The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Geneva, Switzerland, from 17 to 21 December 2017. 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 event, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> MODERATOR: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and dear colleagues, it is my honor to open the Geneva platform with distinguished panelists who will help us launch this initiative today. And while we are discussing ‑‑ gathering to discuss next steps in the Geneva initiative of digital policy, I would like just to give you one information about the context of this initiative which started in September which was considered to be some sort of start‑up initiative strongly supported by State Councilor Guillermo. The start‑up approach was urgency to address some pressing issues. And there is no coincidence than today, since we just heard that European court of justice ruled in the famous Uber case that Uber is transportation and not information company. Therefore, it will significantly influence the business model of Uber which will have to observe all rules and regulation which are related to transportation and taxi companies. The underlying message is that while the policy circles while discussing this issue, the European court of justice had to rule on the request, in this case Spanish entities, to answer the simple question, if Uber is information transportation companies. Therefore, there is a sense of urgency. There is a sense of need to build capacity and to address these issues in as constructive and as inclusive way as it is possible.
This logic inspired the Geneva digital talks which were initiated on the 3rd of October and which were followed up by four sessions, discussing among other issues the role of courts and jurisdiction in digital policy but also question on technology and policy, economic aspect and human rights aspect. During these two months and Geneva digital talks, we clearly realized that there is a need for awareness building, inclusive governance, capacity development on the level of institutions and on the level of individuals, starting from citizens.
This Geneva digital talks, our discussions, inputs from the community, who gave the idea for capacity development prepared the launch of Geneva capacity digital development policy which will be initiated today with the first speech by Mr. Pierre Maudet, state councilor of the state of Geneva. And later on reflections from our distinguished panelists, starting with director general of federal office of communications, Switzerland. Karsten Geier, head of cyber policy of federal department of foreign affairs of Germany, and chairman of the U.N. GGE. Next to me is senior director of the Internet society. And the senior director of Microsoft.
I'm director of the DiploFoundation and head of Geneva Internet Platform, and I will moderate today's discussion in as interactive way as possible. Mr. Maudet, please.
>> PIERRE MAUDET: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Good afternoon. It's an honor and privilege to be able to present to you the Geneva initiative on capacity development in digital policy. The Geneva initiative, we are presenting to you today is the result of the Geneva talks which we started in October with making a concrete contribution to this idea. The Geneva talks for Geneva digital convention launched last February of this year. Discussions were held where different views can be expressed. Geneva as you know is not only the workplace of many global agreements which were often negotiated in these buildings. But it's also the home to so many key actors of Internet governance. During the Geneva digital talks, we wanted to take stock of all the work done here. Often behind the scenes and away from the limelight. This work is time consuming, academics and employees of private companies. In Geneva, we work together. We try to hammer out the norms, look for technical as well as for human solutions. This passionate work is essence filled and it's what Jovan Kurbalija labeled as a tectonic moment. Indeed, we should not wait for the next tectonic thing to agree. Because the next event will affect an even larger number of persons, and crew members who died in the 1900s.
As said, if we want to increase cybersecurity, we need more cooperation between governments and the private sector. In 2012, the member states of the United Nations established a group of government experts. The U.N. GG to discuss international security. Five groups were created this year and three of them produced. The previous two reports defined two key facts. First that international law including the U.N. chapter applied to cyberspace and secondly, that states should observe elementive (?) of which one asserts that states should refrain from attacking critical infrastructure. The U.N. secretary‑general said that less than 20% of the member states were represented in the U.N. GGE process and that more countries must be involved in such an important issue.
From the side of the private sector, we are hearing that these declarations are good basis but they must be further developed and transformed into action. More needs to be done. In Switzerland, we have experienced different approaches and we belief in the individual perspective. In this case the end user's perspective. The Internet Governance Forum, IGF, represents an interesting initiative to Internet governance. We are pleased to host the Geneva Internet Platform in navigating a complex digital landscape. Over the last three years, the Geneva Internet Platform has made considerable contribution in making Geneva a global center of expertise on Internet governance.
