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. 

 

***

 

 

>> HANANE BOUJEMI:  Good morning, everyone.  Welcome to the organizing session of the Internet Rights and Principles Coalition. 

My name is Hanane Boujemi, and I'll be kind of moderating this session a little bit.

We'll have discussions on different points. 

We have three main points to discuss.  The first one would be the launch of the Brazilian or Portuguese translation of the IRPC charter. 

And to brief us on the work that is being done along the year to complete the job of translation, we have Mr. Sergio Branco from ITS.  And we have Marianne Franklin who is a member of the steering committee of the coalition, and we also have here Carlos Affonso.

Welcome, everyone.  We'll kick off immediately with the Portuguese translation of the charter.

So if you may lead us into the process of doing this work and what did it involve.  I'm sure it was not only about the translation.  It's a much bigger project because we've gone through it before doing different languages for the charter.

So I'll give you the floor to tell us more about what happened. 

>> SERGIO BRANCO:  Okay. 

Well, thank you very much for coming. 

Thank you again, Marianne.  It's always a pleasure to be sitting here next to you.  And thank you especially for inviting us for this project of translating the charter and launching the Brazilian Portuguese version of the charter. 

When I was with Marianne in Paris in the beginning of the year in UNESCO, she showed me the charter; and I thought it was a fantastic project.

And when she invited us to join the project and translate, I was extremely happy to help with such an extraordinary document.

But I never thought I would have to go through so many challenging issues before having the charter printed here which is a reason for great pride for all of us. 

And the first difficult issue was, in fact, thinking of the best Portuguese name for the charter because charter is a word that could be translated into different words in Portuguese.  Carta, which is the word we ended up choosing is, of course, the best option; but we had some other options to consider, and it took us quite a few days discussing.  And I never thought it would ‑‑ the first difficult issue would be the title itself. 

You can imagine after the title how many other problems we had. 

After translating ‑‑ we had a group of people helping, but Gabriel who works with us was the main person responsible for the translation.  He made the first version ‑‑ he translated from the English into Portuguese.  And after he translated and we started revising ‑‑ and this is something interesting to tell you because it does not relate to law, but it relates to linguistics.

After he translated and we started revising, we realized that we should have translated the charter not from the English but from the Spanish, because we in Brazil ‑‑ I don't know how well you know how we in Brazil deal with foreign languages, but everybody studies English.  Nobody studies Spanish because we think Spanish is so similar to Portuguese so we don't have to study.  And that makes us make terrible mistakes when we speak Spanish because, of course, we can't speak Spanish properly. 

But the fact is that Spanish ‑‑ and then when we have to translate a document, if you ask me, I will always say give me the document in English because English is a language I know.  And don't give me the document in Spanish because I've never learned Spanish. 

But when it is a matter of translating a written document, it would have been much easier to translate from Spanish because the structure of the language is much more similar.

And the Spanish translation is incredibly good. 

So we could have saved many hours of work if we had started the work from the Spanish version instead of the English version. 

The end of this story is that when I had to revise, I had to work with the three documents instead of two, because I had to work with the English version and then the Portuguese version.  And then the Spanish version whenever I had a serious problem of structure of even to choose the best word to use here. 

Another something I wanted to share with you was that we had to make a difficult decision.  That was if we should translate the names of the international treaties or if we should keep the name in English. 

And what we decided to do is in the ‑‑ after the index of the content of the charter, we ‑‑ in the preamble, we decided to use only the letters that show what the treaty refers ‑‑ the initials of the treaties.  We decided to use it as ‑‑ the English version.  And we translated only the full name of the treaty. 

But every time we mentioned the treaty, we used these ‑‑ the English short version of the name because we thought it would be more universal. 

And something also related to that is that Portuguese is a language spoken both in Brazil and in Portugal and, of course, in many other countries like Angola and Mozambique and Cape Verde.  But we have different words for ‑‑ and we write some words differently. 

And it was also something very interesting because when we were discussing with the Portuguese group the name of Internet Rights and Principles Coalition was also a problem. 

You see, we had problems with the titles and the name of the organization so it was tough.

Because coalition in Brazilian Portuguese is coalizone (spelled phonetically), and this is a word that the Portuguese Portuguese do not use. 

Every time I tried to find the word that they use in Google, Google told me it did not exist, probably because I was in Brazil. 

And also because of that, because we wanted to keep the same version in Brazilian Portuguese in Portuguese Portuguese, we decided to use the short names for treaties in English because it would become more universal. 

