RAW COPY
The Ninth Annual Internet Governance Forum Meeting "Connecting Continents for Enhanced Multistakeholder Internet Governance" (see schedule for specific sessions)
NINTH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE
INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM 2014
ISTANBUL, TURKEY
"CONNECTING CONTINENTS FOR ENHANCED
MULTI-STAKEHOLDER INTERNET GOVERNANCE"
03 SEPTEMBER 2014
2:30-4:00 p.m.
WS 101
ICANN GLOBALIZATION IN AN EVOLVING ECOSYSTEM
********
This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.
********
>> MODERATOR WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Ladies and gentlemen, take your seats. I welcome everybody to Session No. 191. You see that we had more than 200 proposals. (Disconnect)
>> FIONA ALEXANDER: So I'd be very curious later on to understand what the differences are. From my perspective, it has always been around the same set of issue. I've always been global, international. When ICANN was created, the question was, do you need to become more global, more international. From the beginning of ICANN until now, we've seen progress and a lot of room for continued progress. Not just the recent opening of engagement centers. You see translation into 6 or 7 languages. I would imagine that ICANN's translation budget is similar to the UN. In large part, due to one of the recommendations from the review teams, ATRT1. From my own personal experiences, I've seen the number in the GAK run from representatives from 100 economies or countries showing up. So that is enhanced globalization. Probably still more needs to happen. I think that is what we're here to talk about, and a few other people.
In the context of the Yan accountability. I would pause it in the context of globalization. It is important, we're talking about it, as ICANN becomes to be global or international, people from all around the world are involved indecision making. I would see the accountability and transition be examples is that. Maybe I'll leave it that.
>> MODERATOR WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Thank you, Fiona. He will make his commencement when he is finished -- when we are finished. Feel encouraged if you want to raise your voice. You have watched ICANN, always, you know, from the balcony, that means, always from a civil organization. You have never been inside ICANN inside one of the committees, but you are very, very sensitive observer. Though how do you see it from the outside, from the balcony?
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you. Yes. So the Center for Democracy and Technology has been on the outside but we are closely watching and interested in what ICANN is doing. In part, I echo what Adiel said, it is about opening offices, but it is about truly engaging. It is about truly engaging with the multistakeholder community. We've seen call for that in the announcement from NTIA. So at the end of the day, putting offices in different parts of the world doesn't mean globalization, it means reaching out to people in those countries, bringing increased multistakeholder participation into ICANN as it moves forward.
When you think about the two processes that are under way, one that has to do with accountability, one with the IANA matters. They are multidimensional, we have the two processes now, both of them have an international dimension to them. Both of them require much more global engagement. One of the challenges civil society has is that these are complex issues. Sometimes there's a resource issue. Sometimes there's a complexity issue. There are communities within ICANN that have significant civil society component to them, but there's a whole world out there, as well.
Those communities and those stakeholders need to be involved as well. So there's a call, really, to open up the IANA transition a little bit more. Make it more obvious how global stakeholders who are not part of the ICANN community can contribute and be part of the accountability process.
It is not surprising that ICANN is under scrutiny at the moment. This is the representative multi-stakeholder body globally. Well, we have the IGF, as well, of course. But the one that is going through the period of transition like none other is ICANN. We shouldn't be surprised of scrutiny and we should be reaching out to them and be trying to bring them on board. (audio disconnect).
>> Not everyone is fluent in English. So languages have done an enormous amount of work to sustain communities in their local language. In the moment, Spanish, French, we have had Russian that has been offered on our conference calls. But also, Chinese will be offered very soon. That obviously helps -- obviously English is the one we work in.
On top of that, the globalization is needed to go out there and to reach out of the people and speak to them in their own terms. One of the problems of ICANN is we have our own lingo. I understand what Matthew is asking about, for example, the problem is that the level of discussion sometimes puts people off very quickly. The acronyms, but also some of the historical implications of what's been happening before, what's been tried before, what might have not worked well. ICANN will only be able to bring people into the debate and into the decision by having easy-to-understand documentation that will really bring people up to speed on that.
We've seen a lot of improvement as far as the ICANN staff structure is concerned. Again, here, through the putting together of local strategies and strategies for engagement, stakeholder engagement and so on, we've seen a lot of very good improvements in different regions and that's really welcome within our community because often when you have local meetings, local IGFs, a few years ago, there wouldn't be anybody who was interested in ICANN in those meetings or knew anything about ICANN. Now we can see people from the staff structure, but also people from the community, are being sponsored to go to these meetings, and to interact with local communities and perhaps even bring more people into the discussion.
And finally, with regards to when you look at the overall picture and the end game of where globalization should go, there is a strong component of our community that believes that true globalization of ICANN would be possible through the globalization. This is not something that we need to work on right now, something in the long term.
>> MODERATOR WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Thank you. You raise a very delicate issue which refers to the business. Business is also a wide range of groups starting with small and medium enterprises. AT&T is certainly a global player. That means, what is the understanding of the business? Big and small? From globalization of ICANN.
>> CLAUDIA CONTRERAS: Yeah, I think that first of all, I can echo what others have said in the sense that it was simply a dialogue. And also, users were mainly North Americans based in the US, and you had full access point to the exchange traffic. If you look at the internet now, it has evolved and globalized.
At the end of 2014, we will have nearly 3 billion internet users. And so you know also we will have 2.3 billion connected devices. So we can see how the nature of the internet has changed. So also we are going towards a model which is more and more globalized including everybody from different sides of the world. I think the positive side that ICANN is showing, for example, opening up more and more offices in different locations to engage with local people. It doesn't solve all the problems, but it helps towards the local community who can be involved more and more into the debate.
Certainly having translation in different languages, as we could say before, not everyone is fluent in English. In the framework of the processes that are taking place now, I mean, in the -- as far as accountability is concerned, I would say that we stand for a strong accountability. I think it is key. We need to solve that issue, and we need to respond to precise questions, and for example, to whom will ICANN be accountable and how will we set and place that model? There is not yet an announcer yet, but we need to make sure we have a strong mechanism in place. Also we have IANA transition. We have to keep the security and stability of the internet because this is key. The security of the domain name zone is really key to the security of the internet and to ensure that the economy will continue to grow.
And so this is -- I don't -- I don't want to take too much time with these comments, but this is my main views.
>> MODERATOR WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Thank you very much, Claudia. The former Director General, UNESCO has global challenges. That means you have experienced to think about. You have to think about what globalization of what ICANN could mean, linking this process of globalization to the actual processes of the accountability issue and the transition issue of ICANN. So that means you just entered at the right moment, the discussion space because we have finished the discussion of the panelists. If you can give your introductory statement. Please be prepared for questions. We do not have a microphone here in the middle, but my understanding is that there is a microphone elsewhere that we can just raise your voice and the microphone will come to your place. Janis, please take the floor.
>> JANIS: KARKLINS: It is not easy to just jump in. I think about the discussion of globalization of ICANN is not new. I remember talking about it ten years ago. What is new that ICANN was different and what was not possible at that time -- what was not even imaginable at that time today is reality.
Of course today we know the substance of sort of complaints by some who consider that the incorporation of ICANN in California is still an issue, and maybe at one point, we will address that issue when it is feasible. But in principle, what I observe in the past ten years, there be associated with that initial debate, also as President of Strategy Committee, I see that ICANN, as an organization, is gradually changing its corporate culture, and is also becoming much more diverse in its staff, staff comes are different countries and I think that this diversity also impacts very much the better understanding of sensitivities dealing with the different parts of the world and dealing with the different countries.
That's point number 1. Point number 2, the accountability, which is associated with all discussion of internationalization and globalization of ICANN is a little bit of an up-hill battle since it is not easy to quantify, what does it mean to be accountable? Every time we are saying, when we reach an understanding of accountability, then comes somebody who says, "No. I think it should go further."
Therefore, the discussion about accountability and evolution of ICANN, as such, will be kind of a permanent process which will take years and every time we will push this process further.
So this would be maybe two observations, and I'm happy to engage in the discussion as it evolves. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Thank you Janis. And final recommendation from the podium. Tarek. Please raise your hand. Go ahead.
>> TAREK KAMEL: Good afternoon everybody. Thank you Wolfgang and we thank the panelists for joining us. I want to add a dimension. Let's get back to the main mission. It is the identification of the technical identifiers of the internet which are mainly three things. The prototypical, the IP addresses and the domain names. In the IP addresses, we were quite successful with the regions. Look at Africa. With the hand holding of (indiscernible) and we have a wide outreach with the countries in the region. It took us some more in some regions than in other regions.
We had also penetration in Asia, so we are not worried about the globalization when it comes to the globalization with the IP addresses. We still have deployment of IP addresses. The local parameters, we take it from the IETF. I will not go into how globalized the IETF is because there are some main issues around that. The main problem with that, in my opinion, 80 to 90% of ICANN is coming from the gTLD primarily, as much. This is not globalized. It is a problem. This is a problem for all of us. The number of applicants that came from the developing countries. So this was an eye opener despite the support package that was there on the ONS program that has happened.
