Welcome to the United Nations | Department of Economic and Social Affairs

The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in João Pessoa, Brazil, from 10 to 13 November 2015. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the event, but should not be treated as an authoritative record. 




>> SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you for coming.  We still have three minutes remaining and we will go by the clock.  So good afternoon, everyone, and thank you so much for coming.  We are truly delighted to see a full room.  Thank you for your expression of interest in this crucial and very important main session.  It is called Setting the Scene where we have the space for framing key debates.  We look at how and what we have done so far at the IGF.  It looks exciting.  It looks participatory, and it looks inclusive and open.

We have a full room.  Thank you for your interest again.  I'm truly delighted to have with me on this table some distinguished colleagues who have been pioneers of the internet and who have contributed immensely to make it look like what it is.  I am Subi  Chaturvedi, a member of MAG from India, an educationist and activist, and with me I have Ambassador Gross, former coordinator of ICT, Government of U.S.A., State Department, and in his current role.  I'm so glad he is here to help us walk through this session where we will look at the conversations and engage with some of the key teams that make the IGF what it is.  It's been ten years, and this Forum was given an initial five‑year mandate to look at addressing issues at not being repetitive, but look at a platform that could open debates that could bring people together and that could make the Information Society truly meaningful.

This session today looks at where we have come so far, what are the emerging issues today as far as the sub teams are concerned, and how is it that expertise at the IGF can help you negotiate these spaces better.  With those words, I hand the mic over to Ambassador Gross.  And thank you everyone who has made time to be here today.

>> MODERATOR:  I'm going to make very, very brief remarks because we have got a very rich program for you and very little time.  This is a classic IGF dilemma.  There is too much to discuss and not enough time to do it.  I want to particularly welcome you all.  As Subi indicated, this is our Tenth IGF.  I have had the honour of being at all ten in part because I also had the honor of leading the U.S. delegation to both phases of WSIS in 2003 and 2005, and it's from the 2005 WSIS that the IGF was born.  It has exceeded everyone's expectations.  When it was first created, it was very unclear if anyone would be interested in coming to such an event since it's a non‑decision making event.

It's one in which sharing is the primary goal.  I'm particularly pleased that you are here because you already know what the primary theme of this year's IGF is, and I'm sure you all are thinking about various programs that you have seen that are of interest to you because of things you do back at home.  Let me suggest that the value of this program may be to entice you to go to something that you didn't think that you wanted to listen to and to participate in.

I have found over the years that I learn the most by going to those panels and talking to those people who I don't expect to talk to and to listen to and to discuss issues.  That's how I learn.  And I suggest that's how many do.  So with that very brief introduction, Bertrande de La Chapelle, you are going to go first.  We are only going to allow people to speak for two or three minutes to give time for you all in the audience to think of questions that the esteemed panel may be able to help you with.  With that, Bertrande

>> BERTRANDE DE LA CHAPELLE:  Thank you very much, the thread that I'm supposed to address is cybersecurity.  I don't have to set the scene on all of the different topics that you normally put behind cybersecurity.  There are several sessions that will be dealing with this thing.  The thing that I would like to highlight is something that is not present as such in the agenda, but that is actually percolating through the agenda which I would call human security. 

The security on networks is important, cyber wars or any other things that we deal with are very important, but I sense that in the numerous workshops, and I can give you the numbers, there is a thread that connects human security in terms of daily life and issues of freedom of expression in everything that is related from hate speech, harassment, violence against women, and attention that the online platforms that we have all benefited from and we all benefit from, the challenges that they raise now because the abuses on those platforms are infringing on individual security and individual harm.

And we are confronted with very difficult choices on how to combine this with the absolute desire and need to defend freedom of expression.  And I would encourage you to go and look at a certain number of workshops, 151, 159, 125, 196, 98, 158 and 128 on, for instance, blasphemy or dangerous speech online or gender violence and freedom of expression.  When Governments hit like on the war on terror we are in an environment where the restrictions on freedom of expression are now in situations where sometimes they are Egypt mate and sometimes they are used an Anne alibi or show circumstances are used as around alibi.  So I would like to encourage you on the threat of cybersecurity to think about human security and the challenges we have to solve, and this place is an amazing place to discuss issues that we don't necessarily connect with security.  We sometimes talk about cybersecurity and privacy.  Cybersecurity and freedom of expression is already something that is a thread through several workshops.  That's all I wanted to highlight.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you very much, Bertrande de La Chapelle, and I appreciate the brevity of your intervention.  Hossam Elgahmal and Michael, talk about Internet economy, please.