Ladies and gentlemen, I see your presence here a confirmation of two important elements. First, you believe and trust in Geneva's abilities to serve as a platform to foster development of cyber capacity and to help find some solution for complex digital policy problems. Second, a signal of your conviction that the pressing issues related to digital policy must be given attention in a frame allowing an approach on all points of view to be expressed. With this report of the Geneva Internet Platform together with the national authorities and representatives from other countries, the private sector, the private IT sector, the Technical Community, the academic and scientific community, representatives of concerned NGOs who wish to make a contribution to creating a safer Internet. I have experience and expertise in Geneva, in Switzerland. The Geneva initiative capacity development digital policy would contribute to legal, technical, social and political communities working on the digital issues.
Our goal is to contribute toward finding inclusive digital governance solutions, to strike the right balance between a broad approach and discussion on the need for a normative framework for cybersecurity. And to overcome by facilitating the sharing of knowledge and experience. The human factor is still identified as the weakest link in the cyber policy. We must continue to strengthen international knowledge. Together, with the representatives of national government, private companies, Internet governance organizations, academic institutions who wish to contribute to our building capacity of communities and countries worldwide. In Switzerland, we have recently created the digital Switzerland association. The membership is very diverse. Private companies, Switzerland's bank, for example, local and regional governments, the international committee of the Red Cross, the University of Geneva. The main goal is to strengthen cooperation between all its members on the digital front and ensure a stronger nation. I see Digital Switzerland as an inspiring model for something we should try to achieve globally. It's a unique and functional interplay among private sector, government and academia. Maybe the Geneva Initiative will lead to such a global cooperation and otherwise to advance in a solution‑minded way.
We must overcome not only the silos but also the cyber (?) as was discussed a few days. It must be addressed without fear and with a common‑sense approach. This is what Geneva and the Geneva Initiative can offer. Thank you very much for your attention.
[ Applause ]
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Mr. Maudet, for your inspiring direct. It reflects the position that you have in the Geneva government of combining two portfolios of security and the economy, and it was clearly indicated in your address, it is going to be one of the major challenges of bridging security and the economic aspects by providing future possibility solutions and at the same time addressing certain challenges as we know being the core dynamics and the core challenge of digital policy.
I would like to invite you.
>> PANELIST: Excellences, ladies and gentlemen, I think I can safely say two days and a half into this 12th Internet Governance Forum here in Geneva, we are experiencing once again that it's really the world's largest multistakeholder discussion platform that we have with the IGF on digital issues that is open to all interested parties. We represent a truly unique opportunity to discuss current themes and challenges for participants from all over the world, from all interest groups and that allow to form new partnerships and to new shared initiatives. And I dare say it is maybe easier here in Geneva than elsewhere to bring all those people together, to break up the silos together, to allow everyone to connect the dots, to learn from each other, and to see the bigger picture behind the specialized issues of the daily work. And I think that boils down to the theme of this IGF.
I think I can say we are shaping our digital future, which is the goal of this event. And bottom‑up multistakeholder approach embodied by the IGF is, in our view, the best way to develop digital governance. Capacity development in all this is absolutely a key precondition for making progress in this multistakeholder cooperation, and that is why also as part of our own national strategy on digital issues, support the Geneva Internet Platform in addition to building additional capabilities, capacities that allow all the stakeholders to shape the discussions and the decision‑making in their respective roles. I think that is a key aspect. All these stakeholders on an equal basis.
Now, capacity development has been one of the echoing issues of this IGF discussion here in Geneva. The tone of that discussion was already set at the opening session on Monday when the president of the federation stressed that we should modernize development assistance from focusing not only on, you know, primary infrastructure, building bridges and roads, to building some new type of also digital bridges and capacities and capabilities. And capacity development, of course, is closely related to the realization of the sustainable development goals. Without the use of digital tools, technologies, services, no SDGs can actually be fully implemented.
