IGF 2017 - Day 4 - Room IX - DC On Publicness


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:  Oh, so you are ‑‑ so this is not work for you.  That's very good.  That's not work for you.  So we can pull all this to you ‑‑ so let's start this.  Many of us ‑‑ the session was planned to be on the 19th initially and then rescheduled to the 21st.  No one made us aware of this change.  So most of us planned for the 19th.  So this means that many of the members of this coalition are already somewhere in the air or in a train and cannot make it today.  So we probably will need to reschedule a bit and do ‑‑ and won't be able to do everything that we wanted to do and we had on the agenda. 

So hello, everyone.  Good midday.  This is the very small meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on publicness.  We had initially planned this meeting to do two things.  One was to discuss a draft survey.  We want to have a survey to understand how the different countries and cultures think about the private and public space and the digitalized era.  There was a small drafting group that had been working on a survey for that was presented to all on the mailing list.  And within that conversation we talked about an NGO called Mission Public.  They did this sort of surveys worldwide and they are applying to Year One during 2018 and 2019 planning to present results on 2019.  And the plan from Mission Public is to do this on a broader scale.  So they want to ask many questions to many different countries.  They have done this for other conferences and events before.  And one of the members of Mission Public is here.  So that was the one part that we wanted to do today on the one side. 

And on the other side we wanted to think about a joint statement together with the DC agenda.  Since(?)is not here and we need to consider in the second stage when she is back, I would suggest that we concentrate first on the idea of the survey, how we feel about it.  Of course, this session is not representative of what the whole group thinks because not all of us are here, can be here.  But perhaps we can have a very informal discussion about it.  And perhaps Antoine can present a bit on what they do.  And we can think about different possibilities of getting this done together.  And, of course, if you have other ideas and other issues that you want to discuss we can do this as well. 

Since Jioti who is not here anymore, she is also traveling, Jioti sent in to the mailing list also a hint, the Right to Be Forgotten is about to be drafted as a new law in India.  And she requested the Dynamic Coalition to gather to produce a joint statement.  And Anya Covache was not able to attend to the IGF at all, volunteered to send in something to the draft.  The deadline was originally on the 31st December and the Government extended the feedback until the January 31st.  So if you want to discuss about this.  I am trying to sort of moderate and bring the whole ‑‑ a set or range of topics that are interesting for us.  But this is a very informal gathering due to the situation that we have. 

So please jump in the debate.  Tell me whatever you want, put on the table what you think should be necessary to discuss on the table.  And if there is no further idea to discuss things, a part of the ones already put, exposed, then I would say let's concentrate on the survey because it is something that we can do very quickly.  Send a draft.  The idea as I said basically to put some numbers and to put some quality and understanding from a very agnostic point of view how people feel about what is public and what is private now in the digitalized era and contrasted with the feelings they have when talking about an analog situation where no digital technology is implied. 

So this is something very technical that needs to be done by people who used to do surveys and this is something we would need a representative amount of populations from a lot of countries to just make a sense.  And also we would need people that are used to working on analysis, sociologists, acknowledgists and the like to have a proper interpretation about that.  We are lucky to have in the Dynamic Coalition Gabrielle Rosano who does that as a living.  She works within the African continent.  We also have Antoine and they also do this for a living.  They have been doing this with the European special agency but also for the climate change conference and perhaps you could explain a bit what you do. 

   >> ANTOINE VERGNE:  Sure.  So hi, everyone.  I am Antoine.  But here we should look ‑‑

   >> MODERATOR:  You have too many Vs.  You need to go further? 