In Brazil, in Portugal or any other Portuguese‑speaking country, because perhaps in Angola or Mozambique or Cape Verde, the names of the treaties ‑‑ the short names of the treaties are perhaps different from the Brazilian ones. 

So I don't want to take much more time on that because these were the basic issues I'd like to share with you and the challenges we had to face when translating the charter.

>> HANANE BOUJEMI:  Yes, I relate to what you mentioned about the disparity between languages because I worked on the Arabic translation.  And when I was doing the review, I made a lot of changes as well to be more compatible with the legal jargon, so saying I relate to it. 

But you spoke about the challenges of translating work that has been done in foreign language.  But maybe it would be good if you could highlight the added value of the charter in terms of content, like why were you so interested in taking this work to Brazil.  Because we have so many languages and we manage to outreach millions of people because major languages have been used for this charter.  And regional jargon, for example, we worked on the principles in my program; and we managed to get people from really remote areas translating the principles into their local languages.

So the level of outreach we have is quite high; but what motivated you to be interested in the charter, and what do you think the added value is? 

>> SERGIO BRANCO:  Well, this is absolutely fantastic to have this charter not only in Portuguese but in any possible language we could have it translated into.  Because in Brazil, we have, as you know, the Marco da Civil, the Internet, our bill of rights; but it's local of course.  It's a Brazilian law, and it's a Brazilian law that's full of principles. 

In the last years ‑‑ in recent years, it's been a characteristic of Brazilian legislation to have principles.  Because when we have principles, we can make the laws last more because it becomes more flexible to be interpreted by judges in the future. 

If we have less principles, it's much more strict; and it gets old faster. 

That's why I think that the contemporary way of drafting and discussing laws are closely related to laws based on principles. 

And that's why I think this is so extremely important, because this charter has exactly the value of the principles.  And principles are flexible.  They are universal.  They can be understood ‑‑ one of the greatest achievements of the charter in my opinion is that when I read it for the first time in the English version, I not only could understand every little sentence that was there as I ‑‑ I could understand that people would very easily understand and apply what is written in the charter. 

Its value is it's university ‑‑ universally.

And the way ‑‑ it doesn't matter in which language it is written.  Whatever language it is, it can be applicable to any country with any kind of law this country has no matter what the law says, no matter what Marco da Civil says, it's fully and completely compatible with the charter.

So that's what I think is the greatest importance of this document, because it's for everyone, for every country, in every language. 

>> HANANE BOUJEMI:  Thank you.  We happen to have somebody who is involved very deeply in the Marco da Civil process and maybe we'll be really ‑‑ and also a member of the IRPC coalition for a long time now, and I think you're well positioned to give us like here in the middle between the charter and Marco da Civil, it would be good to mention briefly you know, the crossing point and where we have some level of consensus at the level of principles.

>> CARLOS AFFONSO:  Thanks.  I'll be brief. 

I think it's really important to highlight here one point that connects the charter with the Brazil Internet bill of rights, the Marco da Civil.  Every time we go out to speak on the Marco da Civil, especially on the history, the charter is always there.  The work that has been done by this coalition that right now is called Internet Rights and Principles.  Back in my days, it used to be called Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition.  So you see that I'm old.

But one thing that is really interesting here is to say that we all the time make reference to the charter as the international root of the Marco da Civil. 

Because the whole discussion we had in Brazil on the Marco da Civil, it begins for real in 2007.  And that's the same year that Brazil hosted the IGF back in Rio. 

So we have here in 2007 two issues coming along.

On one hand, you start to have the campaigning that was organized by civil society against criminal bill of law that it was being discussed in the national congress that would end up creating a lot of sanctions in the way in which some very ‑‑ like I'll say like daily unusual, trivial conducts that we end up conducting online would be criminalized. 

So to fight against this bill of law at the time, the idea of a Marco da Civil came along.  But it definitely ended up strengthening by the single fact that there was at the time at the IGF this so‑called Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition. 

And I have to say that 2007 was a really important year for the IGF in this discussion because Brazil and Italy end up signing a joint statement, a joint agreement around the idea of creating an Internet bill of rights. 

I was there at the time, and it was interesting to see how fundamental it was to have someone from Italy, especially Professor Stefano Rodota who was here a while ago.

Professor Rodota was really, really giving out great speeches about the importance of having an Internet bill of rights at the time.

Another Italian politicians and authors at the time, they were really enthusiastic about it.  I recall the activities of Fiorello Cortiana.  In the IGF, in 2007, there was really pro the idea of the Internet bill of rights.  And at the same time, we had in Brazil, in 2007, Gilberto Gil as the Minister of Culture. 