There are different types of capacity development ranging from providing digital skills to building institutions. And the Geneva initiative on capacity development and digital policy maps this wide range of capacity development very well. And I would like to focus on one aspect, which is essential for sustainable digital policy and digital future in the Internet and the world coming up. It is building of institutions that can ensure sustainable policy‑making.
A lot has already been achieved by providing framing, ICANN, ISOC, DiploFoundation, some schools have already trained thousands of officials, of academics and of Civil Society representatives in this field. And this is an excellent basis to put more emphasis on building also institutional and national capacities. Many countries developed ‑‑ and developing face a problem today to follow the very fast‑changing digital policy fields from dealing with infrastructure to e‑commerce and cybersecurity.
So the Geneva Internet Platform has already done a lot on building capacities, or as I mentioned here in Geneva, and this is now a next step on a long journey which the Geneva Initiative outlines. And this allows us to go forward, and that's why the federation welcomes very much the Geneva Initiative on capacity development and digital policy which represents a new phase in these ongoing activities of the Geneva Internet Platform. We do hope that this initiative will contribute to our common goal here of achieving the necessary levels of trust and confidence. I think that is a key component of any digital strategy that we can create trust among our societies, because that will be a prerequisite for reaping the benefits, the many opportunities we have in the digital space and in an ever‑more interconnected future. So thank you very much. And I look forward to a very great cooperation.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. We'll now go to the federal department of foreign affairs of Germany. In your famous presentation on cybersecurity, combining confidence building, nondevelopment and capacity development. Capacity development plays a quite important role. How could you reflect based on your experience from your NDG and extensive work in the cyber field, what would be your recommendation for the Geneva initiative and generally capacity development in this field?
>> PANELIST: Thank you very much, Jovan, for the question. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here today. I'm not quite sure how I've earned the honor to sit on this panel. But I figure I'm not going to turn it down. Yes, actually, a number of countries are pursuing an approach where they say we need rules for responsible safe behavior in cyberspace. So that needs clarity on how to apply existing and international law. Also, you need a set of nonbinding safe behavior. You need to give some traction to those rules. So you want to have confidence that it will adhere to these ‑‑ these rules. And you have to bring all countries into a position to engage in a norm‑adhering and confidence‑inspiring behavior. So capacity building is actually a very important element of a free and open and secure cyberspace. Which is what we aspire to.
The importance of cybersecurity capacity building has been an element in the discussions of all the GGEs that I'm aware of, all cyber GGEs I'm aware of. There's been five so far. Only the 2009/2010 through 2015 GGEs have been able to reach consensus reports. But in all these reports, cybersecurity capacity building played an important role. And as a matter of fact, the discussions of the 2016/2017 GGE, which unfortunately did not yield a consensus report, those discussions very much were in the spirit of capacity building. And capacity building would have been the lead chapter in the report, had we reached consensus on it. Because what the experts asked themselves throughout their deliberations was what concrete recommendations can we give for engaging in rule‑abiding and in confidence‑inspiring behavior in cyberspace? What recommendations can we give to states on how to implement the recommendations on cyber and international security that previous GGEs have formulated? And it's very regrettable that in the end, not all experts could join the consensus on the draft report. So we had report failure.
If I may ‑‑ if I may just comment on the Geneva Initiative on capacity development and policy, I've listened very carefully to the remarks. In the spirit of the importance of capacity building for cyber and international security, I believe this is a very ambitious project and a very welcome initiative. I would very much recommend that the Geneva Initiative seeks a niche that sets about freely against other initiatives and fora that exists such as the global forum on expertise and confidence enlisting cyber and capacity‑building initiatives that are taken forward by many organizations and many venues, and I'm not going to start mentioning one or a few of them, because I always forget some.
I would also encourage you very much to try and render the initiative as concrete as possible. You have set out in the brochure some principles, but now they need to be transferred into concrete action. And that's speaking from experience, that's going to be difficult and hard work on which I wish you good luck. I would be very, very careful on the language that I use. I'll give you two examples. If you're introduced, new language such as humanity check. That's a new term. And as somebody that has some experience in international associations, new terms, new language is always difficult. So I would encourage you try and use ‑‑ establish language as much as possible. I think what you're meaning here is respect for internationally agreed human rights standards. So I would put that to use.