>> HOSSAM ELGAHMAL:  My name is Hossam Elgahmal and I am a MAG member.  I am a board member of AFICTA, so protecting Africa businesses.  I'm one of the leadership team on the ICC basis.  Our session, I'm personally very much fascinated about it, and I hope many of you will be.  I was always dreaming of having such a session relating to Internet and sustainable development.  And especially for Developing Countries this is extremely important.  This is what we are looking for.  Everybody, everything else is to provide infrastructure and bring things together to the developing world, but then how we are going to achieve sustainable development?  What examples did we have?

How can we replicate such examples?  Who can we see in the future mapping the work in Internet development in objectives with the development goals?  Our session is based on a few papers.  One of them is from ISOC, we have Constance with us today who had this paper and we have also articles about the development of divisional divide by the former representative from Sweden.  We have the 2030 agenda for sustainable development, we have business Ericsson information technology key to achieve new and Sustainable Development Goals and many others.

The legislation will be split into three areas.  The first one is talking about division.  Where are we going to in 2013?  How are we going to happen our Internet and ICTs with sustainable development?  And then we are going to talk about examples, practices that took place between different entities.  We have seen things in Africa, very amazing, about using Internet for eLearning, about using Internet for mobile has application that helps fight epidemic diseases, about eHealth, about diagnosing and treatment.

So many cases would be discussed.  And towards the end, we will try to identify ways of moving forward and seeing how IGF would also help in achieving Sustainable Development Goals.  Many diversified participants are coming from intergovernmental.  We have UNESCO, we have WIPO, we have UN/DESA.

>> MODERATOR:  We need to move quickly.  My job is to keep the panel moving here despite the richness of the presentations.  Michael.

>> MICHAEL KENDE:  I'm Michael Kende chief economist with the Internet Society and I will talk briefly about the Internet economy set of workshops.  There is 15 workshops in that set.  So just two seconds of background.  The Internet now in the G20 countries accounts for 5% of the economy of the G20 it's about $5 trillion.  And that's just direct income out of the Internet, but it's also a general purpose technology as we say that impacts all sectors, so just to use one example, today it would have been hard to predict just five years ago the largest taxi company in the world doesn't own taxis and didn't have any drivers.

The largest hotel chain or one of the 1argest doesn't own any real estate.  So impact on all sectors and creating uncertainties about regulation, jobs and a whole host of issues.  So really if I look at the panels and I will run through them briefly, you can divide them into three groups, first the digital divide making sure everybody has access to the economic benefits that the Internet can provide and that the Internet is widely available everywhere.

Secondly, how the Internet is being used, still a significant topic relating to content and other forms of usage, and finally, the broader economic impact.  So on the digital divide there are a couple of panels on infrastructure issues, who is going to pay for it, how is it going to be rolled out?  How is it going to be used efficiently on interset and IXPs and an area growing in importance is local content and data centers to host it as a way of making the Internet relevant for everybody and bringing everyone on line.

Second, in terms of usage, there is sessions on content, copyright, one on copyright, one on intermediate issues.  There is issues around the economic impact of trust, if you don't trust the Internet, stop using it.  That will have issues and one on mobile payments, how people are using their mobiles.

Finally the broader economic impacts, there is one on jobs, actually it took place this morning already, always a key topic, what is the Internet doing to job and income inequality?  There is one on taxation.  If you want to find out what the double Irish Dutch sandwich is, there is a topic with that title and finally is there is one on the trade issues because of the international nature of the Internet and how people can use it across borders.  As an economist I'm glad to see the huge depth and breadth of the topics and hope all of you can take part in one or two of these workshops.

Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you very much.  We are going to go to the inclusiveness and diversity subgrouping.  We have Rahul Gosain Deputy Prime Minister from Afghanistan.

>> RAHUL GOSAIN:   I have been given the subtopic of inclusiveness and diversity.  In broad terms anything in any dimension that can be used to differentiate groups and people from one another.  It means respect for and appreciation of differences in ethnicity, gender, age, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, education, and religion.