   >> ANTOINE VERGNE:  Yes.  So to show you what we did in 2015 and so if you look at this map and it was online ‑‑ June 6th, 2015 we had in each of these countries 76 around the world, a group of 100 citizens related here for ‑‑ and we had in each of those countries a group of 100 citizens which were ordinary citizens.  So recruited in order to be the most diverse and the most representative of that country.  So it is not statistical representation in the terms of survey.  But it is diversity.  And there were some recruited that they were not knowledgeable about climate, not activists and not engaged in environment.  And they met for a face‑to‑face meeting during the day.  And they were sitting at tables of six persons or eight persons.  And they took a whole day in order to discuss on the topics of COP 21.  And the topics were defined together with the stakeholders before in the year 2014 and '15.  So we worked with the UN.  We worked with the French German Government, with other Governments.  And we worked with the scientific Committee of the IPCC and NGOs of course, Civil Society and scientific.  So yeah, I say that.  In order to understand which were the topics that were relevant and interesting for the stakeholders, for the negotiators in order to push policy forward. 

So where the blocking and where the voice of the citizens could make the lines move and help and support the discussion.  And the very important other key to the process is that the people we have in this room, so it starts at 9 a.m. in Fiji and then you go over all the countries.  You have 20 countries in Africa and certain in Europe and then Americas.  For each of these groups it is the same protocol.  They experience exactly the same day and all the ‑‑ they receive information before the day.  And so how we do that is we produce information on the topics that are going to be discussed which is balanced information.  So if, for example, here we were to talk about neutrality, we would say okay, this is a Net Neutrality.  And this is why people say it is so critical and this is why people say maybe we don't need it.  So we always put the pros and cons, the different discourse and present them to the citizens.  And so in order to reach also illiterate people and people that have no access to reading, for example, we work within each of the countries.  We have a national partner, a regional partner and this organization is in charge of organizing the debate at the regional, national level.  And we train them for that in to the method.  And also in to the contents.  And, for example, in some countries in 15 like Mauritania, they took the organization and they read it aloud and put it on chips that people could put on their phone so they could hear it.  And in a country like Vietnam they read the information on the radio. 

That's how you also get to the people and allow them to get this information before they come to the day.  So what we do is not in a sense an opinion poll but it is a more deliberative way of getting the input of the citizens.  And then when we have those residents we go to the relevant arenas and places where people will be interested by this resident.  Typically IGF could be a place and now to come to Internet.  We are now preparing a global debate like that for 2018‑19 on the future of Internet.  And we want to have pilots in 2018 and to have the world's scaled debate in 2019 in order to present the result at the IGF in 2019. 

So this is our timeline.  And we are welcoming topics but I think privacy is a very nice topic.  We are scoping for topics like four, six months now and a lot since four days.  So we are here a lot asking everyone what are your topics.  What would you like to hear about how the citizens feel and think and which topics.  And privacy is a good one.  This is our initiative and thank you for the time.  And any questions, of course, you have ‑‑ we can answer and we are happy to partner up all over the world with organizations, persons that want to work with us on that. 

   >> MODERATOR:  Reactions in the room to that?  Questions? 

   >> PARTICIPANT:  From what you have gathered here at the IGF do you have any clear idea of what are the topics that you are going to pick out of all these conversations? 

   >> ANTOINE VERGNE:  No, it is too much.  I have one general feeling from my week now.  So I have the impression that there is an understanding on some core principle on the Internet, but there is a lot of ways to see what can be implemented and achieved.  And I think this is where ‑‑ so this is one thing where citizens could give a lot of input.  Because people here saying okay, access but hope.  And then we could test okay, how do citizens, where do citizens see the priority for access.  Do they see the technical part as a priority.  Do they see the literacy part of the priority.  So how they feel about that.  And this would be great added value in terms of residence. 

So this is the first feeling.  And the second one is that and this was a discussion that I had now with talking with Vint Cerf and he was saying actually the ‑‑ maybe the first question is to ask about this, do we want Internet because many people would take it for granted.  So this one of his favorite topics.  But actually it is not for granted.  Maybe asking ‑‑ starting to talk with the citizens on do we want it, and why is it useful for us as citizens.  This may be the first question.  If we go and talk with people who have no access or maybe don't ‑‑ there was a session of ‑‑ a NRI session before and many of the NRIs were saying actually the people that are not connected are also people that don't see the added value of the Internet.  So maybe this would be also a topic, but these are also only intuitions and impressions from my week here. 