By the same token, I'd be careful with trying to adjust the meaning of established terms such as the Geneva Convention. Geneva Conventions are ‑‑ have a very strict meaning under international law. They cover ‑‑ they cover international humanitarian law. Geneva Convention, you'll immediately say, oh, yeah, this is about the rights, and I'm not sure that's what you want to cover here. I'd be very careful on language. But that can be fixed. It can be done. And I wish you good luck on that.
[ Applause ]
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Karsten, for very practical and concrete suggestions. Fortunately, we didn't need to seek consensus in our activities, and in negotiating the document there so we can use academic and global policy language. But those points are highly important and framing of the discussion is important. We just noticed in analyzing the transcript, as you can see while we are discussing, scribes which are located, I guess, in Los Angeles are basically providing transcripts of our discussion. And we analyze that every day what was discussed during previous days, some sort of mining of the data. And one of the developments ‑‑ latest developments is that Internet governance which is the name of this forum is increasingly replaced by digital governance. Therefore, the language is extremely important, and the points about framing the discussion the right way even in the capacity development, context is highly valid and thank you for that.
Now, while we are navigating through the complex discussions, we have always support by our colleagues from ISOC, ICANN, and the initiatives are very important, international telecommunication, union capacity development activities. I noticed that you made quite a few notes on the document. I expect reflections, please. Please.
>> PANELIST: Thank you very much and thank you for the invitation. I think this is a very important initiative. We have participated at the society to the different talks that you have organized, and we're also a part of the GIP and also a longtime partner of DiploFoundation and its entirety. So thank you again for the excellent work that you do. Just a quick word about the society, we were founded in '92 by Vint Cerf, one of the fathers of the Internet, initially to be the umbrella organization of the ITF, which basically produces standards, some of the standards. And we've expanded a little bit our activities to lead now in the field of Internet policy, technology and education, capacity building.
I would say that actually the theme, I think, over arcing theme of the IGF, "shaping our digital future," emphasizes the importance of capacity building and these initiatives such as the one we're launching today. So that is clearly very, very positive. And yes, I went through the language, the different recommendations, that are presented to support the launch of this important initiative. Like my colleague, I think it's important to look at the language and make sure the framework is clear to everyone. But globally looking at what you are proposing, I thought the recommendations made a lot of sense and were simple. But I would say also powerful.
I'll just say, too, what particularly resonated with me. The first one being think global but act local. And this resonates with the society's mission because we have this we have been working in the field over the past 25 years through our chapters, through our individual members, through the organizational members, also that constitute our multistakeholder ‑‑ our multistakeholder membership. And I think the second one would be involve a wide range of actors. It seems very simple, but at the same time, if you think about the multistakeholder governance concept, it can be well constructed. But at the same time, if you don't have full participation, if you don't have a vibrant ecosystem of community participating in the dialogue, then your multistakeholder governance system is just theory. Hence the importance of these capacity‑building initiatives, all the efforts organizations like ISOC, ICANN, many others and, of course, GIP and DiploFoundation. Really, I think, are at the heart of the mission of clarifying and supporting Internet governance dialogue. Thank you.
[ Applause ]
>> MODERATOR: Our next contributor, senior director of Microsoft. And after the valentine's Day announcement, it's created a lot of discussions, a lot of debates, agreement, disagreement, but it creates definitely a different staging of which we are addressing cybersecurity and digital policy issues. And that's created (?) different views, and I would like to thank Microsoft and you for introducing the new dynamism in discussion with many agreements and disagreements about it but definitely digital policy discussions. Thank you.