Now, anything which brings uniqueness to the table is basically diverse, and it is basically these forces which we need to harness.  We need to harness diverse forces, and that is the precise reason we have diversity and inclusion, both are very important.  So to begin with, I would like to give you a quick overview of the types of sessions that have the subteam impact of Civil Society on Internet governance to enhancing gender participation within the IGF.  There are sessions dealing with newer issues such as zero‑rating and net neutrality, and sessions dealing with issues that have existed since the inception of the IGF, such as the developing world in Internet Governance. 

And finally, there are issues of general applicability such as online participation and specialized issues such as universal applicability of documentary history.  Other topics within the sub teams of inclusiveness and diversity include universal acceptance and open educational resources.

Inclusiveness and diversity are important themes in the developing world and in India, they are key objectives of India.  The Government's flagship project insuring every village has broadband Internet connectivity, a fiberoptic backbone over 3,000 villages.  There are few countries that can match India.  India has already made India's ccTLD operational.  In the first three years it is available which represents over eight languages.  Plans are under way to make it available in six more scripts representing a number of Indian languages.  In addition to ccTLD operations a simultaneous effort is under way to promote local language content.  So inclusiveness and diversity are, therefore, key aspects which we need to be sort of concerned about.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you very much, minister.  Thank you Mr. Ambassador.

>> Good afternoon, a couple of years back I was in one of the Forums and a participant from the Forum put a question that in off line world I know my nationality, but when I am online, then what is my nationality?  Because when we are online, we forget about who is for which country because we belong to one Internet.  Now, the inclusiveness and diversity which one of the sub teams of IGF, I think we have to work for the agenda.  We have to work for this sub team because when we belong to one nation, online nation, then imagine the challenges when we are in offline world in one country and we have the problems and differences in diversities in the area of religion and the way my colleague just mentioned languages, ethnicities.

So what happens when we get into a much more bigger platform? I think the IGF and Forum like this should find mechanisms and answers for that so that we, everyone, enjoy this one nation, and be not, there should be no differences.  That is one of the questions that IGF or platforms like IGF or NETmundial should find answers for and the policies should be put together in a manner that we should be able to take care of all of those who are part of this nation.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you very much, minister.  Our next topic is openness and no one is better qualified to talk about openness or virtually any of the other topics than Vint Cerf.

>> VINT CERF:  Let me start out by observing almost every session in this IGF has some element of openness associated with it.  The Internet starts out with an open network layered architecture.  It's open to changes in its protocols, open to changes in the underlying transmission technology and certainly open to the variety of applications that can be placed on top of that infrastructure.  It's also made use of an open standards development process.  Anyone is allowed to show up and participate.  You can't even join the Internet engineering council.  All you can do is show up.  And if your ideas are considered worthy, then people will follow them, otherwise they won't.

It's also open to access to all of its resources.  It's intended to be an end‑to‑end platform that allows anyone to get from one place to another in the net.  It's made use of transparent and multi‑stakeholder policy development and I think that's a fundamental aspect of the Internet success so far.  It's given the freedom for people to invent, implement and operate any piece of the Internet.  We call this permissionless innovation and it's certainly made a big difference.

This comment about languages, there are two things going on here, one is support for all languages or most of them anyway using unicode in both the domain system and then Worldwide Web in general, but then to get back to the oneness of all of this, companies like Google and others are getting better and better at translating from one language to another, to at least help us feel like we are part of a common environment.  So, Mr. Ambassador, I will stop there and say that open is worth preserving.

>> MODERATOR:  Well, words to live by.  Thank you very much, Vint.  We will talk about enhancing multi‑stakeholder cooperation, we have Peter Major and we owe a great debt of gratitude as Chair of the United Nations CSTD he has helped shepherd the importance in multi‑ lateral institutions of the multi‑stakeholder process.  Peter.

>> PETER MAJOR:  Thank you Ambassador.  I'm not going to talk in detail about the CSTD.  I just want to since this is a Setting the Scene session and I think there are?  Newcomers.  So basically I would like to talk about what has been already set, that is the multi‑stakeholder attendance of this event of the IGF, the kind of ‑‑ we take it for granted that Governments, representatives, business, Civil Society, technical community academia and international organizations are attending or participating in this meeting, and basically when I first came to the IGF, I was really surprised that there was no difference.

You can go to anyone and you can start a conversation with anyone.  So it's really exciting.  So IGF is a very good example of the multi‑stakeholder participation.  Now, how we can improve or enhance the cooperation between the layers.  My advice to you is to participate in as many sessions as you can, and engage in discussions.  And if you don't, don't feel shy, first of all.  Ask questions, and your questions will be answered.  There are no stupid questions.