Is there no need? Maybe we need to ask ourselves. Maybe it needs hand holding. Maybe it needs incubation from the bigger players. Maybe it needs more awareness. There is definitely a question we need to ask ourselves about. But the main work ICANN is doing is managing the words in these areas. We have very little African representatives as well as from the Middle East as well as from Latin America, and to some extent Asia. They do not reflect the number well and they do not reflect the number of users we have. That means there is a problem in this area.
This is our main business. When you ask people, "Why don't you come?" "What is it for me? I registered and pay my $5 or $10." We need to establish industries in those developing countries so the stakeholders -- they see interest -- they want to be part of the process as such. And they want to be part of what's going on.
And really, to make the law and the registration simpler, and the people become part of the process. In the year 2000, I hosted the ICANN meeting in Cairo. I think also in '06 and also in '08. Maybe 10 or 15 people attended the ICANN meeting. Mainly the opening session. After the opening session, no one was there. It was on the election day of Obama.
This competed with other countries in the world. We go, we close after the opening on ourselves. We have topics that are too complicated for some people. There are a lot of acronyms. So they walk away. Maybe the only exception was China in Bejing last year. But this happened to us. When we went to Buenos Aires last year. I was not there.
In my opinion, the solution is: Let's work on establishing the industry. This is the main income of ICANN. This is what made ICANN famous as well worldwide. This is what politicized also some work of ICANN on a global level. Therefore, we have to include more players by having more companies helping them there to establish their industries. Not only to register in the US, and Europe, because it's easier. That is where I see the main problem. It is not about opening offices. It helps. But it is by far, more than that.
This is a community responsibility including the businesses that benefited from the stakeholder model. So help us protect the Monte stakeholder.
>> MODERATOR WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: We have a gap and imbalance. It will help to introduce the criteria for globalization. Globalization is a process and it can be quantified. You can count the number of offices and stuff, but we have to add qualitative as a measurement of globalization. I think this is an interesting criteria.
I have already, you know, two gentleman. You had a first, you had a second. Please raise your hands so that I can create a queue.
>>: AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Indiscernible) Wolfgang, you said you would get to the definition of globalization and internationalization, can you explain the difference between globalization and internationalization?
When somebody in Government or someone with an acute understanding of words and their meanings as a diplomat uses the word "internationalization" or "globalization" what are the subtle implications? Can you explain that?
>> MODERATOR WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Just to give a very brief reply because I use this terminology as an academic. Basically, if it comes to substance, there is no fundamental difference whether you use internationalization or globalization. But some people introduce a certain meaning into two words and say -- the internationalization, closer to international law and to the intergovernmental system and this internationalization is probably closing -- in the Governmental system -- will take care, while globalization is seen by some people more as space, you know, which has no traditional national border, does not refer to the direction state and to international corporation state. But this is really playing with words. If it comes to substance, there's no difference and as Fiona has remembered, the original text in the statement before ICANN was established is "internationalization." Now we're talking about globalization. This is common language now.
I would want to make a story out of the conflict between internationalization and globalization. There is no conflict. Though the meaning is very clear. We have to involve the whole thing. The critical internet resources are global resources which has to make available to people around the club any time everywhere and I think this is the challenge, and we should not create fault by making words with no meaning. This is my reply as an academic.
Before we go back to the panel, I would collect some more questions from the floor. The floor is yours.
>>: AUDIENCE MEMBER ASHVID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Ashvid from Indonesia. I think I would like to refer to some of us who went to the meeting before. Whatever you would like to -- to use the terms. One important thing is you have companies -- organizations -- a globalization. Citibank is everywhere in the world. It is an American company. Adidas is made in Indonesia or wherever it is but it is an American company. Because it is an American company, they have at least a head quarters. They have to follow the American law. Most important, they have to follow the US Patriot Act. That is for sure.
So we would like to see what kind of globalization -- internationalization of particular institutions which is not a UN organization, private organizations which can be called a global or international organization that doesn't follow -- doesn't have to follow any in any particular country. It is not an area on Turkey at the moment. It is a UN. Turkey Law, I can say something about Turkey law, all of us are protected from the Turkish law. It is an agreement between Turkish Government. It is under UN law.
So we would also like to see from the panel and other friends an example of other organizations that can be exempted from the national law. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Does anybody from the panel want to react? I think as a diplomat, you have dealt with treaties which gives some exemption from national law. Would you be proposed from a legal status that would help with ICANN that would help escape from that?
>> I'm not a lawyer. Lawyers can say, "Excuse me. I did not know what I was talking about." I did refer to the report which was written by former UN legal council Hans Korel who was asked to examine possible avenues for different legal status. There are at least four or five examples of what that could be, but the reality is that ICANN has also commercial liability. And the international status provides protection, an exemption of law and it is not compatible in a sense with the commercial liability of ICANN. That is a complication.
Maybe simplifying speaking, but that is a complication. How to sort of combine two things. Exemption from the legislation of a country where a company or organization is based, and the activities which are commercial and become tested by others as a litigation of commercial interactions.
>> I think you have to understand that ICANN has over 2000 bilateral contracts with companies. It means -- in the Governmental organization, it has a Constitution and has one contract with the host country. I can't have these 2000 bilateral contracts and have exemptions. It makes for an interesting conversation.
>> FIONA ALEXANDER: We've looked at this many times over the years. This is not the first time this question has come up. In the research we've done, which probably isn't fully exhaustive. We haven't found a fully comparable system in dealing with the full nature of ICANN. We talk about ICANN, and ICANN policy making, but the reality is, there is a large part of ICANN that's the execution and enforcement of contracts. And there's got to be a local law or a local jurisdiction that applies to those contracts should there be contractual disputes. These are commercial challenges in finding the right solution.
>> MODERATOR WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Thank you. It is a delicate issue and it needs more discussion. As Janis has said, Mr. Korel has created this great study. If you create this with IOC, and the Red Cross, we have to invent specific solutions for ICANN which meets the specific challenges of ICANN.
You cannot take a blueprint and say, "We are like this now." You have to be creative on terms and this will take time.
>> STEVE DELBIANCO: Steve DelBianco with Net Choice. What is the importance of the globalization of national activity? All it does is help for the registration and domain names. Mainly what we want to do is make sure we globalize the availability of registration. And to that end, the affirmation of commitments did create a new review we're going to conduct next year and assess whether we've promoted consumer promotion and consumer trust. Olivia worked me on the group that framed this. We had 70 metrics for this. Tarek asked about this. I will read you three metrics we came up with. Not of governance, but of us.
We want to measure the new quantities of TLDs that use Latin script. TLDs that use English language. Registrars who offer top domain registrants. Finally we did say there ought to be a measure of the quantity of new TLDs where they are offering registrants different legal regimes with how their privacy might be protected when they register. This is registration, not governance. I invite you to discuss the globalization domain name system, not just how it's managed.
>> MODERATOR WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Let's take two or more questions, and I will invite -- let's take two or more questions and then I will go back to the panelist. Sorry, if you want to ask another question. Please be more active, you know. This is unique opportunity to enter into dialogue. So we are not interested in one-way communication.
>> Yeah. (Indiscernible) decision between ICANN and any other organization that has a contract with any other country where ICANN has a contract with 2000 countries. Complete globalization is difficult. So my thought on top of my mind is that it may not be possible to come to the status of a contract with a single Government overnight, but it is possible to do it over a period of ten years. For example, one of the 2000 contracts is a contract for dot org. It is a time-bound contract. Say it expires in 5 years or 7 years and don't renew it. Tell them it has to be re-negotiated in a new framework and do it in such a way that it doesn't harm the commercial interests of internet industry.
That is one solution. The other solution is, again, I have not thought through this, it just occurs to me, separate ICANN's commercial activities and keep commercial activities as a division of ICANN. As a parent body, it is a non-profit global treaty-like organization, what is the -- which is more appropriate? I don't know the pros and cons. What comes to me, the commercial aspects of ICANN can remain separated and can remain in California and the whole of ICANN can be global.
>> MODERATOR: One idea in the committee Janis was referring to was to create an ICANN International. This has side effects which are complicated. I think one basic complication is that it has to be secure and stable. That means whatever you do, nothing should be allowed that would undermine the security and stability.
If you look for alternative solutions and we should look for additional new creative solutions, you have to have a checklist, what are the basic conditions under which you go to another regime? You have a comment on this?
>> I think this is a really interesting discussion about the jurisdiction issue. But maybe one step at the time. We still have an awful lot of work to do on ICANN accountability. We still have an awful lot of work with the transition that needs to be in place hopefully by September 2015. The opportunity for accountability, it lies before us. That is all stakeholders, including governments. It is a good discussion, but we've got some things light in front of us that we need to address. Thanks.
>> I will agree with what he said. We need to continue to explore this because it is an important element and it has to be taken into consideration in the accountability discussion. I will comment on the domain name internationalization. There is an aspect of the usage of domain name internationally, including IDN, and all. But there's also the globalization of the business itself.