>> PANELIST: Thank you very much. (?) Look, I mean, the way I see this is that we are talking a lot in Geneva on both sides about the evolution. And I think it's the right word, you know? We are really in the midst of something very big, a very big transformation, which is made possible by the development of existing technology, cross‑computing which has a processing power (?) which enables us to do a number of other technology platforms, how computing has the power, which we're just touching the beginning of the power. We at Microsoft are working with virtual IT tools, those tools are going to become much more available to our industry, to all players, to teachers, to students, and they are going to open new possibilities in the same areas, learning and construction, manufacturing. There, too, technology is just at the beginning.
We see the next event of computing, we are just (?) in this revolution. And I think it's important to realize it because if we realize that we are at the start of a major transformation, we give ourselves the ability to manage it. Not to be simply reacting, (?) To an approach that we have the opportunity to actually take this revolution, drive it the way we want, and manage it the way we want. But we haven't realized the extent of the transformation in which we are. And then we need to know how we want to build it up and take advantage of those (?) that I just mentioned, cloud computing, virtual reality, just to name a few.
And the way I see it and the way we see it at Microsoft is if you want to have a human approach to this new technology, if you want the technology to serve society and to serve individuals, you need to embed a number of value designed framework which is going to carry the technology. You need to focus on human rights, freedom of expression, privacy, respect freedom to vote. We have seen recently statistics about the number of cases in which technology is used to influence those sort of connections. So we need to rethink a little bit how we want to use the technology. It opens opportunity but also challenges. And the way to manage challenges is to be guided by human rights in the first place. I think that's the first ‑‑ that's the first thing. The way we go with the technology, I think human rights will be the guide for our policymakers and technology developers. We need to have more trust in the technology. People keep talking about we need more policy and more security. Hence this important situation and this project we have to improve cybersecurity in the digital space.
We need inclusiveness. We need to ensure access for all. We cannot continue to address the Digital Divide and not deepen it. I think we need to really take it, you know, and try to address it. As many people as possible, access to data, access to the Internet. That's, for me, a very important part. We need to address jobs. So (?) opportunity and also challenges, our task to build the framework for technology and then to cover a number of different topics. I just mentioned a few. I mentioned human rights. I mentioned job security, I mentioned cybersecurity, I mentioned trust. So there is really a lot of elements that we need to bring together and build together in order to develop the best framework to enable this digital transformation, the technology development that we are just starting to touch to give us a (?) and take full advantage of this technology. That's the task. Needless to say, given such a task, it's a very important element. To me capacity building is not simply focusing on (?) it is there to enable all participants, technology, policymakers, academics to have a more holistic approach to those technology developments.
And so for me, this idea of the capacity building is really key, again, to help us build the framework, build also the public framework which will enable us to actually control, manage the technology revolution that we are just starting to feel. Capacity building is very important for the reasons that I had mentioned. And I'm speaking really here in my capacity at Microsoft, that's how I personally see our future. And here in Geneva, absolutely yes here in Geneva. Because Geneva is a place where you have all the expertise that you need to support. The number of agencies that you have here have touched all the aspects of technology, whether it's via (?) so all those organizations are going to experience the benefits of the digital transformation and the real activities. And therefore they need to be part of the development of the framework, and they also need to be part of the capacity initiative. It's important. It should be in the capacity building for all those agencies they're that are going to be absolutely critical for the development ‑‑ really critical for the development of the framework.
And next to those agencies, again, under the (?) you have discussions, the whole discussion and the restrictions in the agencies is help, support, the discussion in the game under the impulse of (?). So I think that it's ‑‑ for me, there is really no doubt that Geneva is the place which will be central to the development of the framework that was mentioned, and because (?) I think that's where the capacity building should start from and should be (?)
>> MODERATOR: Thank you.
[ Applause ]
And we are very concrete with building the new practice and capacity. We are speaking within the time limit. We have quite plenty of time for discussion. And I'm making the following proposal. Since we inspired very concrete discussions, Karsten mentioned the point, I suggest that our discussion is based on your inputs, and we will acknowledge your intellectual (?) the predeveloped curriculum for the course that we will start in February, very concrete course. If you can, frame your question and suggestion about the topics that you think we should teach policymakers in local governments, among diplomats, in business organizations in dealing with this digital policy. (?) From human rights to cybersecurity, Digital Economy and all of these subjects. Karsten, do you want to give us lectures or subjects of the course?