So we had this very interesting coincidence of having those two forces coming along towards having an Internet bill of rights for the whole world.  And that's the idea of the charter.

And at the same time, on the national level, it's interesting to see that in this IGF, we celebrate the work that has been done by both countries. 

So for us, it's almost like a celebration to have the IGF back in Brazil in 2015.  And if you look at the work that has been done since 2007, both countries have delivered their specific texts, with the differences, of course.  The Marco da Civil, the Brazilian Internet bill of rights, is a federal law, different from the nature of the Italian declaration on Internet rights. 

But it's interesting to see that both countries have done their specific homework.  And the charter served as not only an inspiration because back in 2007, there was no charter.  But there was the idea of creating a charter. 

But every time we talk about how the Marco da Civil was conceived as an idea, as something that could be created not only out of the blue but through a discussion that happens every single year in international conference and gatherings such as the IGF, I believe this is one of the products ‑‑ if I may use this corporate language ‑‑ of the IGF that shows how IGF may end up leading to results that sometimes you have some hard time tracking back to the IGF. 

But I could say that we only have a Marco da Civil in Brazil because the IGF has given the opportunity for people to meet once a year at the time and creating progress throughout the annual meetings that end up leading to this kind of result.

So this is something for us not to take for granted because sometimes the IGF has been criticized by the fact that, oh, it's only a meeting place where people travel around the world and they meet and they have coffee and drinks, and they go back to their own respective countries. 

And I believe the charter itself is a result that that's not the case.  And we can even trace back to the countries such as Brazil, such as Italy. 

>> HANANE BOUJEMI:  Thank you, Carlos.  You made very good points about, first of all, the value of the IGF as a forum and how it helped Brazil transition from a situation where you had the potential of approving cybercrime law which was not in line with human rights standards to now we're coming back to Brazil to see the result.

And, of course, I think as a coalition, we're very humbled that you were inspired about the work that was done then.  And you mentioned Italy as well.  Funnily enough, in parallel, they were also inspired by the charter to do work on those aspects.

So, yes, I would like to support what you said about the role of the IGF.  It took us really a long time to end up here, to have this kind of outcomes. 

It's like ten‑year process, and it's a long‑term process which requires people to be a little bit more patient.  And it's difficult, you know, to find your way when you come here the first time.  But when you come the second time, then you start understanding the value of meeting people from all around the world who happen to have expertise that will help you advance any field.  And IG is quite wild, but if you're interested in human rights, you'll be able to take best practices, lessons learned, apply them at the local level as you see fit. 

But, of course, you need a lot of engagement and you need to get a lot of people on board so you can take things forward.  So thank you for the contribution.  It's really very valuable and very valid. 

And Marianne I think she's very well positioned to speak a little more about the influence of the charter at the global level and how it is being credited in major policy decision circles. 

So Marianne, I'll give the floor to you to brief us because myself I'm not up to date.  But she's quite on the dot. 

>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN:  Well, there will be more updates in the next two parts of the meeting. 

I just wanted to extend the points about the translation exercises. 

I have here five booklets.  We have, of course, our beautiful new Brazilian edition.  We have the original English edition which is now in its fourth edition which means the personnel has been updated.  So we've had four printings of the English edition alone, with new endorsements on the back.

We have the Turkish edition here.  We have the Arabic edition, thanks to Hanane's work.  And we have at the end the first version of the Spanish edition without which ‑‑ just to show that connection. 

We also have Mandarin translated.  Not yet in booklet form because it requires funding.  It's a lot more complex formatting to do there.  And we have ‑‑ again, thanks to Hanane's program ‑‑ Farsi. 

So we have in fact ‑‑ the charter is now in editions where millions of people can access it in their own language. 

I know we're in the U.N., and we really need a French edition.  There is someone currently working on it.  But never mind. 

The point about each edition is there are similar stories to the one that Sergio has just talked about.  Issues in translation, lost or gained in translation.  Issues around how to convey U.N. documents appropriately.  Lots of arguments about what a reference list should look like, particularly in the German edition because our German colleagues were all lawyers, and things like commas and dots were very important.

So there's a high standard with each edition in the level of production and translation. 

And, again, the Turkish edition, they got a professional translator in and then discovered it was something you need to do yourself because it is as meaning making exercise. 

So each of the translations we're tremendously proud of because a group has sat down and worked it out together.

The Mandarin edition was done in a situation which was not easy for the translating team so I'd like to acknowledge their efforts. 

It is currently in a text‑only version, as in the Farsi version.