Domain name and specifically generic domain name is run and drive by business. We cannot force that to be true. So how can we push this in other area? How can we be driving investment in those countries or areas. How can we raise awareness of the economical model of business? That is the reality. We can not decrease business by saying it will happen. It is driven by economical factors. Anything else will be just speak. So that is what I want to say because it is a fact. It is driven by business.
How do we make sure that in country, or in area, where this is not well established, we can help business in those countries to catch up.
>> MODERATOR WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Let me ask a direct question. In the new TTOD area, we had small number of applications from Africa. The fact that I can offer a program for help, what is your experience -- how you can stimulate global need for this kind of business? Do we have any idea? Because it has to come from the bottom. You cannot bring it top down. This is what we have learned. What is your idea? For all you potential entrepreneurs in the room, maybe they can discover a new business model. What would be a recommendation? How to stimulate global needs?
>> Well, I don't have a magic solution for that, of course. But again, that goes down to the economic ecosystem of the country. Having a program by ICANN saying if you are from this country, go through this program is one thing. Being able to sustain that is another thing. How do investors in those countries see themselves and the dynamic of their country. How that will work. That is why people refrain. They don't understand the model properly. We have to go beyond that. We have to make sure that the industry that exists today has more partnership locally so that there is an exchange of knowledge on how to run those business and what is the need to run those business so people can feel comfortable running that. Take a simple example. Things work best with online payment. If you look at online payment in African country, it is close to 0.
So how do you run a business where the model is based with online payment where you are in an area where online payment is not welded up and your critical mass is based on that. So you have to come up with new idea, new way of doing that. That does not mean it is not done that way anywhere else.
So there is a -- some -- I will say, uncomfortableness for business people to rush into the area. It is a process that will go and ICANN should try to find how to partner with an organization that can, fact, facilitate the risk-taking investment.
>> You want to make a comment and then we will go did back to the audience.
>> Just quickly. One needs to understand that maybe the globalization of registrar would be the right way to think because in many countries CLTCs are predominantly use. You cannot buy in national country, or being outside the actual country, you cannot get to that domain name unless you contact the registrar in that country.
I would argue that CCTLDs are the only real solution because they make their business reach within their country. Only those companies that reach internationally, they look for TLDs. Particularly there was a business in Latvia, they applied for EU. Others tried only to do business with their local domain name. Therefore, the registrar business globalization would probably be the thing to think about.
>> MODERATOR WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Olivier wanted to make a point.
>> (Olivier) the {*} process was announced, went forward, and we believed in the at-large community that some parts of it has been overlooked. No one has ever said that the program was a total success and everything because we're still waiting for the feedback and for the metrics, but certainly on the applicant support program, we had very few applicants. The program was put together by the community. It was too restricted, worried that it might be gamed by outside organizations, putting it out there as a shell for application fees.
I think it is expected that during the next round, this will be hopefully something that goes deeper than applicants fees being subsidized and I totally agree with the amount of work that needs to double up the effort in those industries.
>>: AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi. So there have been {*} a lot of discussions now about the globalization of ICANN also in the context of the IANA transition. Of course it is a complex issue because it -- the other challenge is of course to measure that. But I'd actually -- I also think it is important to look at what structures, mechanisms, and processes do need to put in place to not only make ICANN more global, but to actually then ensure that that globalization stays that way because having an ICANN that is accountable to an undefined community is problematic, of course. Because those who are in the ICANN community can manage to include in their community. There are big groups out there that are not part of the ICANN community, that don't see themselves as part of the ICANN community and who don't have the financial needs to be part of the community, but that should still have a stake in that.
I think there's also -- of course -- it is a challenge for ICANN to be accountable to a large community and the larger and the more diverse and the more global it is, the harder it is to be accountable to it.
So I think that there's a natural tendency to want to define that community in a homogenous way. And that's where I think I'd like to hear some reflections on what processes, mechanisms and tools do you need to put in place to make sure that even if we then manage to globalize ICANN in a way that we find satisfactory, that we don't fall back into a community that steadily shrinks.
>> MODERATOR: Do we have the proposal, how to do that?
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: I was asking the expert panelists.
>> MODERATOR: We have one question more, and then probably we take another question and then go back to the panel. There in the back. Go ahead.
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: So I don't understand creating yet another organization that is international. ICANN is international. If it is not international, make it international. One more common towards the -- as a Turkish citizen, what is the -- let's look back for 15 years of ICANN plus, and see what examples -- that could be different in a better way if the jurisdiction was different. I can't think of any single example that could be -- that could make today's ICANN better if it was in another jurisdiction. Prove me wrong.
>> MODERATOR: California law was chosen because it was the most liberal and flexible law. Californian law was seen as the best compromise. We will have to find a way that will not undermine the stability and security but will also meet with questions of concerned groups.
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: (off mic).
>> Nobody can hear you in the back.
>> MODERATOR: Let's stop the conversation and go to the next speaker. Can you introduce yourself?
>> Paul Leavins. Former ICANN employee. {*} who holds the ILAC to account? Who holds the JSO to account and why there is such a focus on ICANN accountability and why those constituency groups are equally taken into consideration.
>> MODERATOR: I think it is time for the panel.
>> FIONA: What everybody has been trying to do is {*} allowing you to participate. When you think about ICANN 15 years ago, there has been time to focus on the problems of today. But in terms of, you know, the regional engagement centers, an amazing remote participation. The IGF was tested and proven. How do you get people to show up? How do you motivate people to show up? When there's a motivation, an interest, there's a need, and a desire. I think to Tarek's point is, until you can get people in developing countries where they have a need to participate for commercial gain or not, we're going to be having these globalization questions.
I don't have an issue with that. But the question, how do you build local registries or registrars, why did no one build these in the ICANN program, they are not specific to the internet system or specific to ICANN. What is the incentive factors for that? You have to look at local laws. You have to look at enabling environments. And all these traditional rule of laws, and put them into the domain name space. But the one question I would put to folks is, is this the job of ICANN. It is the technical quarter of the domain name system. A lot of scrutiny has been put on ICANN. We want to globalize resources. Is it ICANN's job to go work with registries and registrars. To speak to Paul's point about accountability, I think it is a good conversation to have when this enhanced accountability conversation is going on in the context of its role, it's going to have to be ICANN at large. It is not just the ICANN board and staff. It is no part of ICANN.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Adiel?
>> ADIEL: {*} Decentralize the ICANN process, how it can be replicated globally, so that when those processes are strengthened and our participated by local people, it can be reflected globally and then we have the structure locally, we can continue to nurture the ICANN process.
The second thing I want to reply on, constituency accountability. I think that is also something fundamental. When we think about ICANN accountability, the internet is global, and it is something that everybody who care about, I think ICANN constituency first, who ICANN is accountable to directly. Anyone can come in and exercise their right to hold ICANN accountable. How the constituency is responsible for themselves, that is another area we can talk about.
We have started working on surveying all of the five areas, for instance, to know what are the accountability practices that we have in place. That will be published. That allow us to know that we are accountable to our community. How can we improve that? How the community can get -- we always say that our legitimacy comes from our community, how can we reinforce that? It is a process that each constituency must go through to make sure they, themselves, they are strong enough, they are confident enough to talk about accountability so that can be reflected globally.
>> MODERATOR: I have a queue that is coming around.
>> Thank you. I just wanted to follow-up on what Fiona has mentioned. Right now we have a different ICANN than we had 2 years ago, and the amount of effort and investment that has been done with the stakeholder engagement team, as well as the office as well as the workshop that has happened, in the strategies and its implementation is definitely enormous. We realize it is not enough and we need to do more.
For people to engage, there must be a self-interest for them to come. This is what we are trying to build upon. It is building a commercial motivation as Adiel has mentioned through the business, or through the at-large structure. That is the only avenues we have as such. And that is what we are trying to do with the stakeholder team and the team that we are leading within the Government engagement as well. Governments have a major role in providing the right investment environment because it's not just about business. It's just about the investment environment and entrepreneurship. But even governments need to be motivated. In order to motivate governments, it's about jobs and it's about socioeconomic development.
I was, myself, working for the Government. These are the two motivations that motivate any employee. These studies have been incorporated, an open internet is for socioeconomic benefits for the various governments. So we're trying to promote the studies in order for the governments to help their own people to continue to help the internet be unfragmented as well as participating in the open IgE system. I just want to mention that we are {*} working on it. It is a long journey.
Whether this is ICANN's job alone, no. We need partnerships. But most importantly, the businesses that have the experiences. We have already talked to some of them and simulated some of them to talk to the start-ups. We need more than that. We need to hand hold them and to work together with them. Just as registrars as Yanis has said. Let's see what round 2 will bring concerning the new development in the developing countries.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you.
>> In the framework of the accountability (panel member) we should reflect on {*} to whom ICANN should be accountable. What kind of oversight this should be. I think it's key now that the transition happens and we should ensure also as has been said, that no governments should intervene. It is important to maintain the centralized approach because it is key also in the type of governance we have in ensuring that the internet continue to work well and to ensure as well the security of the DNS function. All the elements I wanted to bring in is accountability principles, I wanted to, for example, stress the importance also of the transparency within ICANN.