Get engaged in discussions and lastly, you should also think about the future how you can contribute in this very, very exciting environment.  So just a few words about the multi‑stakeholder approach in the UN environment, Ambassador was referring to Working Groups I have been Chairing.  We tried to eliminate the differences, and that is all of the participants were treated on equal footing in the Working Groups, and it is very difficult, of course, but it's doable.  So what I hope that this will have some kind of impact on the whole system.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:   Thank you very much, we are now going to turn to Internet and Human Rights one of the core issues for all of us here at the IGF.  Patrick and Sonia?

>> Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador Human Rights online have become a key aspect of Internet Governance.  It is also becoming one of the most urgent aspects considering that many Governments are moving rapidly to limit free expression on the Internet.  Their right to privacy as well as the right to assembly and their right for association on line.  Just to give you some baseline data, according to research done by freedom house, the organization that I work for, over 60% of all Internet users live in countries where criticism of the Government, of military or ruling family has been subject to censorship.

Another statistic over 58% of Internet users live in countries where bloggers or ICT users were jailed for sharing content on political, social and religious issues and over 45% live in countries that are posting satirical videos or cartoons meant to make fun of social conditions in a country can result in censorship or jail time.  These numbers have been growing from year to year reflecting the urgency of discussing the situation on a global scale.

As such freedom of expression on line will be one of the key issues brought up in the next few days.  Another important aspect that will be discussed is the right to privacy in the face of growing surveillance.  In the post node Snowden environment, instead of oozing it as a learning moment, it seems many Governments both democratic and non‑democratic have instead moved to both increase their surveillance authority through new legal measures, obtain new equipment that would make that surveillance possible.  In fact, when you look at 65 countries that freedom house recently audited in terms of Internet freedom, about half of them have passed new laws increasing surveillance over the past three years.

Another aspect of the surveillance debate will deal with questions of encryption.  In a landmark report released in May of this year, UN Rapporteur David Kaye outlined how encryption and anonymity are secure to the right to privacy.  He emphasized that any restructuring must be narrowly tailored to achieve legitimate aims.  Unfortunately Governments around the world have moved to limit encryption and undermine anonymity for all Internet users.

>> SUBI CHATURVEDI:  We want to keep time for questions and interventions from the floor.

>> PATRICK:  Over lunch we had a discussion with people representing academia and they said aren't we focusing on too much on Human Rights issue, as the Tunis Agenda has too much been said about Human Rights and aren't we progressing all together in this direction that freedom of expression and other Human Rights issues are being protected on line as they are off line.  I must say that I slightly disagree.

I come from a different background, Council of Europe, a multilateral organization which has a strong multi‑stakeholder background as well and in policy development, we find that extremely important, but what we see, when we say we speak too much about Human Rights maybe we need to make it more clear what we understand.  Have we progressed in terms of available accessible affordable Internet?  Have we done away with restrictions on Internet content?  By states or by private companies.  Have we done away with blocking filtering of Internet content?  Have we done away with flocking access to use of social media?  Or blanket blockage of social media?  Have we done away with control by Internet intermediaries on the users on the end users?  I don't think so.

I think the issue of Human Rights especially for the Council of Europe, multi-lateral intergovernmental organization remains crucial.  And I think the issues that are going to be debated on mass surveillance, privacy issues, date to protection, journalistic free come, free speech, freedom of expression, they are all crucial to us.  I think it's not up to the journalists and those that want to express themselves to defend themselves.  It's up to this community to stand up and create the basis for this.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  I would note that gender is I particularly important issue that is underlying many of the sessions here and that's something that's really come to the foremost frequently.  Critical Internet resources, Byron and Paul.  Paul, Byron looks to you.

>>BYRON HOLLAND:   I will get going while you figure it out.  I will jump in and prove the redundancy of this whole environment.  Thanks for the opportunity to speak here today.  This is my eighth IGF, which still seems amazing to say that, but I thought there was an interesting parallel.  The first time I went to an IGF in Hyderabad and had the opportunity to speak on a panel it was on critical Internet resources, sort of book ended over the ten‑year life span of the IGF.  And I find it particularly interesting because at that time when we talked about critical Internet resources that term came loaded with all kinds of meaning.