>> KARSTEN GEIER: First of all, thank you. This reminds me of one of the cartoons where the Centurian said you need to volunteer. You need to go.
[ Laughter ]
I've been volunteered. I think first of all you probably need more than one course. You probably need more than one curriculum. You probably need a number of building blocks. Also, I very strongly agree with previously speakers' comments that cyber building is far more than cybersecurity capacity building. You have to think security when you think cyber. You cannot just start with that.
So for cybersecurity 101. Just a course on cybersecurity 101. I think a good starting point would be to reach an agreement on what the current situation is. The flex situation. The best way to get people into action is to scare them. So you try and get a better understanding of the threat situation. And then you say, well, this can be addressed. It's not rocket science. Computer science. It can be done. So what is it that you need to address?
First is you need certain structures and processes at the national level. So within the state to deal with the threats coming in. And again, it's not rocket science. It's not even terribly complicated or expensive. You have to get your mind to it. And the third element is what rules and mechanisms for international cooperation do we need or are out there on addressing these threats that are out there? So in essence, you need three elements. You need an understanding of the threat situation. You need an understanding of the national structures and processes to address the threat situation or to engage in rule‑abiding and confidence‑inspiring behavior in cyberspace. And you need the understanding of the international rules and mechanisms for international cooperation to have a joint response to the threats. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Karsten, for starting this brainstorming of curriculum for the course. And I can see that you would also like to add to the discussion.
>> PANELIST: Thank you. I'm happy to echo on what our colleague just shared. In thinking about how you build this curriculum which will be extremely important. I think it would be good to build it bearing in mind that actually there's very little literature in the field of Internet governance and multistakeholder governance. Probably because the topic is quite new. But in any case, encouraging the development of research in this field, I think, is critical to make sure that we actually improve the methodology and make sure that multicyclical processes are effective, not just inclusive, but also address issues and find solutions. The other comment or perhaps suggestion would be to pull in some of the knowledge of some of the research that exists in other disciplines. We know, for instance, that multistakeholder capacity‑building research literature exists for the environmental field and have also helped some of the difficult negotiations in this field to reach consensus. So that's, I think, a second suggestion.
And finally, I would say that it's probably very important to address issues at an early stage. If you think about net neutrality, if you think about any kind of cybersecurity issue, there's so much passion around them that multistakeholder processes, although they're necessary, will run into some sort of difficulty. And the multistakeholder process, in essence, provides value because it is based on rationality, on the expertise of those who allowed to participate in the conversation. So
So I think my last suggestion would be to be smart enough to jump on issues at a very early stage before they are politicized to make sure we extract all of the juice we can out of these multistakeholder processes.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. (?) Through capacity development, we should avoid the fear of governments, and more rational reflections in digital privacy. Probably before policies would become very emotional and the discussion becomes very passionate as we've been seeing recently. The online moderator, what has been going on while we were discussing?
>> MODERATOR: There's quite a vibrant discussion online, in fact. And I'll try to quickly summarize it. There was a remark on capacity development to be comprehensive and have both online and offline component. And someone proposed that we should be connected to the IGF and to (?) in particular. And to me this was mentioned by two of the participants online. And then someone said it sounds great, but who should fund this program? So that was one of the questions. And in this role to other questions, the first was it seems that there is a lot of capacity from different stakeholders in Geneva to address solutions. But what is still missing in Geneva, and how can access outside of Geneva assist processes taking place in Geneva in the search for the Geneva Convention?
And the second is we often talk about the need for capacity building in developing countries. But from a different angle, when talking about capacity building, whose capacity should we focus on? Is there a gap in a particular stakeholder group or a particular sector? And how are target groups identified and share that capacity building exactly serves these people who need it? So these are the questions online. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Thank you, Barbara. The research and document which we prepared is based on the available capacity development problems in Geneva and beyond. We mentioned quite institutions and organizations. And two organizations which are members of the university of Geneva, they are represented today here. And obviously they're not starting from scratch. There are many courses. There are many developments and many activities. We should probably identify the issue. One issue that was identified during the Geneva talks is a heavy focus on individual capacity development. On training courses, individual courses, immersion in policy. And there is very little focus on institutional capacity development.