And we also had a promise of a Nepalese version just before the earthquake hit.  I'm happy to say the out contact appears to have come out of that okay; however, he's looking for funding.  So if a funder is in the room and would like to support the translation and production of the Nepalese, the Farsi, and the Mandarin editions please come and see us afterwards.

We're tremendously proud of this implementation and outreach effort on the part of people far away.  You are absolutely brilliant. 

So that's the part about the translation I wanted to add to this part of the meeting.  Thanks, Hanane. 

>> HANANE BOUJEMI:  Yes, great.  But the impact of the charter on different processes, if you want to brief us on the Italian case, on New Zealand since you're from there.

>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN:  Okay.  Just to outline briefly, we have a full overview on our website up there.  So you can have a look. 

We've seen the charter reach political processes in parts of the world we least expected because they're far removed from the European center or the other centers we live.  The New Zealand Green Party used the charter similarly to the Brazilian situation.  They wanted an authoritative document to refer to when they put together their own declaration of rights and freedoms for the Internet.  So the charter has been directly cited there as an inspirational source. 

The Italian declaration that has just come out has acknowledged the charter as a source and framework. 

And we're seeing it ‑‑ one of the other partner projects was the Council of Europe guide for ‑‑ guide to human rights for Internet users.  It was a very early collaborative venture drawing from the charter work and the people involved in the drafting.  So that's a regional level, the Council of Europe, where the charter has had an impact.

Political processes in legislatures around the world.

And educationally.  The charter has been taught at Georgia Tech in the U.S.A.

Many of us have taken the charter as a teaching tool for our students.

Eduardo Bertoni, whose team headed up the Spanish translation, have been using it regularly in their law classes in Chile, and Argentina as well I understand. 

It's been reaching into reports. 

So its aim has been to be an authoritative document that brings up all the themes together; and we're very, very proud.

But, also, it allows regions, national legislatures, educational institutions to adapt it and refine it in their own ways. 

I think that's pretty much at the moment the direct impact.  We'll talk more about that this afternoon in the main session.

Anyone got any examples they can think of while we're here, remind me. 

>> HANANE BOUJEMI:  Marianne, you've forgotten New Zealand.

>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN:  No.  I added that. 

>> HANANE BOUJEMI:  Thanks, Marianne. 

I don't know.  If we have space, maybe we want to take questions from the floor before we go to the second point of the meeting, so if you have any questions or Sergio or Carlos or for Marianne so far? 

No questions? 

>> AUDIENCE:  Yes. 

>> HANANE BOUJEMI:  Please say your name and organization.

>> AUDIENCE:  Hi.  My name is Paulo Rena.  I work now for the Beta Institute for Internet and Democracy at Brazil, and I had the pleasure to work before with Sergio and Carlos.

At the time back, in 2010, I was at the Ministry of Justice; and I was one of the conductors of the Marco da Civil project.

So today I'd like to ask to the table what's your view on the net neutrality principle especially?  And I would like to point out that in my opinion, even though we had a strong position worldwide, in U.S., and especially in Brazil in the Marco da Civil, we had that expressed in the law, my opinion is that nowadays, net neutrality is being more flexible than it should. 

I've seen a lot of panels here, and people are talking about a lot of exceptions on net neutrality and even asking if net neutrality is a yes, a no, or a maybe.  And it was a long panel. 

I seen yesterday with a lot of argumentation on that.  And I think at that moment, with five years of the charter and now one year of Marco da Civil in Brazil, that point should be already in the past; and we should be discussing the how and not if. 

And I would like to know if you share that opinion, what should we do regarding that issue?  Thank you. 

>> HANANE BOUJEMI:  Who wants the question?  Maybe Sergio? 

>> SERGIO BRANCO:  Paulo, thank you for the question. 

Well, Marco da Civil says there is net neutrality.  And the charter also says that there is such a thing as net neutrality on page 13.  And I really don't think in my opinion that we are discussing if there is such a thing as net neutrality or if there isn't. 

I think there is.  I think we have no other answer for this part of the question. 

But you are right when you say that we still have to decide how far net neutrality goes.  But I also think that this is not only a Brazilian problem.  Everywhere, we've been thinking how far net neutrality goes and how big it is, what is included into the idea, the concept of net neutrality. 

I might have ‑‑ I don't know, but I might have a different opinion from you.  And each person here in this room might have different opinions, and we have to work on that to get to a minimal ‑‑ to reach a minimal consensus on the subject. 

But in my view, we are working on that to reach a solution at least nationally.  At least in Brazil, say here in Brazil, net neutrality means this.  Carlos? 