And as we progressed over those ten years, I would say it has evolved over time, and in particular, for those of us from the operating community, and I, I'm part of the country code operators' community and run dot CA for Canada.  What we think of in terms of critical Internet resources might be slightly different than what gets bandied about in the halls of UN environments, but they are certainly related.  And I would take the opportunity to raise a couple here today.

One is with regard to the IANA oversight transition process that ICANN has been shepherding and also the ICANN accountability process that's related to t when we think about critical Internet resources and we think about the name space and the number space which Paul can talk about more in a moment, those are the types of critical Internet resources where there was concern about how they were being administered and who had oversight to administer them.  And part of what we have been doing in the ICANN space is to truly internationalize the administration and coordination of that.  We are in the very, very short strokes right now of actually fulfilling the goals and desires of the broader community to do exactly that.  The IANA transition proposal is already out there and done.

The ICANN accountability proposal will be with us shortly and hopefully at that time we will truly internationalize those critical resources.  The other area I would bring to your attention ‑‑ by the way, there are a couple of sessions on the 163 and 72 for those of you who have not been buried in all things IANA.  That's where you can catch up quickly.  The other piece of critical Internet resource that I think about as an operator is Internet exchange points and how these simple low cost member community‑based entities can make a massive difference to the Internet in everybody's country, region, locality, by dramatically improving the performance, redundancy, resiliency, bringing content local, and also capacity building as you get the local community members to drive the Internet exchange points and whether it's a developing nation or a developed nation, we all have stories and benefits we can bring to the other party around Internet exchange points.

There are a couple of really interesting sessions there, and, of course, I'm highly conflicted because I'm Chairing one of them but 171 tomorrow and 201 on Friday will be both very interesting sessions around all things Internet exchange point.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Paul.

>> PAUL WILSON:  Paul Wilson from IP net, member of the Critical Internet Resources community.  I will keep them both ready.  Yes, so I'm talking about CIS but from a numbering perspective naturally.  I recently worked with a colleague on a chapter of Bill Drake's book The Information Revolution which is in production marking the tenth anniversary of WSIS it will be released soon.  But in our chapter we took a look at the evolution of discussions of (Speaking off microphone).  I will keep my finger on it.

In the chapter that we have written, we tracked evolution of Critical Internet Resources across the first nine IGFs and I think having done that work it's really clear to us that nowhere in the IGF actually so far has the IGF proven its value more than in this area of critical Internet resource you because the handling of CIRs has demonstrated clearly is that what's most critical about the Internet should be and can be understood through the IGF by all stakeholders who have a genuine interest.  It's a whole chapter.  I won't go into detail, but what we will do is show that as Byron said through the first IGFs the CIRs were a focus of fierce debate.

There were a range of issues, a range of contingency issues including in particularly the role of Governments one or many in the administration of CIRs, and the IGF really served to raise issues and debates and I think in the first few years to really clear the air.  So as the IGF continued from then up to Istanbul, the discussions on CIRs were approached at a much more practical level, main sessions, hundreds of workshops touching on CIR issues, but the discussions really focused much more on information sharing on mutual education between the technical and non‑technical communities covering a huge diversity of interest under the CIR banner, Top Level Domains and Internationalized Domain Names, the exhaustion of IPv4 and the case for IPv6 and the realities of the IPv6 transition, the role of IXPs, the role of various organization organizations, ICANN and others, very practical issues and here it's go to see we have a best practices main session on IPv6 which is an important thing, but it's taking a practical approach.  Even the discussions about the IANA transition are being addressed at a very informative, a very constructive and hopeful level, not as you might expect with some kind of political football frankly.  So I think it's that progression shows that CIRs under are have been success 245CIRs are plenty critical there is pleasant to discuss but they don't get the same heat and controversy, IGF has succeeded in overcoming differences.  I hope in other areas too IGF is providing a safe place where difficult discussions can be held and an open minded approach can prevail and we can all gain from that.

Just finally wanted to mention one thing which is that in the research of this chapter, we made great us of the friends of the IGF website, which is a fantastic archive of basically everything that's happened across the IGF sessions, so that has been really vital to us in that research, and I think as IGF continues that the approach that was taken there, I hope that it flourishes and becomes a critical and resource for all of us.


>> MODERATOR:  Thank you Paul for using your finger so effectively to keep the microphone on and it shows openness and inclusivity.  For the friends of IGF for those of you that don't know, on the website they have maybe not all, but virtually, transcripts of virtually all of the major sessions of the nine previous IGFs.  We are going to go to emerging issues now, Mark.