For example, decoration of specific performance goal which could be submitted by audit by independent account. The audit should be broadened then, traditional audit and financial record. We should assess also what is reached in meetings. We should also try to be more transparent, for example, in adding detailed -- the minutes, after the board is meeting, so everyone is aware of what is happening.
For example, also, I was thinking about separation of function within the IANA {*}. So the separation between the policy making and the implementation. So I think that we -- you know, we need to reflect -- there is no announcer now to -- now to structure the -- for the moment which type of structure should be in place, but I think that we have a process that is undergoing. We welcome the nomination also of the expert that can bring in also the expertise and their help, but ultimately, there should be consultations put forward and stakeholder contributing to it.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. I'd like to come back to the earlier point. ICANN does have a heavy burden to ensure that the accountability processes are done in the most open and inclusive process. The technical community has a responsibility. Civil society has a responsibility. Governments have a responsibility. This is not some thing that can be solved by governments alone. So they need to reach out to their own stakeholders.
So let me ask you a question. Everybody received an IGF bag, correct? Who in that bag saw the card about this big from the regional internet industries about the IANA internet registry? Everybody should look at how they should contribute and participate and do so. Thank you.
>> Olivier: That is a very good plug. One of the things regarding accountability and so on is really the tracking of it. Steve eluded to it earlier. To track its success and so on. There is also a set of processes within ICANN which are there to track ICANN accountability and track their development and continuous improvement process and that is of course the continuous review process that ICANN {*} (Wolfgang), not just the organization, but the component communities. The GNS is just starting a new process, where an external person is going to look at it and then the community will start working to add to those recommendations. Every part of ICANN has gone through that. I would hope that metrics would be derived out of these things.
The last ALAC review did say that we needed {*} to have some metrics and globalization and we have started to not only look at metrics and globalization, but on ALAC members, they are volunteers, but they are members. The committee decided that we will have metrics on those members. If you hold a seat, you are there to relay the input from your community. This is something that is not really coming across ICANN. There are metrics on staff and processes. If we can start tracking things, then we will be able to improve them.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Any other questions in the room? If this is for the moment not the case, I want to go back to the -- to an issue which was partly raised by Fiona when she said, "Okay. A lot of this when we talk about the pro-internet governance has started within ICANN." That means ICANN was certainly a source of inspiration for a lot of other processs.
Now we are confronted with new processes. So we have recommendations from the high-level panel under the President, we have -- my question to the panelists would be here: What you would recommend to processes outside of ICANN? What could we learn from ICANN? How to be as global as possible? As open and transparent as possible? Are there any -- let's say positive conclusions from the 15 years of ICANN debate which can give way to new processes? Claudia, probably we can start from the left side and to the right side and then end with Tarek and then we can close the session.
>> CLAUDIA: The multi-stakeholder that is within ICANN, we have seen that within the IGF. {*} I think this is one of main thing that can -- let's say, unify the different discussions and issues that are taking place. So all the different stakeholders discuss different issues and trying to advance on very critical and important discussions which are -- which are global. So we have seen the outcome of the document where different issues are being discussed. The multistakeholder approach is key and is important. The high-level panel as well. If I'm recollecting well one of the key finding -- let say one of the key recommendation was to support the multi-stakeholder alliances. So I think that we -- one of the recommendation I would give is precisely that one.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Because our session is ICANN governization. It is a small part. We have responsibility also for the other parts. Olivier, you are part of the other large structures. What would you see as the greatest gift that ICANN can give to the ecosystem?
>> OLIVIER {*}: I think one of the gifts that I can share and ICANN communities can share is to have a multistakeholder model where you have to reach a decision that will effectively effect 2 billion -- now nearly 3 billion internet users. Multistakeholder processes is good, but not when there is no decision made in the end. When this decision involves money, power and political implications. It is a lot harder than seeing it theoretically on paper. There are several parts of ICANN that work in this environment. Maybe in a slightly different way. They have certainly some experience to share with people that are not taking part in ICANN. The way to reach consensus. The way to go and draft documents. A number of ways which I certainly a few years ago, when I started in ICANN, had no clue about, and thought about two completely opposite views. They're never going to read consensus. Yet consensus was reached. The process by which consensus can be reached can be shared with others.
>> I think (panelist) that over the next two years through to the "summit" we have an incredibly difficult set of months ahead of us. This is why the IANA transition and ICANN accountability are so important. The biggest gift that ICANN gift can gift, is a successful transparent, accountable and fully functioning stress-tested IANA transition. No shortcuts. No pre-cooked things. Fully open. Fully transparent. That's the gift I'd like to see.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Fiona?
>> FIONA: {*} I think every approach is different. I think the articulation can be different. Here at the IGF, it is the dialogue and consultation, but at the end of the day, it is not what is going to be put into contracts. So every system, I think is slightly different in how they've approached it. But I think that one of the things that ICANN has epitimized, and I think Peter may have said this, the ability and willingness to evolve and learn. There's been so much change in ICANN over the last 15 years, remote participation, putting things out for comment. I think ICANN has been the industry standard with Adobe chat rooms, and the Mag that was public. I was surprised that we were not using everything. We have yet to address that component to it. I think the standard in terms of allowing people to participate has been raised tremendously when I go through the first set of meetings to now, I think that is something that folks should not take for granted and again, a lot of this gets back to being open. As issues come up to evolve and change things. For this, I think ICANN and the ICANN community can get loud and boisterous. That is the mark of the multistakeholder. It can be challenging for some people, but I think it is a part of what the system is about.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Adiel.
>> ADIEL: {*} I will say that the ICANN echo system is where the multistakeholder has been tested, has been implemented based on whatever else. So we have one responsibility to, in fact, highlight that. Highlight the fact that we have ten years of experience on multistakeholderism. It may not have been perfect. But we have some experience that we have to be confident about and let the world know. We are at a junction right now where we are moving for two world, one cyber, one world. Everything will be cyber, and multistakeholderism will be the base for that global governance. It is not only the governance itself which will be based on multistakeholderism. That is exposing us from those who apply to multistakeholderism. How do we stand by our multistakeholderism experience to show the world that it works?
I think we have the transition as one example to show the world that we can do it and it works.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Yanis?
>> YANIS: I remember the day when they opened the door for others to listen to the meetings. After the first session, someone in the corridor said, "If that is what they do, it is better that they do it behind closed doors." There is no mystery behind the closed doors. But more seriously, I will put my Governmental hat on now and we will talk about the GAK {*} and the relationship between the ICANN and the US Government which used to be very strict with a 6-month reporting period and a target and then it became loose and now it is just a Gentleman's Agreement. But it is still a Gentleman's Agreement between ICANN and the US Government.
If you read reports on the committee, which suggests that maybe we should think in the direction of documenting relationship only between ICANN and the US Government, but between ICANN and other governments as well. Making a collective commitment of agreements where everybody who would be interested would sign up for it and exercise the influence over ICANN through the Government advisory committee. That is something I feel very strong about, and we have example in our community where these agreements exist. And they gradually are growing.
So I think that also is one then that ICANN could consider in the future in strengthening accountability to the Government of all countries in the world. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you Yanis and Tarek.
>> TAREK: {*} thank you. I will go back to 2005 as Fiona has mentioned. We were celebrating at that time when Yanis was the chair of the committee when we got recognition as a multistakeholder community for the first time.
In the last ten years we have proven a success for the multistakeholder and the ecosystem as well. This has given us and the multistakeholder community great legitimacy. The big challenge that we have is that we need to globalize this process. This is homework number 2 for the next five years and we need to do it and we need to do it right because the world is really watching us.
So we gain legitimacy through excellence. Nobody is saying that servers are not working. This phase is over. This might have been in the past. But now they say they are speaking about the globalization and we need to tackle it from the right forum with the right political touch and taking into conversation the benefits of the different stakeholders, including the governments as well as AINIS has mentioned. {*} this is the homework that we have. As I said, we need to be up to our possibility. We need to fill the gap, otherwise someone else will fill it, fill this vacuum as such, and if we succeed, then maybe for the governance of shared resources globally and other disciplines, we are putting the right model.
>> MODERATOR WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: If I tried to summarize the session, 1 would be that we have discussed that the globalization of ICANN is more than just to open more offices, but it means in particular the globalization of the markets, particularly the domain name market. We have learned that the accountability issue is more than the accountability of the board. It is also the accountability of all the constituencies. And we have learned that ICANN, with its 15 years of experience, can give to the broader internet governance debate a lot of interesting inspirations, transparency, openness, Adobe Connect, and a lot of other things which would be great if they're used in a broader term.
Probably then, in 2020, we have not just a globalized ICANN, but we have a globalized internet and one world. With this, I bring the meeting to an end. I thank the panel and I thank Nigel for this. I thank the moderators for remote participation. Unfortunately we didn't have questions from remote participants, but probably we will have more questions in the future. This discussion will not stop. We will continue this discussion. Next stop is the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles and we will have more opportunities next year. Enjoy your coffee break.