>> HANANE BOUJEMI:  This is the principle, and then there is a huge process to decide what level of neutrality should be implemented.  Carlos? 

>> CARLOS AFFONSO:  Definitely.  Yes, and thanks for the question. 

I believe this is a crucial question for us to understand how the charter intertwines with national legislations and can be an instrument to give more strength to a specific argument around net neutrality. 

So the Brazil Internet bill of rights has strong language on net neutrality, but there are still exceptions. 

There are issues for the regulation of the Marco da Civil which is still forthcoming regulation.  So there is a specific discussion about it in Brazil.

But to talk about how the charter may have an influence in this discussion, just to give you all an indication on that, net neutrality is inside the first principle of the charter.

It is important to be there.  Especially because since last year, we saw the discussion around net neutrality in the NETmundial conference.  And it was a really tough discussion that happened Sao Paulo last year around the very concept of net neutrality.  And since then, we've seen the transformations in the U.S. and more recently in Europe.  So that's why it's important for the charter to have net neutrality there. 

Once there, the second challenge is what do we understand as net neutrality and how it is going to be enforceable in different business models.

I believe that's where the devil is.  And that's where the charter might be helpful to have it there.  In the Marco da Civil in Brazil, I believe gives a strong message around net neutrality.  And I might say the Tallinn declaration as well.  I would say the Tallinn declaration even goes a step further than the Marco da Civil when it talks about net neutrality of the devices for instance or something we can take out of the Tallinn declaration that the Brazilian declaration is not there. 

So it's interesting to see ‑‑ and there is at least a couple of years' gap between the Brazilian original text and the Italian text.  So it's interesting to see how legislation on this issue is evolving.  And it's important for the charter to have net neutrality as a principle there because at least it's a placeholder for the discussion of net neutrality.  Be that of contents, flow, devices, and features that the Internet may come up in the future. 

>> HANANE BOUJEMI:  Thank you, Carlos.

We'll take another question from the floor before we carry on, but Marianne would like to add something.

>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN:  This is the ‑‑ the charter works on two levels.  We have the 21 articles of the charter which is what we call the full charter.

So page 13 is the first article, and there net neutrality is spelled out in one of the subclauses.

But we also have the ten principles which were derived from the charter.  And then you will see another formulation under net equality.

So, of course, these things in themselves are processes; but this is how the charter works.  You can refer to it. 

But I agree.  We need to move from principle to practice. 

>> HANANE BOUJEMI:  We'll take another question. 

>> AUDIENCE:  Good morning.  I'm Flavia Lefevre from Proteste Consumer Association. 

And I am also one of four representatives of Civil Society on cgi.br, the steering committee Internet in Brazil. 

I'm here to talk about the projects like Internet.org. 

We defend that essential service apply principles that guaranty the continuity, the standards of quality, security and universalization.  In other words, that should be available to every citizen regardless of their social classes with the minimal standards of quality. 

The work of Civil Society on net neutrality is important because the governments in various countries ‑‑ developing countries in Latin America, Asia, and Africa are ‑‑ for being convenient with business plans and projects that treat net neutrality like zero rating and Internet.org. 

However, this kind of practice on the full stratification of connecting citizens can bring some sort of reduced benefits in short terms, but in a medium and long terms, this will damage will development of the market by the lack of encouraging public and private investments and the commitment of competition and innovation. 

I want to inform that yesterday, prosecutors in Brazil released an official note listing a series of legalities associated with Internet.org and concluding about the risk that this kind of projects represent the guarantee to be open character of the Internet and no discriminatory access.

And I ask what you think about that. 

Thank you. 

>> HANANE BOUJEMI:  Zero rating and Facebook and Internet.org I think it's the most used term in the conferences at the moment.  There's a huge controversy over the initiative. 

I'm not sure who would like the floor.  I wish we had a Facebook person in the room.  I'm not sure there is anyone. 

Any Facebook people? 

Nobody. 

So maybe, Carlos, do you want to take the question.

>> CARLOS AFFONSO:  Not a Facebook person, but one thing that I believe it's really interesting from Flavia's remarks is that we are having a large discussion over zero rating and Internet.org specifically in this IGF.

And I'm not going to repeat myself saying IGF is important to have this kind of discussions because it gives the people a place to gather and have more structured conversation around the topic.

We all have been discussing zero rating and net neutrality throughout the year so it's good that the IGF allows people to come face to face and to discuss those issues.

Especially it's interesting for us to understand the situation of Brazil as the host country.