>> I'm here today representing Paul Mitchell from Microsoft.  I think many of you know him.  He has 20 send his regrets, he won't be in until tomorrow.  And so I am going to limit my comments here about emerging issues to the ones that I am most directly involved with.  For example, the universal acceptance of Internationalized Domain Names and email names.  This is an example where we have always had a chicken and egg situation where the market force is to drive this?  Where are the Government regulations to drive this?  And this is an example where never let a good crisis go to waste.  ICANN has been creating Top Level Domains and they were having trouble getting software to work with them.

And they building on that marketing incentive we were able to pile on support for IDNs and from IDNs to internationalized email addresses.  And we have many research that indicates at least in the Middle East, that having native languages leads to more hosting in country, more hosting in country leads more to content created in country and in language.

So that's an emerging issue that I would be involved with.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you very much, Mark.  Lastly before we go to the Q and A, do be prepared to go to microphones in a few moments.  Constance, can you talk to us about intersessional work here at IGF?

>> CONSTANCE BOMMELEAR:  Yes, thank you very much, I'm Constance Bommelear from the Internet Society.  Intersessional work perhaps in clearer terms, I would say that the main session is called connecting the next billion.  It will be held tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. in the main hall.  And during that session, we will gather the leaders who have been working on intersessional work, so just to take a step back, but there has been a call, a consensus from the international community saying that the IGF should evolve and produce more tangible outputs, non‑binding outputs, but it should evolve from being simply a talk shop where people can connect, but certainly there was appetite to see the IGF evolve towards more tangible outlets.

So the MAG, the multi‑stakeholder advisory group decided to launch a few tracks of intersessional work, you perhaps have heard of dynamic coalitions.  I will talk about the two other tracks and Best Practice Forums.  And another track called the policy options for connecting the next billion.  This year, experts have gathered, worked through webinars, Conference calls and in a very bottom up multi‑stakeholder fashion have identified issues that they wanted to tackle with the hope that ahead of the IGF this week, they would have some best practices to share and to present with the community of IGF stakeholder.

So in this regard, we have six best practices Forums this week.  How to strengthen multi‑stakeholder participation mechanisms, mitigating spam, establishing C CERTs, countering abuse against women on line, creating an enabling environment for IPv6 and another one that was held this morning, very successful, how to create enabling environments for the establishment of IXPs.  These Best Practice Forums documents have been shared during 90 minute sessions and tomorrow will be presented by their expert leaders and connecting the result with the overall goal of connecting the next billion, explaining why it is critical to have IPv6 to connect the next billion and so on, so forth for the different themes.

The other one I mentioned, IGF policy options for connecting the next billion, this was an initiative initially launched by business.  Business gathered and said proposed to the MAG to have this work stream on how to collect, propose, compare and offer to the community a set of policy options that stakeholders, Governments could then inspire themselves from and this draft output document, policy options For Connecting the Next Billion will be presented tomorrow at2:00 p.m. in the main hall, you are all invited to participate.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you very much, Constance.  The microphones are now open for questions, comments and the like.  But when you come up, please introduce yourself so people know who you are no matter how well you are known.  Thank you.

>> TONY HARRIS:   My name is Tony Harris.  I'm speaking for the Argentina Internet Association.  I may have missed something, but I don't seem to have heard anything about Internet of Things.  I mention this because we have a task force set up in Argentina.  This is something that intersects with the need for IPv6 deployment and we are concerned at the lack of readiness in our own market and since this intersects with Civil Society and everybody else, I mean, when you think of everything that Internet of Things is going to touch in people's lives, I just wondered if this is on the agenda and I may have missed it in which case I apologize.

>> MODERATOR:  I will open it up for comments.  I think actually I have not been in a session that hasn't mentioned the Internet of Things so far, but nevertheless I open it up for those who would like to talk about it.

>> VINT CERF:  Tony, you are absolutely right, at Google we have a great interest in that space and many others do as well.  My biggest concerns have to do with safety and security and privacy as those devices are entered into our environment, a great deal of attention is needed also to deal with scaling.  Imagine trying to configure hundreds of those things that occupy the house, the car, the office, and maybe things on your person.  There is a huge amount of work to be done, and to make matters more complicated, we don't yet have common standards for most of those devices.

So there is going to be a chaotic evolution over the next decade until things set will down and ‑‑ settle down and there is common agreement so there is still an enormous amount of work to be done.