   >> MODERATOR:  We at the Dynamic Coalition on publicness, what we do is about ‑‑ very much about the intersection of public and private.  So privacy is ‑‑ it is one of the ‑‑ it is like a topic that has to say some relevance within this coalition.  But seeing from the public perspective, so what is it in the public space that needs to be protected that is ‑‑ that has the value that is relevant.  So in this regard what ‑‑ the work that we do here is more concentrated on the understanding what ‑‑ what are the ‑‑ what is the relationship to the private part but we look at privacy also from that other perspective.  So the public space, the public value, the public good, common good within individual lives plays a big role.  But one comment on substance with regards to what he said about Vint Cerf, it is interesting because there is a lot of countries that were for the world internet.  And they expect then if it is affordable that people are going to go in to the Internet because it is affordable.  And they did this in Myanmar, making the Internet affordable.  And then they have realized that even though it was affordable no one was using it.  So they did field research to understand why people were not using it. 

And what they said was well, there is no content with our own mother tongue.  Yes, it is not that they ‑‑ perhaps it is not that they don't see a value but this now plays for them there.  And what research is being done by the nation that says about that is if you give them ‑‑ if you explain them what other things they can do there, they do see a value.  But after getting an explanation on the one side, after having an opportunity there, so this means for them if they ‑‑ if the Internet becomes a place where they can do their business, then they want to have it.  If the Internet becomes a place where they can use it for their own private and everyday purposes, then it becomes ‑‑ but it is not wanting or wanting it but it is about finding out what part of daily lives they can do to more easily be there than by simply asking that question.  Because I think this sort of type of question sort of following the fact that this is only a tool to develop your own life or to manage your life or to do ‑‑ just live with it.  But it is not ‑‑ it is not a thing by itself or it is not an objective by itself having the Internet. 

So just to come back to the ‑‑ to the point, hint that we are doing a lot on publicness, do you think there is a possibility of putting this in to a survey that you want to do and how would it go, what would the possibilities to have some sort of synergy for doing this? 

   >> ANTOINE VERGNE:  Of course, and what we are doing, we are in the process of gathering all the topics that stakeholders are interested in.  Because I mean our goal is to be of relevance to the community.  And so that is ‑‑ the tool used to have valuable results that you can use and what you are doing, your strategy, your discussions.  And so, of course, if you share with us the direction it goes with the questioning you have and the questions, we can see how to integrate them.  The only limit is we have as you said before 40 to 50 questions we can ask in a day.  And now we are also working with qualitative and open sessions.  So maybe the number of closed questions is a bit less.  But what we are sure of is the questions that are asked, you have good answers and we will be happy to share the topic and see where they fit.  So that's it, of course. 

   >> MODERATOR:  Yes, please. 

   >> PARTICIPANT:  Hi.  My name is Winston Robertson from New Zealand which doesn't appear on your map. 


   >> PARTICIPANT:  It is a very strangely Euro centric view of the world. 

   >> PARTICIPANT:  The New Zealand partners were not able to join.  They were interested.  We had good contacts but we found no partner at the end that was able to carry it on. 

   And there is no ‑‑ you have got Australia half covered up by some design feature as well.  Okay.  But it is a very as I said skewed view of the world.  You need to focus more on the Pacific.  The Pacific is where one of the ‑‑ is one of the areas as half the planet, in fact, but it is an area that has huge climate problems.  And it would be useful if your project could reflect that.  And you need to reflect Antarctica on your map.  Although there are not populations in Antarctica that would respond to your survey but it is an area where many of the metropolitan areas of the world where they do research and melting of ice caps and things like that.  So it would be good if your map of the world could somehow reflect the strategic challenges more accurately. 