>> NIGEL: Thank you. We also have another ICANN forum tomorrow afternoon. Thank you all for coming. Thank you Wolfgang. Thank you all for coming.
--------------- BREAK ---------------
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- BREAK-- -- -- -- -- --
>> NIGEL: I know it is unusual to start on time. We have a couple of contributors. My name is {*} Andrew Puttyfat. I'm moderating the panel this afternoon. For those of you who don't know the coalition is a partnership of 23 governments who have come together to examine ways for freedom and democracy for human rights online. It was launched from a conpresence in the Hague and grown through a number of conferences and activities. Because for the last few years or so, there's been quite an escalation in activity, we want to take this open forum to explain some of the different aspects of the work we're doing. In a series of sections, we're going to be hearing about the annual conference, something about a major project of the coalition, the digital defender's partnership which some of you will know, an item on the workgroup we've set up, and an issue outlining the problem of restriction on social media, which may be an issue for some of you in the room. I'm going to walk around the room. I feel it is confining to be on the platform.
I'll be able to bring you in in each section to make contributions. I need to get you out by 6:00 so I'm going to try to hurry things on. The first person I'll introduce, is Bretta, from the foreign -- we have copies of this at the back, and what we can expect. Paretta, over to you {*} {*} {*}.
>> Thank you. Thank you, Andrew. We have come full circle from the IGF of Bali. There I promised you that the content of the FOC conference where we worked out in close cooperation with civil society, I'm very happy at the moment that our expression has been realized.
Astone ya was part of the {*} freedom coalition, which means that in June 2013 until the end of the fourth conference last April. So the first part of Italian started four months ahead of event. There is a think tank called E-core academy, and they took the lead. With the help of Freedom House, they composed international (disconnect).
But there is there an open dialogue which I believe will help them to move further to the right direction. We see the 5th conference in Mongolia as a great opportunity, not just for Mongolia, but for the whole Asia. Last week while visiting the whole country, we have promised to be there for them, to be ready to assist and advise any questions they might have over the cold winter.
So I would like you to extend your support to Mongolia and I encourage you to contact your partners there, to start brainstorming to build up as good parallel events as you held in Astonia last year. This is all I want to express at the moment. Later I would be very glad to receive all the questions. Thank you.
>> ANDREW: Here are the cards. We will put them back there. {*} the governments will report back on the progress and implementation of the recommendation. Can I get an indicator of the Mongolian representatives? I know they're keen to talk to you, and those of you who can come and join us at that event. Are there any questions for Perret at this stage {*}? Obviously, feel free to come back later in the meeting.
The next thing I want to do is go through one of the major projects of the partnership. The digital defender's partnership {*}. We will have some discussion of that.
>> Thanks. So I wanted to give you an update on what the Digital Defender's Partnership is. I will refer to it as DDP. I will tell you who we are and what we've been doing for the last year and a half. So the freedom online coalition wanted {*} to establish a mechanism on which they can respond to digital emergencies which were facing journalists, activists in international internet repression. We've seen digital attacks that are attacking human rights defenders and journalists. Here we see the ban of Twitter and Facebook. There's been targeted attacks and dragnet surveillance on anyone who dares to speak up. There are people being tried for blasphemy, et cetera. These are very big issues and the globe is a very big space. What do we do? (audio out)
These are really aimed if you really need legal support, if you've been hacked and you need to replace your equipment. If you need any other type of support that comes from a digital emergency you're facing. You can apply for emergency grants.
We have direct-support grants which are a little bit bigger. We have a pamphlet in the back that can describe these different types of grants. These can be used for security audit of organizations. Once we find out we've been attacked, it's usually too late. You fix your vulnerabilities. People have been harassed, on the phone, text. Then there's malware. How do we respond to this?
This also means that individuals who do reach out to international organizations usually reach out to multiple. So what we try to do is we try to get people together to coordinate the actions better. Some people might have closer ties to companies where others might have closer ties to malware experts. How can we piggy back on other's expertise.
We've worked on pre-planning. Social events around the world provide surveillance in steroids. We've seen it in Russia during the Olympics. We don't want something bad to happen during these events happen and they usually target critical voices.
And then people also come to us directly. That is the third thing we do for help. We try to find the right person who can help them, which is usually a local security expert or a professional security host who can mitigate that. This is all nice.
So what have we done in the last year and a half? I think through the DDP, and through our strategic partners, we have supported 153 organizations and over 700 individuals who were facing a digital attack. These are from countries from central Asia, Africa, and Latin America. These incidences can be support and a tour of the infrastructure.
Legal support -- unfortunately, legal avenues are used more and more to silence people. We provide support to local security consultants who are put out. Most are media organizations that get attacked. They don't know where to start or what to do. So they need someone to guide them through the process.
We set up temporary help lines in local languages when violence spikes or when journalists are being targeted. Think of countries like Venezuela or Ukraine. I just want to say that a month ago we also launched a digital first aid kit. This is done from a collaboration from more than 15 organizations working in this field. It was really a collaborative effort and it is supposed to give you through the steps of what you do when you've had to hand over your phone or your laptop when you cross a border and you got it back. And if you have ID's for potential mitigation strategies when you are facing a digital emergency, please come and talk to us. We'll be here at the end of the session, but we also -- we have a booth in the pavillion and we'll be there for the next two days as well. You can also reach us by e-mail, phone, or look at our web silent. Send us a DM. That was it.
>> ANDREW: Are there any questions or comments you would like to make at this time about the partnership? No hands? Okay. Obviously such a convincing presentation, there were no doubts or ambiguities in mind. I do encourage you to -- I'm sorry. Marcus? Yeah?
>> I'm from the University of Austria. I wanted to ask you from which side you get funding for {*} all these activities and in particular, if the European union with its strategy of helping digital defenders is part of that who support it.
>> Thank you for your question (PETEsf.) the DDP got established under -- 7 states have been donating to the FOC. We do coordinate with other people in the field.
>> ANDREW: Additional comments? Another new feature of the work of the coalition this year has been the creation of the multistakeholder working groups to exam issues on which the coalition has an interest and where new thinking and policy and development can take place. We have two of the working group cochairs. I will come to Simone Halick, {*} how we can intend to construct and build them in the future. Simoan?
>> SIMONE: {*} I think we've had an eventful summer. In the conference we had in April, we discussed how to take the working groups further. We decided on the frame of the first and the third working group and got to work. We basically decided on a process which was framing the working groups. We made terms of the reference for the working groups and opened them up for applications for members from different stakeholder groups. Over the summer, those applications were reviewed and we got to a selection and both working groups consist of about 15 members from civil society and private sector and in the case of the working group that I'm co-chairing with Ron Debert, which is Internet Free and Secure (audio out) citizen lab in Canada, and the other countries involved are the US, the UK, and Canada.
When we had the group together, we thought of a way to develop a common starting point because of course the field of cyber security is very broad. People have different backgrounds and we sort of started with a framing (audio out) of cyber security and also how you can embed human right issues into cyber security strategies.
And so to sort of be able to talk to that with a whole group and to see where to go and to create a common starting ground, we issued a readingly T- that everybody could read. It is also online. We also send a questionnaire out with questions like, "how do you define cyber security? What are the principles underlying it?" {*} similar questions for the multistakeholder model. Of course we also ask more practical questions like, "How would you like to communicate?" Very simple questions which are essential for like the cooperation.
Over the last couple of weeks, we have received those inputs and made a first analysis of it. Yesterday we came together with the group to discuss it. And it was like -- it was very motivating and inspiring. We have a fantastic group of -- I think we were there with 12 people yesterday. There's actually more in the group, but we weren't able to sort of have everybody here.
But we had a first discussion about these issues and where to take the working group. It was very constructive and actually lots of fun, of course, to work with a group of inspiring people to bring such an issue further.
It's in progress, so I can't really share like any definite outcomes, but I can share with you a couple of directions that came out of the discussion yesterday in which we will be exploring in the upcoming weeks.
So the first thing we will be doing would be to bring the input we've got in a report that will refine on a couple of issues. We will look at the definition of cyber security. We'll look at the principles underlaying it. We think it is a very important issue to tackle is the different parties and different issues.
We want to see then if we can map the multistakeholder model -- I'm sorry. I'm actually saying this wrong. Sort of mapping -- in what forum cyber security is discussed. How those forums work. And how multistakeholder participation could be further developed there. Because what we see is that there is lots of discussion on cyber security but only very few people have a full oversight of what forms there are and how everything fits together.
So where he think this could be an important added value of the working group. Also within the working group, there is a great interest in seeing how we can develop norms on how human rights can be embedded in natural cyber security strategies. This is something we can explore over the next couple of weeks. We can make an action plan and what types of output we can generate within these two contexts.
In any case, the sort of next thing we will do and which will also be published to the rest of the world is a report that I refer to and so we think that will be published sometime later this fall. As soon as we have an action plan with the working group, we'll be able to share a little bit more on that.
>> ANDREW: Thank you very much. I'll go to Katherine kend Rick and then I'll {*} open up for discussion. Catherine?