This is one of the biggest discussions around the future not only of the global Internet, but the Brazil Internet.  There's a large discussion around if companies are allowed to deploy zero rating programs, and I believe that we still need to maybe dig deeper on the difference between different models of zero rating and how they can impact the way in which from the amount of rights are enjoyed.  I believe this is a very important discussion for us to have. 

And I would conclude saying that's why bill of rights, charters are important because they provide us with a guideline.  They provide us with a sense of direction to which we could not detour.  We could not take a different direction. 

Once you have the charter talking about net neutrality with the language as it does and the ten principles as well, you give out a direction for future regulation, for future legislation, for future charters on this issue. 

So it doesn't matter which type of zero rating are we talking about.  We need to address the considerations of net neutrality such as they are provided in those more broadly framed texts.  But when it comes to those specific business models, that's when those principles shine, because they give us the direction in which we should be discussing.

Of course, they will not solve the problems.  We will not solve the issue of zero rating just by applying the charter, but it's important that the charter is there to provide us direction in this discussion. 

>> HANANE BOUJEMI:  I think the zero rating discussion, I believe it's in the very early stage.  I think we still need to actually do fact‑based research to be able to define the impact of zero rating.  Because from what I see so far, the discussion is not balanced yet.  There is a huge discrepancy between human rights advocates at the global level and the ground.

I've been recently involved in the discussion.  People in Africa doesn't see a problem with zero rating.  We'd like to have little Internet better than nothing at all.

So I think we need to bring those voices in.  It's important to bring in the discussion and we cannot say this is bad or good based on assumptions.  We need to do research to define the challenges. 

I'm sure every project and initiative faces that.  And I'm sure that Facebook had at some time good intentions, but they didn't weigh the huge disadvantage of having access only to one platform because it can lead to different problems at the later stage.

And, interestingly enough, Facebook actually have provided feedback on the charter because that's the second point of our meeting today is that the IGF basically placed a rating system to evaluate the work of all Dynamic Coalitions which emerged since the establishment of the IGF.  And we had a comment period open for different stakeholders to provide input on the charter.  And we had feedback from Facebook. 

So Marianne, maybe you want to display the platform where our work was uploaded. 

And if you look at the right‑hand side, you will see that people actually provided comments on the content.  It's worth reminding everyone that the charter is a living document which means it's never in its final shape.  And we keep adjusting it according to the feedback that we receive from people whom we outreach.

So this was a way for us to basically validate maybe the work that has been done so far.  And we would like to have more feedback from people.  So feel free to log in and give us your feedback on different parts of the text.  And maybe Marianne would like to feed us more on that process. 

>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN:  Thank you. 

If you look up on the screen, you'll see and find the consultation platform on the main page of the International Governance Forum website.  And you scroll to the bottom, the right‑hand side; and it says Dynamic Coalition outputs.  If you click there.  Scroll down.  You'll come to the Internet Rights and Principles.

In the top end, we've just given an updated review of all the impacts we've talked about today.  But the comments ‑‑ if you click on the comments ‑‑ this has turned out to be a very effective tool and we'd like to thank the IGF for the possibility.  It took a little while to set up. 

But if you click say paragraph 10, you will go straight to article ten. 

What's been happening is we're pleased to see Facebook has responded with practical solution.  Some we've said thank you very much, and others, yes, definitely you need to consider some other wording.  

But it shows you how a document can be coherent, remain consistent, and yet also survive in a living dynamic way. 

So what has also been very exciting in the last week is that students from Syracuse, the Newhouse School of Public Administration, have been very active on all the DC outputs.

Not just our charter but also other Dynamic Coalitions. 

From our point of view, of course, they've been providing enormously substantial responses and ideas from a generation that we call the digital natives.

These students are undergraduates so they are 18, 19, 20 years old; and I think they make very interesting reading. 

So there we have it, 60 or so inputs.  We invite everybody to ‑‑ we deliberately left it open for that reason. 

Now, this afternoon ‑‑ I need to tell you a little bit about how things are working this afternoon.

What has happened this year, it's an extremely important step from the point of view of the Dynamic Coalitions in the larger IGF, is there are main sessions ‑‑ the Dynamic Coalition main session begins at 4:30 this afternoon in the main hall.  There it will be the first part, part one.

Part two is 9:00 tomorrow morning.

Friday morning. 

But part one is where all the Dynamic Coalitions will be presenting a very brief overview of their work.  And Hanane and I will be doing that together.

And part two tomorrow will be an experiment, an interactive session.  The moderators of that session will be telling you how you're going to proceed.  But we've developed some rating sheets.  It's a form of interactive responses. 