>> MODERATOR:  Paul?

>> PAUL WILSON;  Just a quick note there is a dynamic coalition on Internet of Things which is active now, and that is, I think high level vote of importance on that particular topic, so if you web search dynamic coalition Internet of Things you will find the links easily in the IGF proceedings.  Thanks.

>> RAHUL GOSAIN:  The IoT will go a long way in expanding the chances of inclusion for people with disabilities so that is, again, one compelling sort of argument in favor with which we need to pursue it with all of the vigorousness that it deserves.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  There is a panel I'm being told.

>> BERTRANDE DE LA CHAPELLE:  It's workshop 32 exactly on that topic tomorrow at 9:00 in this very room actually.

>> MODERATOR:  Before we go to the next question, let me also note what Tony talked about one of the things I have found to be rich and compelling about the IGF is if you have issues that you don't see reflected in the limited agenda of the IGF, you are free to raise them in the sessions that are, could be potentially relevant to that and set the stage for the next year when that will probably blossom into something on its own.  Please.

>> BERTRANDE DE LA CHAPELLE:  And actually the dynamic coalition on the Internet of Things will have its session in workshop room 3 on Thursday starting at 9:00.

>> AUDIENCE:  My name is Walter Novis I will be speaking in private capacity to avoid complications.  At Friday9:00 we do Internet of Things and the ethical choices that we are faced with.  That was my original comment that I wanted to make that listening to what has been presented now our topics that we are discussing for years, and at this point in time in 2015 I think we are facing a totally new world, a world that perhaps we can't even comprehend what's going to happen to us with the computational power that is being created at this moment will be created in the next few years plus the devices coming at us and that means that probably we will have a very limited opportunity of time to discuss this from a policy point of view or perhaps a law point of view or a regulation point of view and the way that we humans want to interact with those devices.

That's the topic that I hadn't heard here to be honest and let me say that as a private person I'm a little bit disappointed that we have, of course, a lot of important topics, but they are more or less backward facing instead of forward facing, and that may be something that if the IGF goes to Mexico next year, that will have to be taken into account and bring people together on topics that is really going to change our lives probably forever.

>> SUBI CHATURVEDI:   We open the floor for questions and comments.  Please feel free to take to the microphone.

>> REMOTE MODERATOR:  Thank you, Chair.  We have a remote participation, Mr. Bonif from India.  He asked for Mr. Bertrande de La Chapelle, first, how did he see discussion on human security being infused into conversations at the highest levels especially in multilaterals like WSIS ‑‑ just a second.  It's projected.  Countries see the ideas he mentioned as opposite.  Second, aren't issues of individual rights and states, individual freedom reflected of large institutional issues being projected?  How does he envision ICTs online platforms as a way of responding to these challenges?  Thank you, Chair.

>> MODERATOR:  Bertrande de La Chapelle.

>> BERTRANDE DE LA CHAPELLE:  The objective in this session is it to Ohio light ‑‑ it's a long answer.  What I want to highlight is something that what Paul and Byron have said regarding the evolution of the perception of Critical Internet Resources.  I wholeheartedly endorse what they said regarding the fact that this very wording has changed in perception across the ten years and that's one of the main objectives and results of the IGF to basically frame and make the framing of the topics evolve in the course of time.

As the saying goes it's more of a question of seeing the movie than seeing the picture.  It looks like things don't move, but if you look at the ten‑year span, things do move.  What I just wanted to highlight here is the fact that we see the convergence of a certain number of issues that connect Human Rights and freedom of expression, but they also connect the personal security and trust of people when you are potentially harmed and you feel without recourse across borders on something that has happened through platforms, and that this is an element of sort of human security that is a dimension that I emerging very strongly this year in the threads maybe because of the environment, because of the terrorism and so on, but, yes, these are moments where there is indeed attention ten freedom of expression, the protection of individuals and the notion of security in general, and this is an ideal place to do this.  I just wanted to highlight the thread.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you very much, Patrick, we can hear the rumblings of the opening statement.  It will complete after we end our session.

>> Just on the forward looking, I think it's important that we also keep in mind in all of the sessions what the future perspectives are, and, for example, when we will organize the Council of Europe Open Forum, we were looking to what are remedies when Human Rights on the Internet are being abused?  What do we do in the future with this?  And, therefore, we invited Mr. Mark Schrems who will come to the Open Forum of the Council of Europe to basically say what have the decisions, well, what do we try to achieve, what have we achieved, and what needs to be done for the future?