>> CATHERINE: {*} the third working group is dedicated to the topic of increasing transparency from governments and companies and in particular how they interact on issues that implicate the freedom of expression and privacy of their users. So today, as with working group 1, we had our first meeting of the members which we selected through applications this summer and one of the first things we did as working group over the summer was an inventory of existing efforts on transparency and the ICT sector, particularly around Government requests to companies on user -- for user data and non-content takedown.
One of the things we've found through that inventory and through our conversation today is that a lot of the conversation about transparency in the last couple of years and the movement has been done on company reporting and increasing transparency on the company side.
One of the defining characteristics of this working group of course is the involvement of governments and the collaboration of civil society, and governments. So we discussed in our meeting today, taking advantage of this group to take a more holistic approach of reporting by governments, companies and on the interfashion between the two to give more transparency to how the two parties interact.
So much of our conversation today focused on what some have called -- or considered the more qualitative components of transparency. There is quite a lot of work on increasing the number of requests to companies, the number of requests coming from governments. Today, working group members expressed interest in filling out framework and lies that go on on the Government side and the company's side with requests for the private data. The global network initiative and the center for network and technology sent a letter in advance that governments could take {*}. That gave us a good initial platform for the groups.
As an immediate next step, some of the governments have pledged to take back that letter to other agencies in their governments and get feedback that GNI and CT proposed on what would be immediately possible in terms of increasing transparency and also what would the potential obsticles be. Even having a conversation about what the challenges are in increasing transparency and what the potential obsticles are will help us move the community towards a better conversation about what the reality should be when it comes to having as much information as possible.
So as an immediate next step would be, and in the coming weeks we'll be refining our scope of work further. We didn't have the full group here today as with Working Group 1, so we're still getting concensus from the full members. We are consideration that there is a 6-month time line, if you subtract December for the holidays, and the members of the group emphasized the value of having a concrete starting point for hopefully a renewal of the group's mandate and continued work on this topic. But we are interested in finding something that's both reasonable and concrete for Government and other stakeholders to continue on this topic.
>> ANDREW: Obviously there is an enormous community here of knowledge and experience. If people here are interested in following the working group activity and contributing thoughts and reflections on the documents produced, would there be a means -- the website is available. Are you willing to welcome that contribution from the community?
>> Simone: {*} it's clear that we, as a working group. It was an open working group in the case that the application was open. You have to make a selection and start working with a core group of dedicated people. I think one of the things we'll have to think about is the way we will engage with other people and the opportunities we will create for that. Doing that via the website and publishing documents could be a very valuable means and we can see at a next conference, we would organize a meeting which we would open up for a much broader public -- where we would discuss a couple of issues we're working on and get feedback through means like that.
So I think the ways we want to do it is something that we would have to develop just like the rest we're doing, but we're definitely open for engaging with other people and hearing feedback.
>> And raou: Catherine?
>> CATHERINE: We'll have various public documents along the way for comment.
>> ANDREW: Obviously we're a community of people who love to enter rooms and send e-mails in silence. Let's reflect that with a lot of human beings in the room, it might be nice to talk to each other, not just through e-mails.
>> My name is Courtney rad cliff: I would like to urge you to {*} take a position on inclusion of an indicator on freedom of expression and internet access. There is a whole initiative going along to get this on the agenda. This falls right within the agenda of the FOC. I think it's somewhat less political perhaps than many of the things -- of other things that you're working on, I think it is a way that could make a very powerful statement when we're going to the UN to say, "Hey, the freedom online groups need your support." There's other people who are working on this. I hope that is something that you guys can make a statement on.
>> ANDREW: Thanks. We'll ask the Government reps to respond to that and take another question from here.
>> Yes. It's Willy Alsacuff. The Arab world is one area that appreciates help in these circumstances. Aspects of circumvention and privacy issues, I realize that language barrier is a huge issue. One thing we find is a deficit is trainers in the area. Not only is it language, but fear and various other aspects. Do you find that this could be a potential -- let's say problem to work on? Perhaps with -- through consultation with us through the region, to understand the best means to go forward with it. Because there's a lot of need, yet not much in response.
>> ANDREW: Did you want to pick up one of those comments?
>> I think many efforts around the countries have identified this issue through the FC G negotiate nations, this is obviously another context in network. It is a very difficult negotiation. I think it is something that deserves to be made more widely. Thank you for that suggestion. Thanks.
>> ANDREW: Scott, anything you want to add to that?
>> SCOTT: Thank you Courtney for that suggestion. As Karl mentioned, {*} the inclusion of human rights of SDGs is not a controversial topic, there are elements there now, but the idea of adding in access and freedom of expression is a good one and we'll look into that.
>> ANDREW: In response to our colleague in Yemen, would it extend to considering the capacity in the training area, or would that consider further discussion in the coalition?
>> Simone: The DDP is actually specifically aimed at mitigating emergencies {*} and digital security trainings are more of an investment. Also the Dutch Government and the Swedish Government are investing separately regarding more digital security training. It is something they should talk about as a collective.
>> ANDREW: If I can have your card, we can come back to that after the meeting.
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you. As your agency promoting freedom of expression offline and online. I think it is a good idea to highlight the element agenda in discussion. It is a mainstreaming opportunity. We have with our colleagues based in Bejing which covered Mongolia, to get involved in the Mongolian conference. I also press that so many lines are picked. (Indiscernible) I work to launch new intermediaries enforcing freedom of expression on Friday.
We have explored three categories of the internet intermediaryies, social {*} media platforms as a phase 1 study. I feel that both of us really fit with each other to come up with outcomes.
Lastly I want to also press that there is a connection between (Inaudible) involved in almost every conference and have had the opportunity to provide inputs to the decoration. And really congratulations for this outcome. We are also doing a comprehensive study to provide sort of recommendation for the future options on internet principles which we are going to discuss tomorrow at our open forum. We have well considered this Italian declareration into the UNESCO study as well.
>> ANDREW: Thank you very much.
>> I come from Nigeria. I sit at the membership of coalition -- my question is, do you really think that you're making a difference in terms of online freedoms? Especially in the light about anxiety of online freedoms. Do you think you're making a difference with your presence and activities?
>> ANDREW: I'll take one more and come to the platform. Yes. I'm coming to you.
>> Thank you. I'm from Costa Rica. Being in Latin America and having two countries participating in this coalition, Mexico and Costa Rica, we support our mission in supporting much more memberships from other countries and that is what we are going to do in the region. But it is very important to highlight that besides, of course, freedom online and all transparency and accountability issues in our region, we're still dealing much more with accessibility and education and how to use internet. So these issues are very important as human rights, but we have first to deal with accessibility and getting every people access to the internet.
So that's priorities that comes in, but of course, we will always deal with human rights and of course the fear online.
So be sure that from Costa Rica, we'll be trying to get more members to this coalition, at least from the Central American region where we deal with much of our countries in the region. Thank you.
>> ANDREW: Thanks. I'll take one more section before moving on from here.
>> Thank you. So I would like to propose some idea that was actually briefly mentioned in the meeting of a previous working group, but stopped because it was decided it was a wrong time. Idea of benchmarking legislation and implementation of legislation related to internet freedom. I think this activity would be useful for all countries like to clearly define dimensions that can be used to relate legislation and its implementation.
To create a methodology for those evaluations. So I think it can help to understand freedom online coalitions where they are, and it can be extremely helpful for other countries to know where they can go. So like that. Thank you.
>> ANDREW: Okay. Thanks. So I think a couple of points there. Are we making a difference? I will point that one at maybe Simone, as the Government that really kicked this off. What is your -- it's a work in progress, but over the year since the annual conference in the Hague, what is your opinion?
>> Simone: I will answer this {*} question from a Dutch perspective and from a citizen's perspective. I've been on the job for nine months and I've seen a lot of things. I want to see action right away and I'm not used to political maneuvering which often takes a lot more time.
But I think through the experience good -- my experience in Mongolia last week I think is sort of is an example for where I think the opportunity of the coalition can lay. We went on a scouting mission for the conference. Of course Mongolia is located between Russia and China, both have -- let's say a difficult policy -- when it comes to internet freedom.
Around there, in a special zone in Asia, I think the situation is actually becoming -- has become worse over the last -- it's been a period, but over the last year we've seen a couple of worrying developments.
At the same time also like Mongolia is a very young democracy. They're very open to human rights and democratic principles, but they're still building very hard on that structure. And so what's very interesting is that having the conference there will not only give the coalition an opportunity to sort of promote internet freedom in the region which will give stakeholders in the region and other countries an opportunity to raise issues there, participate in a high-level conference, but it will be an opportunity for Mongolia itself to put freedom of internet on there.
But at the same time, there's also worrying developments. A blogger was recently arrested for exposing corruption. If you look at what the Freedom Online Coalition has done, we've made a difference. We've recently released a social media statement -- or a statement on social media blocking which we'll discuss in a bit. We've developed working groups which are dealing with points that should be brought into context. We have had a lot of people taking on that.