And what we did with our rating sheet was split the charter in half, part one, the first ten articles, and part two, the first nine articles. 

Other Dynamic Coalitions have approached this exercise differently. 

In any case, I think Friday morning will be a very interesting experiment in creating genuine interaction; and we're there to support the moderators who are organizing the main sessions over the last six months.  It's a very important step in the recognition of the Dynamic Coalitions as a constituency of the IGF.  So welcome you all there.  So that's basically the update. 

I hope that's clear.  In terms of content, that's where you go.  And all the preamble up there links you into all the relevant information you need. 

>> HANANE BOUJEMI:  How does the rating work, Marianne?  Because you were part of the prep meetings, and it's very interesting for us because there will be people scoring the charter for example. 

>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN:  Well, I think we need to take it ‑‑ it's an experiment.  The main point of setting up a sort of survey tool for the different Dynamic Coalitions is to try to get people to engage in an interactive way. 

So it is experimental.  I think you'll be given directions on Friday morning about how it happens. 

I believe there will be printed sheets, and everyone will walk around and rate things.

But there's also a digital form.  And it's a means by which the organizers hope to create some interaction with the material in a live space. 

So I think if you come on Friday morning, it will be clear about what we do. 

There will be directions, where to go, how to do it. 

So ‑‑ but you can comment on the material online now at least. 

>> HANANE BOUJEMI:  Know any details about the outcome of this rating exercise?  What is the expected outcome? 

>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN:  Good question. 

I think in the sense, it's very much concentrating on Friday morning on the process of interacting.  And my sense is that it will depend on the audience.  And the moderators will gather all the responses to the various Dynamic Coalition ratings sheets and collate and come up with a figure. 

But that is a second part to the online consultations, and it's a different level of engagement. 

So they will publish a report on the meeting with the figures of the rating sheet exercise.  And it will also be evaluated as to whether it worked, whether it was a process that was productive; and it will be reviewed and proved next time.

So it will only work if people come to take part.  So that would be very helpful if you could be there. 

>> HANANE BOUJEMI:  Thank you, Marianne. 

Maybe we can take some questions from the floor on the process, if any? 

Yes, Miriam? 

>> AUDIENCE:  I'm Meryem Marzouki.  I am with the CNRS in Paris. 

It's very important for tomorrow to interact with the public by different means, but I'm wondering whether the IGF MAG, or even the boards of the different coalitions have ever decided that coalition should interact with each other. 

Because this is the Internet Rights and Principle Coalition but there are other coalitions on some rights or some principles.  For instance, there is the Freedom of Expression Coalition, the Network Neutrality Coalition.  There is this new one on platform responsibility which deals with intermediary liability but, also as a consequence, with freedom of expression with the protection of privacy, et cetera. 

So is there any intercoalition discussion?  Thank you. 

>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN:  Thank you, Meryem.  A very important question. 

That has started to develop since the last IGF in Istanbul.

In the last session, the stocktaking session in Istanbul, the gender coalition, the access to information coalition, the IIRP coalition, and the youth ‑‑ formed together a new youth coalition, we got together a joint statement to present to stocktaking a proposal that the output of the Dynamic Coalitions be addressed.  And we got a result.  We have our own main session this year. 

So there is work. 

And this main session preparation has involved the coalitions meeting every second week on a Internet platform to talk together about how this main session is going to evolve.  It's been led by Avri Doria and Jeremy Malcolm and with Markus Kummer presiding.  So we've been interacting in a very different way.

And I applaud the MAG for setting this up because we've been able to talk to each other in ways we haven't been able to. 

So that is happening.

As to more formal ways to work together, I think we need to consider that from moving on.  

The Freedom of Expression Dynamic Coalition has just been relaunched which is fabulous. 

Maybe ‑‑ I don't know if they want ‑‑ it's up to them.  But that's very good news.  Thank you. 

>> HANANE BOUJEMI:  Are there any other questions? 

It could be related to the coalition, but it also could be related to the charter just in case we didn't cover other maybe concerns.  Yes? 

>> AUDIENCE:  Hi.  I'm Otavio.  I'm from Youth IGF Program.  I'm here from Latin America. 

Our group is building an observatory about young people issues about the Internet especially in Latin America. 

And since the network neutrality came to the debate, I specifically am very concerned on the way the debate came in this IGF.

I think in almost all workshops I went to, they speak a lot about Internet consumer using this logic to say about ‑‑ and consumer advantage of selection, different kinds of Internets and not speaking about Internet user and its potential to develop human rights in general considering freedom of expression, education, and a way to make an effective social inclusion, not only an economic inclusion, possibly the expansion of complex market.