   >> ANTOINE VERGNE:  It is a goal but they weren't able to broaden.  We started to try with the French diplomatic services to understand what would be done in Antarctica.  You have six humans in the international space station and we worked with the European space agency in trying to have kind of a replication of the debate in space but that didn't work either, because you have to plan two years ahead in order to send a piece of paper up there.  So this was ‑‑ clearly we want ‑‑ it is a goal.  But then when we come to the operative part sometimes you have partners dropping off stepping in.  So yes, for the Pacific we know that it was underrepresented in terms of groups. 

   >> MODERATOR:  Okay.  So with that regard if there are no comments I would say we just put it in to the mailing list.  We hope for more ‑‑ we request for additional input from the members.  And how ‑‑ in case that the mailing list says yes, we are interested in it, when does the process start and when would you be requesting some sort of feedback from our sides? 

   >> ANTOINE VERGNE:  If we do a kind of retro planning we want to have the results for IGF 19.  That means we would have the world scale debate in June or September 19.  And that means we would like to make the pilots one year before.  Something like June 18 or September or October 18 in order to have already some answers for IGF 18.  And so the questions we will start drafting them and the first ‑‑ the first version of the question that we are going to test, we would draft them between March and May, something like that.  On a March‑June, around that.  And then, of course, in '19, beginning of '19 we would have a second round of understanding which were the questions that really make sense and where we have to adapt and add some and change some.  And this is the first ‑‑ for the climate one we had no time for testing and piloting.  So here we want to better the quality of the question we can ask by making a pilot first. 

   >> MODERATOR:  Okay.  So this means after the pilot that will be the part ‑‑ if the pilot is in September the second round would be somewhere in October and November? 

   >> ANTOINE VERGNE:  Yes. 

   >> MODERATOR:  Okay.  Thank you very much.  I will forward this information to the list so that the people interested in the survey can come back to that.  Is there any other additional ‑‑ I mean if you decide that you want to do these issues, then you would contact us and tell us that you are interested? 

   >> ANTOINE VERGNE:  Yeah, and we would ask anyway if you want to take part and give some input where we are, the kind of blocks and topics we would have in mind and so yeah.  It is ‑‑ it has to be an open process and bottom‑up. 

   >> MODERATOR:  Thank you very much for this and also for the offer.  And thank you for coming by and telling us about the project.  This is really exciting.  And surely it is a chance or it could be a chance for many of us to understand a bit better and to perhaps find synergies with what you are doing.  On this topic if there is no more requests, then I would say let's go in to the next topic.  Perhaps let us grab the most pressing issue which is the Right to Be Forgotten India.  Do we want to address this?  Or should we go to the next ‑‑ to the other topic which is also on the table, to discuss the joint statement of the DC publicness and the DC on gender?  Yes, please. 

   >> PARTICIPANT:  I can't comment on what is happening in India because it is a pity that we can't have Jioti directly because she is already on the plane home I suppose.

   >> MODERATOR:  Yes. 

   >> PARTICIPANT:  But the Right to Be Forgotten is an important topic.  And I am concerned at what you reported, if it is fully accurate that the Right to Be Forgotten is about to be passed in to law in India, is that what you said? 

   >> MODERATOR:  Yes.  There is a period of public comment until the 31st of January.  And there are different organizations that are having feedback and inputs.  We have people from Access Now, from the electronic ‑‑ from Article 19 and from other organizations also within Europe that are willing to do together a joint statement, a draft statement and submit it to the court and to the Indian Government.  And ‑‑ sorry, only to the Indian Government.  And Anya Covache is a very well‑known expert and a lawyer, a legal scholar that has been also working on this issue offered to create a draft.  So the draft is going to reach us within the next two weeks so that we can chime in and put our inputs in it.  But perhaps there are already some points or positions that we want to already address now.  And I would just write them down and send them to Anya so that she can get started a bit on those things. 

   >> PARTICIPANT:  Could I add ‑‑ ask when you finish speaking can I make a couple of points, sorry? 

   >> MODERATOR:  Yes.  Please go ahead. 