And institutional capacity development is the key for creating sustainable digital policies. In particular in developing countries. And that's probably one of the major challenges because it is relatively easy for organized training. We will hear now about our curriculum. But it is very, very challenging and difficult to develop in dynamism and sustainability and institutions worldwide. And this is probably one of the major challenges. Please.
>> AUDIENCE: I'll use the microphone. Chris Painter. I certainly welcome capacity building, capacity building is a great thing and something that we've been promoting for some time. The one thing I would urge you to do is to look at what's out there, to see what's already being done. For instance, Unideer has done some policy training. A lot of states have done training of their diplomatic (?). There's the global forum for cyber expertise which was launched last ‑‑ the Dutch Global ‑‑ I know there's some representatives here. And I think it would be behoove you to make sure that in the interest of maximizing resources, there is communication with those groups, and then there's regional groups has been doing some of the institutional capacity building, national strategy, those things.
You know, I think this is a good effort, but it seems to have some cross‑currents that allow these other efforts because I think there's a lot of good things. We need curriculum that you can draw on and you don't want to reinvent the wheel. The worst case is the same two people trained by nine different people and you don't really reach the people.
>> MODERATOR: Thanks. That's a timely and important point. I want to indicate just a few channels through which we will be assimilating this development. We have been doing the training for 25 years for diplomats, and the curriculum is quite developed. I did it as more of a brainstorming exercise to bring in the curriculum. (?) The diplomatic academy, hundreds of academies worldwide. And the next meeting will be in Washington, D.C., in September 2018. And one of the important channels will be to implement capacity development. It's not so far as it looks maybe from outside. There are a few attempts to train, but I would say there are maybe four or five countries that have the structure and out of the 100 diplomatic academies. Please.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you. I wanted to give a comment and maybe a suggestion to the curriculum. We are talking very heavily in the IGF of these important issues, security, privacy, different technologies and multistakeholder approach. I think this is the main definition. So my view is that if you have multistakeholder approach, currently there are two currents in this. The one that are speaking about the impact of digitization on these concepts, security, democracy, public trust. And then the other staff of the stakeholders are talking about these concepts, again, security, privacy in a digital world. So the concept and the consequences of the content are completely different when it comes from these two. In my view if you're talking about capacity development and digital policy from the institutional point of view, they are still talking heavily on the impact of digitization on these concepts.
Private sector, on the other hand, they are talking about the digital world. If you're talking about curriculum, I would go with the basics and create a course where you would be able to create counternarrative, kind of produce a glossary of these items from one approach, the digitization approach, and the other one, the digital world approach because I think this would be very useful for the ordinary citizens to realize that there are counterinitiatives and also for the institutional partners and stakeholders to realize that their perception of what they think of these concepts are is sometimes contradictory to what the private sector is, just for this kind of complex training.
>> MODERATOR: The translation between different policy communities.
>> AUDIENCE: Absolutely. When it comes to introducing these concepts to the general public who did not understand some of this, this might offer a kind of alternative, oh, these are the concepts we can explore further.
>> MODERATOR: We'll start the first exercise in half an hour when we have a session with the ETH who will basically join the session to the cybersecurity communities. And we'll ask him to comment on the problems that he faces in different fora and solutions. Because ETH apparently provides quite a few technical solutions for cybersecurity problems. We'll start the session discussing the interplay between Technical Communities and cyber diplomacy communities. And that will be the first exercise. But thank you for this excellent comment. Please introduce yourself.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you very much. I'm a former (?) and now with the GCCP. You've talked about capacity building. About bringing communities together, but also I think we heard about bringing the world's best locally you mentioned as well. Thinking globally and acting locally. We have over the last year worked on a concept of (?) locally. And basically that brings training to SMEs as well as some policy help to municipalities and I think it's all in one place. I think having one place that offers that to everyone, that people can walk in, where you can have co‑working space, multistakeholder, employees as well as individuals can come and share ideas. I think by bringing them physically together, we could unlock a lot of potential. So we have a model here as well. And we'd be very happy to share it with the community.