>> MODERATOR:  Very good.  Next question.

>> AUDIENCE:  My name is Omar Ansari I'm on entrepreneur based in could bull Afghanistan.  We have some basic problems, basic requirements.  The three things which are our problems are the price of connectivity in Afghanistan.  The price of Internet in Japan is less than a dollar for one MBPS connection.  It is 300U.S. dollars Afghanistan.  Now, you compare affordability, level of affordability of people in Japan, and then, which is a developed country, and then the level of affordability of people in a least developed country.

This, I think, is one of the major challenges that needs to be addressed and it should be on the agenda all of the time.  We know people are going and the companies, they are going to India to connect the next billion, and you would see like Facebook is there, India would invite moody to their headquarters,, but they have never thought about Afghanistan we didn't see anything related to Afghanistan another least developed country on the agenda for Internet dot work or the line program or some other similar initiatives.  So my request would be adding Afghanistan.  In countries similar to Afghanistan into your agendas, because Internet as we say it's not a luxury no more.

But in Afghanistan it is.  We would like that to be treated as a right.

>> SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Point well taken, thanks so much, we want to make sure we get to hear more voices from the floor and I can't agree more with you, access has to remain and is the key issue for connectivity.  Both affordability of data and devices.  Anymore interventions from the floor?

>> MODERATOR:  Seeing none, let me thank everyone for attending this.  I know people are anxious to get across the hall to the opening ceremony so they can get a good seat, and we want to make sure you are not disadvantaged.  Janis a few closing remarks so you feel like you have participated.

>>   JANIS KARKLINS: You are like a servant in the restaurant, always looking in the wrong direction ‑‑ no, sorry.

>> MODERATOR:  It's my training.

>> JANIS KARKLINS: No, I just wanted to react to comments that the perception is changing.  Actually it's not because things are changing in the real world, and as a result these changes in the real world, evolution of Internet Governance environment is fully reflected also in the dynamic within IGF and IGF is always since this is a bottom up process, IGF always will reflect the prevailing feeling of Internet community at a given moment in time, and that is, we see the difference in attitude, for instance, towards Critical Internet Resources.  It was indeed very heated, but for a reason.

Things evolved, and I remember, I think it was a third or fourth IGF meeting where the main session on CIR was the most boring because everyone fell asleep because it was not anymore the pressing issue at that time and then suddenly came certain revelations and it become again very topical issue because everyone understood that something was missing in this discourse.  So as a result, we always have the dynamic which reflects the evolution and current state on Internet Governance environment in the world.

Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you very much.  With those ‑‑ we have one more question here.

>> AUDIENCE:  Actually I would highlight likewise in India we launched eight IDNs likewise, and we are planning to launch other IDNs in other local languages.  But what I'm afraid of like because dot come, dot net and others are having a good market and they are having good money also, what strategies and it should be a part of IGF proper that there should be a session or something in future like that we have to plan some kind of a strategies so that newcomers or new people who try to build up in the furtherment of local content, we can contribute in this also.

>> RAHUL GOSAIN:  The point he is trying to make is the newcomer should not be disadvantaged.

>> MODERATOR:  Let me encourage everyone to reach out to MAG members and others who are participating in the formulation to help them because there is often searching for those new issues to find out what audience may be interested in it.

>> And please come to session 139, workshop 139 on Thursday to talk about universal acceptance.

>> SUBI CHATURVEDI:  That's a nice plug.  Thank you, Mark.  I do want to go back for a second.  You spoke to the question of openness and with that there is permissionless innovation.  There still exists confusion about the term if you could briefly address that?

>> VINT CERF:  Permissionless innovation is a basic notion, if you wanted to build a new application, you could just do it.  You didn't have to get permission from anyone.  You didn't have to sign an agreement with every ISP in the world, you just put that system up.  That openness and that freedom is vital to the Internet's continued utility.

>> MODERATOR:  Let me close the session on two notes, one to thank Subi for having organized this.  This doesn't come easy.  She is the one who got everyone here including you all.  We owe her a great round of applause, I think.


>> SUBI CHATURVEDI:  I can't thank you, Ambassador Gross, enough, if it hadn't been for him and all of you the session wouldn't be possible.

>> MODERATOR:  We are doing something here that is very un‑IGF, we are ending exactly on time.  Thank you.

(Concluded at 1500).