   >> PARTICIPANT:  Okay.  I would be interested to hear from Anya Covache as well but maximize on the comments that she sends to the DC.  And I'm not on this DC list but maybe I will give you my card later and you can put me on this list.  But I would like simply to put on record from ‑‑ on representing here the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, IFLA.  I would like simply to put on record that the right to be forgotten is a very complicated area as the lawyers now.  And there are as many arguments for privacy for Human Rights reasons as there are arguments against removing public access to individual information from the point of view of ‑‑ yeah, sorry.  There are strong arguments for the right to be forgotten from the point of view of Human Rights.  There are also strong arguments against it in the sense of maintaining the integrity of record of cultures and record of Governments.  Because no information that has gone in to an archive, state archive, can ever really be strictly said to be forgotten.  And even though the records were maintained in analog form, they are now able to be digitized and people may request digital copies of archives concerning them.  It is also true that the whole business of promoting community digital access to information and promoting the Information Society implies that more and more people should be given more and more opportunities to get digital access to information that is relevant to them about the culture of their society and country about the records of Government that may affect them and these ‑‑ this digital access goes back, could go back 100 years to old documents or longer. 

So I mean I'm generalizing hugely here.  But the question of not removing from country records the names and the actual records of what were reported, the actions of people that were reported, is a very complicated question.  And I believe that ‑‑ I totally understand the concerns of people with a focus on Human Rights and privacy, that people should not be harassed and abused because information about them is brought out by search algorithms and put in the public space now.  That's understandable.  But coming back to what I said before, the historical record must stand. 

   >> MODERATOR:  Perhaps to give a sort of brief background about this Dynamic Coalition it was created due to the concerns on the right to be forgotten by the case that went to the European Court of Justice.  So that was the reason why this Dynamic Coalition was created, because we felt that there are other continents that had concerns about this decision.  And it is not a decision but also a law and the regulation that's going to be implemented on May 2018.  And, of course, the court's decision was based on the directive on a data protection directive that it still is currently running all the European member countries of. 

So yes, this coalition is definitely aware that there are concerns out there.  And one of the concerns that were placed last year was the spillover effect that it may have in other countries.  One of them being Russia.  Having other cases also in Latin America, that based on this type of argumentation to demand for deleting or delisting of information and this also having different versions of it. 

So the right to consolation might be seen as a derivation of the right to be forgotten because it is pretty much based on the same narrative.  It is a general concern.  And this is the nature and the reason why we are thinking about sending the point statement to our ‑‑ Anya's working on a draft for India.  And the reason ‑‑ the reason why we are here now even though not all the coalition is here, would be to just say okay, is there ‑‑ is other ‑‑ are there any points that we want to flag to Anya for her draft before she sends it to us.  She can already consider them before going ahead with the statement.  If there ‑‑ if there are any points that we would like to do, for instance, on the nature of how it should be used, or on exceptions if there are any ideas of any type of exceptions that we want to add to that, procedural comments, questions such be included in the joint statement, things like that.  We could do this now.  And I would submit it to Anya.  If there are not, then I would say let's move to the next topic. 

   >> PARTICIPANT:  I find it difficult to think about points that might be left out and Anya's work is fantastic.  She is an amazing thinker of issues that are easily discussed at IGF.  If anything, regarding some of the points that have been made on this topic, I think the one in jurisdiction is probably the key one to understand the issue.  Especially considering India's current state of affairs.  Unfortunately because of Jonah's absence and Anya's absence we can't go in to too much detail on but at least the jurisdictional side and the global impact of these orders is something that should be taken in to special consideration because that's what is happening and that's what is being contested right now in Canada, at the EU level because of the case in France and so on. 