>> MODERATOR: One of the first exercises, we'll be mapping and providing the survey, and they're all available. And some of them were mentioned. We had one ‑‑ we are very fortunate today that we have one of the fathers of the Internet who basically invented packet switching network a long time ago. Thank you for joining us.
[ Applause ]
And later on, you may give us a few advices of what we should add to the curriculum. We continue with our brainstorming with our panelists and with great experts here. What are the other subjects that we should cover? Please.
>> PANELIST: Good afternoon, everyone. From Morocco. I think one of the topics that I would add to the curriculum to train diplomats is on digital free trade. I think there was a lot of discussion about it and recently in Argentina, we know, you know, a large group of governments were there and I communicated with some from developed economies or countries, and they seemed to need more support in that field, in that specific field. I think the future will be definitely about negotiating free trade agreements in the digital world. So it would be good to add something on that.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. And we have a comment and question. And maybe the last comments from our panelists and we will wrap up unfortunately this short session. Please. Okay. Please.
>> AUDIENCE: Yeah, just to follow up on that, I would support that and perhaps you could say Jovan and I have been looking about doing something specifically on e‑signature which is a rather obscure topic. But I have some expertise, and we're finding other experts, and that may be something that we'll look at in the future.
>> MODERATOR: And it could be relevant for us. Karsten, your concluding comments.
>> KARSTEN GEIER: Concluding comment. I think this has been a very useful session. And a lot of input. And I believe you need to continue building from below. And one point I would like to encourage you to do is also not ‑‑ not just to develop the curriculum from the point of view as to what can we offer, but also from the point of view what is needed. So bring in the requests and the requirements of those who you want to reach as a private audience and ask them what's interesting to them. I think that way you're more likely to get a more sustainable effect, a more sustained effect.
The other point I wanted to echo was Chris said, I also mentioned in my introductory remarks, make sure that you develop your own home flavor, that you set off in your initiatives and many others that are out there.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Would you like to make ‑‑
>> AUDIENCE: Yeah, a comment, just things that I have heard. I also believe that it's important to look at what is there and try to build on it. The one thing ‑‑ second thing which I think is also important to have a very holistic approach, as I was mentioning in my introductory comments, very holistic and institutionalizing the capacity building so that it's individually but something which is sustainable.
One element which I think you're going to be specific to this one is it will rely on multiple stakeholders. The fact that we need to be on this panel, I'm not only here for you, but as I mentioned to you just before this panel that Microsoft would be absolutely delighted to support this capacity building by sharing, by training people, offering scholarships. So I think it's very easy to (?) this is a space where I think it's important to bring together the policymakers and the expertise and the companies that are contributing to these technologies and the technical knowledge. So bringing together the digital and the (?) and the technical knowledge, I think, is key to help in this capacity building.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you.
>> AUDIENCE: Very briefly, maybe following up on Chris Painter's comment on mapping and identifying what's really around, and when I look at the substance of what is going to be in a course, I think that analysis would be something, I would highly recommend because I think too often we're getting caught up in developing something new. And we haven't done (?) or something that we think is new. So that's a key point.
>> MODERATOR: Wrap up.
>> AUDIENCE: Here in Geneva, it's a very good platform which makes sense. Ethics. Ethics, human rights, and if we can help to find this goal with the platform, I think we will assume our role here in Geneva. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Thank you for your concluding remarks. As I indicated in half an hour, we are starting with the first interprofessional capacity building. Therefore you can join us at 5:00. At 5:00? And I would like to invite you to thank our panelists and all of you for this interesting brainstorming session on developing curriculum for capacity development in cybersecurity. Thank you very much.
[ Applause ]
(The session concluded at 16:04.)