I think with that, you actually see where we make the difference. I understand maybe that sometimes not everything we do, not every diplomatic effort that we put into this coalition is seen. If you have any suggestions or if you think there are specific things are we should be doing more, that is the reason why we're here. I think we're also trying via the website, but also through the work of the support unit, to make it more approachable for discussing issues like those.
>> ANDREW: I know that Sweden has seen this as a key element of the work that it wants to pursue. I guess that is something that you would endorse that?
>> I would like to address the point made by the gentleman from Nigeria. I've been doing a lot of the negotiation in the human context, specifically, and I think in that context, it is very clear that it is a great value to have a set of member countries who share values that extend between regional groups that you night them beyond their usual block voting patterns. That has been a very clear gain with this coalition.
Regarding the question about accessibility and human rights and expression, I kind of don't see those two as a dichotomy or opposite, I think often we tend to portray that debate as activism and human rights second. I don't think that is any contradiction between the two.
Sweden puts a lot of emphasis on building access and on constructing infrastructure in developing countries, but I think what we're seeing now is the need for more and better regulation and better rule of law mechanisms within this field. And that is -- I think especially important in those countries that are experiencing very fast growth. This is the informative stage for those countries once legislation and regulation is put into place. I will revert briefly back to the Working Group 2, which Sweden is doing, and it has not yet started.
It was designed to look at the connection between open internet and economic growth. We are reframing that to look more towards the rule of law and development. Not the least to serve as a guide for development efforts in this field which we're investing heavily in.
We also note that the World Bank will be prioritizing this field in their development report which will be entitled "Internet And Development" which will be a guide on how to implement the online world into a nice landscape. So thanks.
>> ANDREW: We need to move on. I think we need to come back to you on that. This coalition is adding what would be the addition to things like Freedom House, and how the Coalition can raise the standards. I think that is something that we would need to reflect upon. Unfortunately we can't get the website up. We think it is just the internet connectivity and nothing more sinister than that. But we do have a website launched. Freedomonlinecoalition.com. If you can get it.
They are dealing with their increasing restrictions on social media. There's a growing, tighter restriction. Before we come to the statement and the response, get perspective from civil society and business on the nature of that problem. I want to start with Sabet Shamanti {*} who is co-organize the UN conference which will be at Bilgi University and others in Turkey. But tell me about the social media problems you're seeing in Turkey, and how it is impacting you as writers, bloggers and activists?
>> First of all, as {*} many of you heard, ex-prime minister and now President of Turkey calls social media a menace. Turkish governments always has the power of the media, newspapers, television, magazines.
But when internet came around, they couldn't understand how they can go and how they can stop the freedom information on that because internet wasn't for them and they always work against them because they can't just censor everything they want. They can't do this like the old ways and now they are calling it a menace.
Right now, in Turkey, we have more than 50,000 websites blocked. It is getting more and more every day. We couldn't know the exact number because everything they've done on the internet is closed to the public. We couldn't get any information from them. We don't know what they are doing on censorship and surveillance. Just we are testing, learning, and trying to get information as we do.
Also, 5651 is the Turkish version of the Internet Bill. It was renewed in February. They have the right to censor and block any website they want without any court order. They have the right to stop any website located in Turkey and they can do like in court order again.
Also they have right on the ISPs right now, and now they -- the Government forced all ISPs to start a union and these union has to obey what Government and what Government wants from them and they have to do everything they do otherwise their license will be taken away and they can't have any right to serve people anyway.
Also as maybe you heard about recently, journalists were put in prison because they spread information about the Gaza issue. Also we have new surveillance to start to using and they are planning to use in here. For example, Turkish Government forces all ISPs to use DDP technology to be surveillanced. Therefore they are forcing all kind of legal tools and illegal tools to suppress activists and journalists to directly censor them.
So basically, we don't have so much internet freedom or humor rights in Turkey. We are having hard time in here. Somehow the Turkish Government doesn't see that. They say, "Everything here is great. There isn't any censorship or surveillance." So that's I guess one of the reasons why none of our proposals for the IGF accepted. We made five proposals for the IGF. Actually, none of them directly about Turkey situation, but somehow, being from Turkey, I guess it's up to us for making workshops here.
This is the reason why we're doing the Internet on Governance Forum. We think if we can't get any workshop and internet plans going, we should go there any way, we should also make excitement to talk about the things we couldn't have time or space or we couldn't -- also other people that couldn't have time or space to talk issues like that.
So we are only inviting anyone who are interested about what civil society says, what activists, journalists and what other groups says, and come and talk with us. We want to talk every single one of you to how can we do something about to change the situation in here? Also we want to help all activists and other groups that around the world to work together and we want to do something good in here. And that's why we are at the IGF, and that's why we are doing this.
There are brochures in the back about more detail about the situation in Turkey and about the Internet Governance Forum. You are all invited. If you want to learn about more about the situation in Turkey or you want to help us, feel free to talk with me after the panel. Thanks.
>> ANDREW: Thank you. It's very good you can be here. I'm sorry you were unable to have a seat in the IGF as a whole. I want to say to Marcus, you are seeing patents throughout the world. Can you tell us the kind of patent you are detecting and how you see the social media restrictions, if it's going up, getting worse, give us an idea of the overall flavor.
>> Thank you. My name is Mark (?). We are trying to frame internet forums to open up. Sometimes censorship is something different. I would say they all pressure to limit the space for -- the spaces for user to express their opinion. It comes different forms.
Recently, there was a kind of misunderstanding around the kind of balance that intermediaryies need to keep {*} to allow user to enforce very important things to materialize, to have control over the information that are about them online. So that is something that probably requires further discussion. We believe through the initiative we align is us looking at the consequence of the right to are forgotten, or the right to religion.
Another trend we see is the old pressure from governments to go for the localization. Localization is per se from a business perspective is against the old concept of the free-of-flow of information. All service providers should be able to compete in a very open and effective way globally, but as other important consequence, which is giving to governments more control over the data flowing in the national networks, and there providing them more power of enforcement of collect data and how they are stored in a given country.
That is why we generate -- tend to consider that it is a residential exercise. Because it not always comes together with transparency. And then I would like to arrive to the third point and again, that -- for us, these are our priorities to counter-balance all these threats.
Transz pairns I, accountability and the rule of law {*} are things we put on the top of our priorities. We are pushing these in different ways. We totally support transparency from the coalition. We believe that more and more governments and industries should embrace transparency as a general policy. We've seen a lot of progress. Sometimes we tend, for example, to look at the discussion arriving at the IGF, people don't really say they don't really follow-up or there's no progress, but if we look at four or five years ago, if you look at transparency, you would see a few companies. Even governments are looking at transparency with not the same approach. Today, we think transparency is the only way to repair trust.
The rule of law is important, especially in the concept of debate around surveillance. There is no way to move around that without enforcing the rule of law without having clear procedures in order to access information, in order to enforce the existing laws. And then on top of that, accountability. We believe we would be more than happy to come and listen at the debate at the governance forum. There is no one-stop shop for talking about these issues and companies should be very open and very present in the debate in order to answer questions and be part of -- also receive criticism.
>> ANDREW: Thanks very much, Marcus and Ahmed for painting the picture. Scott comes to you from the State Department. How does the world look to you concerning the world media and global restrictions. What was their reason -- why did the coalition feel the need to come up with a statement on social media restrictions?
>> SCOTT: Needless to say, we're quite concerned. {*} it's not only situations like Turkey, it's situations in Russia, Vietnam, Thailand, Iraq. We're seeing a proliferation of attempts to shut down social media. That's why we felt it was justified to come together and issue a statement on this. I think this is the second time the Freedom Online has issued a statement. It is one example of how the Freedom Online has made a difference.
They have the ability to limit speech but in very very narrow ways, when it threatens the national security public order or the rights and reputations of others. While governments are using these sorts of rationales to crack down on social media, they're doing so in an over-broad, general, and vague ways.
We've seen governments rachetting up their efforts to enforce rules couched in these terms. We've seen governments putting ownness to partner governments carrying out these restrictions or not allow that company to do business inside the country.
And we're seeing situations such as those in Thailand and Iraq where the Government simply asserts a broad national security concern and then radically limits the way in which social media platforms are regulated and/or restricted.
We think these actions go above and beyond what international law permits. That's why we felt the need to collectively speak out about this growing and worrisome trend.
>> ANDREW: Thanks. If I could just come to Kyle Fredrick. I know you work in the UN with some tough and often hostile negotiations. Where do you see this coming from and how do you see the importance of the coalition in taking a clear stand and making a statement about the problem that it's highlighting?
>> KYLE: Thanks, Andrew. I think it's quite clear that there has generally been a hardening of the {*} environment surrounding freedom of expression issues, not only when it comes to the internet, but broadly. I think it's -- we're very much concerned specificly when it comes to freedom online because we do see a tendency to treat the online environment as being something separate from the real world.
This is a line of argumentation that we can see in many different foras, increased pressure on treating internet issues separate from other aspects of the same issues, whether it comes to security or democracy, there by creating a free-standing set of norms for the internet.