   >> MODERATOR:  Yeah.  Kelly, you want to say something?  Yeah, that's right.  There is ‑‑ there is a ‑‑ I don't know if you are well aware of this, a new decision of the highest court occurred in Spain about jurisdiction because there was a Paraguayan that requested the ‑‑ to demand a website in Paraguay to delete specific information based on right to be forgotten.  And the highest court decided that this does not apply because ‑‑ not because they don't have jurisdiction but because the person is not a Spanish or a citizen or a European Union member.  But it leaves out whether they would claim jurisdiction if it would be about a Spanish citizen and demand deletion on a Paraguayan website.  And what is also unclear they would demand ‑‑ they would claim to have jurisdiction on the case if it would be a Paraguayan citizen demanding deletion somewhere in the European Union. 

The question is still open and the French data protection supervisor institution that has posed this question to the ECJ.  It is being treated and it is unclear what has happened.  We should try to make these questions or make aware of these questions. 

Any other topic that we would like to flag?  Well, there was also Prashaka from the Dynamic Coalition on gender and Prashaka is also from India.  One of the reasons she wanted to have a joint statement with the coalition sort of gender/publicness because they have been discussing whether this is a point where the regulator is trying to instrumentalize the case of gender to get ‑‑ to sort of say to ‑‑ to perform some sort of deletion on the CVs and the publications around politicians.  So to say to instrumentalize the right to be forgotten, to hide whether some politicians have been doing statistic remarks.  The reason she said we could do it, there was three points she was suggesting to make.  The first one, that women should ‑‑ gender should not be instrumentalized to make a case of right to be forgotten as a form of censorship. 

The second point being that there are ‑‑ that there are some myths around the idea of what the right to be forgotten is.  Since there is already existing regulation with regards to revenge porn or any other type of situation that has a criminal dimension to that and there are already existing laws that could apply instead of applying the right to be forgotten as some laws consider a range for half specific regulation against revenge porn in the criminal law.  Some others have provisions for these type of crimes within the realm of personal rights.  So some others to apply data protection.  All around the different world cultures there are different provisions for that was the second point. 

First state what type of law is out there to ‑‑ that could apply very directly instead of in the intermediary to get a full deletion.  And the third point was about what sort of exceptions one could do if there have to be any in regards to the right to be forgotten.  It is like finding the boundaries.  Is there really a case for the right to be forgotten.  All other regulation does not have teeth.  And she put the example of Italian women.  She killed herself last year.  And it was about revenge porn videos and they couldn't be deleted.  All the existing law to get all these videos down didn't apply partially because of jurisdictional cases, partially because of web colors.  So that it was pretty much very difficult to delete it.  So she wanted to have a right to be forgotten.  I don't know exactly if she applied for that.  But that was one of the reasons why Prashaka, perhaps we could get together and think about possible ways to think of exceptions but they should be exactly that, exceptions.  So those three points. 

First, not instrumentalizing women.  Second, legal instances that can be applied before trying to think about this.  And third, if there are any exceptions what would they be.  And from the perspective, from the coalition, from the Dynamic Coalition on gender that would only be if there is no other practical way to get things deleted.  Any comments on this?  Any reactions to that? 

   >> PARTICIPANT:  I was very surprised when I heard or when I read about the possible involvement of the Dynamic Coalition and gender and Internet Governance.  Basically because I have seen some approaches to the deletion of content.  And the listing of content from search engine results based on ideas related to gender and the exercise of the right to identity.  Very specifically on the possibilities of having the tools.  And I think this is a key point on the second issue you flagged up, the work with the DIG Dynamic Coalition.  It is about the legal tools, the remedies that the person has to remove certain kinds of content online.  Those remedies are necessary in many cases in a very quick way. 

And one of the reasons why around the world the ‑‑ I mean especially in Europe, the listing requests are made, it is because it is a remedy.  It is a fast remedy to delete or delist or take away from view certain kinds of content but it is not necessarily related to a ‑‑ the result, for instance, of a criminal prosecution.  It is not necessarily the results of something that has been proven as elicit content.  For instance, in the case of nonconsensual pornography.  So in this regard I think that I find it very relevant that the DIG is involved in this topic because I think at the same time that we need to very carefully see what the legal tools might and could be with regards to the deletion of content well, beyond the idea of criminal content but in the case of elicit content or nonconsented content that might be found online.  And I think that's the common ground also with some of the perspectives on gender with relation to some content that is disseminated.  And that at the same time represents a form of gender violence as happens throughout the world. 

