually an intended outcome?
I'm not sure if you understand my question. It just seems to me that sometimes there's not a very clear relationship between the objectives of restricting speech and the outcomes, a clear link.
>> WALID AL‑SAQAF: Thank you. The governments think about other means of communications, just like a telephone or telefax or whatever. They do not understand the scope and the mechanism is different. That's why it's crucial that they get the same training to understand how the Internet performs and how it functions one important part through training, and perhaps introducing them would be to have national IGFs focus mostly with governments and understanding that you cannot simply apply, you know, policies of the past to something like the Internet, because it's a new animal, a different animal that needs a different way of thinking.
So what we've tried to do in Yemen, for example, is to introduce the national IGF, and the government has been happy. They've not given the opportunity to learn what it's about. Maybe that's reflected mostly in Developing Countries. I'm not sure if the same ignorance is in developed countries. I hope not. But the idea is that without this introduction to decision‑makers and policymakers, we will still have this quarrel between what can be achieved and what should be achieved.
>> JEANETTE HOFMAN: There was another question in the back? Yes, please.
>> Audience: Thank you very much. I'm from Paraguay. For the deposit on the Internet regarding human rights, there was someone who wrote at the end of the Cold War and that it was not possible then to have access to the Internet. As an expert in these matters, the government now has the possibility of using this formidable tool, and as it was said in the 90s, make of the world a common good.
>> JEANETTE HOFMAN: Thank you very much. If there are no other comments, I would ask to briefly introduce the workshops related to the ecosystem.
>> Thank you everyone for showing up. I'm one of the cofacilitators. This is an evolution of the ecosystem and the role of the IGF. On your schedule you will see this highlighted in a vibrant yellow of the workshops related to this team. If you click on the schedule, they're bright and pink. They're about 17 workshops. Before we get to that, this session is scheduled for Day 3, 4th of September, from 9:30 to 12:30 at this same hall. We hope to see all of you there.
So the IGF is doing good things. And it is a platform for good, enabling conversations, facilitating multi‑stakeholder participation.
And then earlier this year NETmundial happened, and poof, there was energy. We learned innovation. We learned enabling multi‑stakeholder participation, and we learned how you could get governments to queue up behind Civil Society and convey those processes. A lot is happening in the Internet ecosystem. It's involving. There are many processes that have been initiated across different fora.
This is a session where we hope that we can merge and create bridges between silos. So whether it is the ITU or the review process or UNESCO, we hope that speakers that can come at this forum and talk about this main session and how is it that we can together deal with identifying issues and challenges for the evolving ecosystem, and also look at mapping issues with solutions and how is that their individual initiatives are contributing towards this conversation.
The session is scheduled as two panels of 90 minutes duration about an hour and a half each. The first panel will have a high level leader's intervention. It is kept multi‑stakeholder. There will be times for comments, questions, observations. The second session is being done in a town‑hall‑meeting format with microphones, volunteers across the room. It will have initial comments by different stakeholder representatives and will speak to how we can strengthen the IGF, how is it we can learn from processes like NETmundial, which left a lot of hope, a lot of opportunity, and also key topics identified for IGF to speak to it.
We hope that we will see engagement interaction at this session, which will look at responding to key challenges, and also look at seeking comments, bottom up from the floor, and looking at engagement from the participants. This session was planned in a process which was inclusive. There was a mailing list that was set up. There was a call that was put out by the secretariat for policy questions that this session should speak to and address.
There are about 17 workshops, as I mentioned. The