From our perspective, this is obviously long-term would mean hollowing of human rights norms because in 20 years time, it's hard to think of any human activity that will not at least, to some extent, play out on the internet. So with a long perspective, this is a crucial future for human rights broadly.
I think in this context, it's been very important to see that we've been able to assemble a consensus around resolution text that says that human rights apply offline as they do online. In 2012, a consensus was reaffirmed from that earlier this year also by consensus, and I think this was an important -- it was an important stepping stone in creating a solid basis when it comes to international norms when it comes to restrictions on social media and it creates a solid statement for this FOC statement. But it's clear that the differences between different countries on their views on their strategies and ways those strategies are tied to longer-term security policy goals are quite clear. So we're concerned about that. Especially the long-term hollowing the human rights, broadly.
>> ANDREW: I'm going to throw it open. I'm interested in getting people's experiences from anywhere out in the world. About any patterns you have seen in social media. I'll start in the back here.
>> Hi. I have to make a correction first. I work for the (Inaudible) of Turkey. The gentleman from Turkey said the proposal for IGF was rejected because the Turkish Government denied it. As you know, workshops are determined by the UN. So the Turkish Government has nothing to do with this decision. I have to make this correction. Thank you.
>> ANDREW: Thank you very much. Anyone else like to come in on the over-all issue? Yeah.
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thanks. Joy Letty from the APC. We are actively engaged. We think it is important that like-minded governments do organize in arguing strongly around human rights online in relation to organizing -- particularly in normal-sitting environments like the Human Rights Council. Seeing that the point has been raised in the discussions. I'm very concerned about what the position of the Freedom Online Coalition might be on the right to privacy in the digital age, which is being discussed in the Human Rights Council next week. I'm worried that we won't see the same sort of consensus in relation to Freedom Online. We won't see that same conence us. I think we need a clear sense of how the coalition is setting on that. How we can support Freedom Online members, and strengthen then that massive violence is an offense. It is great that we can participate together and have a discussion. I think in terms of a spirit, we need something strong from the coalition on that. I just need a response on that.
>> ANDREW: Thank you, Joy. I'll get a couple of others.
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: Will from InterNews. Any blocking of social media use is in law, particularly in cases where Government is citing national security or public order. I'm thinking recently the role of blocking or addressing the use of social media in the immediate use of conflict. An example would be the alleged rape in Mandalay and the violence that happened afterwards. The violence was then fanned by Facebook postings and so on.
If you could I will luminate {*} when the Government would have, in the absence of other delays, seeking a legal recourse, perhaps a justification to shut down broadcastor media. Thank you.
>> ANDREW: Thanks. There are other governments in the room other than those on the platform. They should feel free to try to respond to any of the questions.
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you very much for the discussions. One thing related to Freedom Online -- sorry, freedom of expression online, and especially in many other countries is the expert of surveillance and the trade and surveillance equipment. Without mentioning specific companies, but we've seen in the past couple years several examples of either equipment or software being supported and used by repressive regimes to crush online expression.
And it would be really good to see from the members of the coalition a greater effort to regulate this trade to make sure that companies who are exporting equipment is being used for human rights violations, that this is much better regulated. Thank you.
>> ANDREW: Okay. I'll take one more and then I'll come back to the panel.
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm Jessica Deer from Social Media Exchange. We're getting ready to publish a report that maps the new laws that are affecting online expression in the Arab region. Two of the trends we've noticed in this mapping, is that there are trends in so-called anti-terror laws and cyber crime laws. At least 12 laws criminalize speech across platform and the same goes for the anti-terror laws.
It seems to me that when we're talking about anti-terror laws or anti-cyber crime laws, if we -- are not also at every instance that we're talking about security and talking about cyber crime, if we are not also reinforcing the need to respect rights within those laws -- because I know there are a lot of coordinating meetings on developing cyber crime legislation, if we're not also including the rights aspects of those, at least as a matter of record, that we're actually somehow kind of turning a blind eye to the problem. This is just a trepd that I think goes yop the region as well.
>> ANDREW: Thanks {*} so if we can start getting responses. We have a question about whether you think there's likely to be a consensus along coalition. That is one question. Secondly, a question from Will is whether you think there are circumstances, what is your reaction to a Government responding to a media crisis saying it wants to shut down social media. The Iraqi Government says, "ISIS is using social network to spread terrorism." The question of equipment. That is an issue as well. Finally the importance of reiterating the principles of human rights whenever we're looking at cyber security or cyber law. I might come back to Simone. I think I'll put this on you, Kyle. Do you think there's likely to be a consensus {*} among the coalition Government? What is your sense of where it is?
>> KYLE: I will have to admit it is very hard to say {*}. We haven't been able to do our own legal analysis. Even for us, we don't have a fixed position yet. This is a timing issue. Of course summer has just passed. So honestly, I can't say that. I don't know.
>> ANDREW: Any other Government have a view, go ahead. Anything else on the point Will brought up about exceptional circumstances?
>> We're finalizing our analysis of the report, we're beginning to talk with our allies in the issues of the report. The issue is quite broad in the number of issues it deals with in some of the claims it makes about what the legally binding norms are. I would note that -- maybe we will provide you a fuller answer at that workshop. I think there will be a number of challenges there. My -- you know, the United States is very committed to staying in the tent as much as we possibly can. Aiming for the consensus and at last year's UN general assembly. Whether we can get there remains an open question.
Colleague in the back. Will, I guess, asked questions about rule of law, and how to deal about situations like that in Burma. Maybe we should look at the statement again. When we talk about laws here, we're talking about legitimate laws, that is to say laws adopted through a democratic transparent process that are consistent with international norms. The mere indication of any old law is not sufficient for the rule of law standard to be met.
In the Burmese context, if there is a false report put out either Muslim on Buddhist or Buddhist on Muslim, given what a tinder box that is, for the Government to conclude that that type of allegation has to be restricted, that it all situation-dependent, I don't think it would be reasonable in a situation like that, where the Government knows that an alleged act is untrue for the government to -- you know, I think the first recourse is to immediately say, "That's not true." I think that is a better response by the Government. If the Government feels the false allegation, the rumor -- again, drawing a line between truth and rumor is a tricky task. I mean, of course in the United States, we believe that more speech is always the better antidote to problematic speech than simply curtailing speech all together.
But clearly Article 19 contemplates situations in which governments may need to restrict speech and specific circumstances.
>> ANDREW: Thank you. Steven from the UK here. Any reflection about surveillance equipment, which I know many governments are thinking about?
>> STEV EN: {*} tomorrow ask the anniversary of our civil and human rights, which we'll be publicizing one of the things we did -- one thing we didn't complete, because we didn't get it out by September the 4th, Tech UK has been working on with us and civil society, putting guidance out to society for people who are working around arms exports, to do due diligence, that technologies like to have looking at particular marketplaces. So I hope that goes some way to addressing the point you made. Once it's formally launched, I'll use the coalition to publicize it earlier.
On the privacy report, I think it's worth remembering that the freedom online coalition is a voluntary group of people online. We don't have to have a single position. I don't think I've ever known a UN report where all the countries agree on the day it was issued.
We have commitments and statements through the coalition that we are all signed up to. And so our response to the report will be based on those shared values. We may have different views on some elements of it, but we have a common understanding of what we do want to achieve in this field. Thank you.
>> ANDREW: Thank you. If that UK report comes out, it might be an opportunity for the International Secretary to assess and share more broadly. On the last point, maybe coming into context on the working group of cyber security, part of the role is emphasizing the human rights standards. Do you see that as being an important dimension to flag up as our speaker would, perhaps, suggest?
>> Simone: We've been discussing the normative {*} framework and I think that would be sort of exactly sort of the right angle to also tackle the problem of restricting anti-terrorism and cyber crime and cyber security laws. What you still often see in cyber security or related policy is that it is quite reactive in the way that it is actually set up. So an event happens and that is used as an opportunity to create new laws and I think the procedure that follows doesn't take human rights always sufficiently into consideration. So I think this is actually something that the working group could do very valuable work on.
>> ANDREW: Okay. Thanks very much. We've got about five minutes left. So there is a quick opportunity if you want to make a final comment if you're desperate at the end of the working day. After all your e-mails and many conversations. Basically, you sit in your workshops and do your e-mail, and you do your talking at the bar. Maybe we should suggest to the mag that they should think about the IGF, because people come and do e-mails without doing any conversation. Maybe we should ban social media. I might suggest that to get a bit of a livelyer interchange {*}. I think that's about it. Can I ask you in joining me in thanking the panel and their contribution and their debate on this?
>> (Applause)
>> ANDREW: Just to remind you, the next Coalition of Freedom Online is in Mongolia which offers opportunities to meet an incredibly friendly and engaged people, a community that is hungry to be part of these debates and I know they would love to see people there. Keep your eye on www.freedomonlinecoalition.com. We're happy to share our contact details. Please do contact us and we can be in touch with you and whatever issues you want to raise. Thank you very much. I hope you enjoy the rest of the conference. Thank you.
>> (Applause).