   >> MODERATOR:  (Off microphone).  Okay.  No further reactions.  So well, we are almost close to the end of this meeting because we only have one hour and it is 20 passed 1.  So if there are no further comments noted, I will flag this in to the mailing list and request Prashaka to react to that.  Perhaps we can discuss a deadline, how to ‑‑ when to present this and how to launch this.  I guess this part that you flag, Juan Carlos, is the part that's going to take the longest time to agree on.  Perhaps we could try to organize a video calls because I don't think this is something that can be organized through the mailing list.  It is going to lead to very ‑‑ lots of misunderstandings.  So perhaps we could try to schedule a video call at the very beginning of the year I guess or ‑‑

   >> PARTICIPANT:  Sure. 

   >> MODERATOR:  Yeah.  I mean considering this also might ‑‑ my joint, also the other statement on the right to be forgotten, because this is ‑‑ this joint statement on the ‑‑ of the DC publicness and the DC gender also have this ‑‑ has this so to say occasion of the Indian Government wanting to apply this learning to their regulation.  It might be ‑‑ it might make sense to do it very early in the year so we can come up with something pretty fast, right?  Okay.  So let's try ‑‑ yes, please. 

   >> PARTICIPANT:  Yes.  Thanks, Chair.  It seems to me that, you know, I'm not a lawyer, but the problem here is you are struggling a little bit to find a way forward by talking maybe too much about the right to be forgotten.  I think that's not necessarily the issue.  The issue is more how to defend people against harassment, against malicious revealing of information which may be correct information but which is ‑‑ but with the intent to reveal the information is illegal because it is harassment and because it is deformation or something like that.  What you need to be discussing is strengthening the right to promote.  Sorry.  I'm not a lawyer as I say.  You can attack me on that expression. 

   >> MODERATOR:  It has been noted and it will be flagged to Prashaka to DC gender and you are very welcome to join our mailing list so that you can also follow‑up with response to Prashaka.  And very welcome to join, the video call, the conference call so we can all come to terms within the month of January.  Any other issues that you would like to flag before we close the session?  We are coming to an end. 

   >> PARTICIPANT:  Yes.  I think you are absolutely right about the protection of privacy.  I am personally a privacy lawyer that have become involved in this but from the perspective of the survey that was discussed at the very beginning of this session has to do with that, to be able to identify those instances where we value privacy.  But to also try to sort out and decide and see what people actually think about how private certain other actions are.  And it is in that space where we delineate, where we try to sort out the gray areas is where the work of the coalition tries to highlight the content of personal problems that is not necessarily private.  The ones that's not illegal content or private content or irrelevant information and highlight the need for the public information not to be lost when it is available.  Other groups during this IGF have also discussed the issue of to be able to find relevant content and the creation of relevant content because as we see that the incident tool for dissemination of information for relevant public information is a value that we need to keep. 

   >> MODERATOR:  Thank you very much for those remarks.  So to sum up, we will do three things in to the mailing list.  First thing we would send ‑‑ we will give our feedback and the summary and summarize what was present and Mission Public and ask the people in the survey where they want to be involved in that project and present the timeline.  Second thing we will flag a few ‑‑ the points made in the room for Anya on the right to be for gotten in India.  And the third thing we will drive the conversation that we started with gender DC and the points made by Juan Carlos.  And hopefully schedule a meeting to make sure that we get and we come to terms, to a common statement, if possible, within the month of January so that it can also equally be submitted to the Government as part of the joint statement on the right to be forgotten to India, for India. 

So with this all having in mind and no more hands being raised and comments in the room thank you very much for all of you for staying the last minutes of this IGF with us.  I wish all of you safe travels.  And talk soon in the mailing list.  And all others that if you want to hear more about this join the mailing list.  And merry holidays.