So I want to hear your opinion about this debate and how we can relate the net neutrality ‑‑ fundamental rights, not only abstract rights, but effective and guaranteed human fundamental rights through the constitutions and to make it as a way to promote social inclusion and ‑‑ I just missed the word. 

(Discussion off microphone)

>> AUDIENCE:  But I think you understand the point.  The basic concern is the concept of seeing that people are only consumers not citizens.

>> HANANE BOUJEMI:  You would like the concept of net neutrality to expand from consumerism to actually considering that people will be prevented from accessing education, services, and social services in general.  So it's not only about consuming Internet or streaming on Netflix and so on.  It's more than that.  Which is correct. 

I cannot be 100 percent sure that this is what was said in all the sessions here related to net neutrality because that would be a huge assumption.

Now, we could always go back to the transcripts and people here after all they express their opinions and their points of view.  And it's a place for debate.

So if you think that it should expand to include the social kind of aspect of a citizen, then you have to contribute. 

You will be building, you know, the discussion to contribute towards defining and understanding what net neutrality is. 

And I think you're absolutely right when you say it should be codified in kind of principles and charters like we have here. 

I don't know if anybody wants to answer that as well and feed into the discussion, because it's a conversation here.  So I'm not sure if Sergio would like to feed into that. 

>> AUDIENCE:  Can I just say one thing more?

>> HANANE BOUJEMI:  Of course.

>> AUDIENCE:  I really like Carlos Affonso when he spoke about network neutrality as a whole principle and not just a specific rule that determines and restricts on the ‑‑ what I mean is net neutrality I think to promote human rights and effective social inclusion, it must be interpreted as a principle which make a policy that can enable a construction not only preventing ISPs or something to not discriminate or block.

>> HANANE BOUJEMI:  Yes.  Point taken. 

Sergio. 

>> SERGIO BRANCO:  Otavio, thank you for the question.  Your question is very important. 

But in my opinion, it's a very difficult question to answer.  The issue itself is very difficult. 

To give you a personal example, I think zero rating is not allowed under Marco da Civil.  That's my opinion. 

I don't think Marco da Civil allows zero rating in Brazil. 

However ‑‑ and I am not speaking in the name of ITS.  I'm speaking in my name personally.  All right? 

So I personally think that zero rating is not allowed in Brazil due to Marco da Civil and the way it is written.

However, I think when people say that ‑‑ and this is an argument ‑‑ something with dimensions, and I don't know if I fully disagree. 

When Hernaldo (spelled phonetically) says it's better to have some Internet than none, when it's better ‑‑ when people who can't afford because, you know, Internet in Brazil is very expensive.  And the quality is very low. 

And when Hernaldo says that for poor people, people who cannot afford the extremely expensive Internet in Brazil, what he says and some other people say, that it's better to have free Internet even if it comes from WhatsApp or Facebook than no Internet at all, then I think it's something to be considered.  Because I can't agree with myself.

If I agree or disagree from this argument because I think this is something to be considered. 

So it's a tough decision to make. 

Either you attach to the technical idea that Brazilian Marco da Civil is against zero rating ‑‑ and I think it is ‑‑ or you try as Paulo was mentioning before, or you have to make it kind of flexible to allow people to have access to free Internet even if it's not the better way to provide Internet.

I can't give you an answer. 

I can give you an experience, a personal experience of trying to reach the best solution for zero rating and commercial practices in Brazil or even abroad. 

And I think it is difficult to find the best way to deal with the situation. 

Was that clear for you? 

Do you understand? 

Okay. 

>> HANANE BOUJEMI:  This debate will take such a long time before reaching a decision on zero rating and net neutrality.  So we keep talking.

I see a hand in the back.  Somebody wanted to ask a question.  Would you like to proceed to the microphone, please. 

>> AUDIENCE:  Hi.  My name is Andy O'Connell, and I work for Facebook so I'm responding to your request to come up here.

First of all, thank you for all the work, in particular for considering all of our comments.  I do want to say a little bit about Internet.org because I think there are a lot of questions, obviously.  And I wanted to respond to the framing that you had just had which is focusing on the question of is some access better than no access? 

And I think that that's an interesting question.  It's an important question.  But I do want to clarify that with Internet.org free basics program that isn't the proposition.

The way Internet.org free basics works is you have free access to a limited set of content as an onramp to the broader Internet.  And the entire program is designed to make that transition happen. 

So by providing free access to a limited set of services like health, news, Wikipedia, BBC, Facebook, et cetera, we're trying to tackle one of the three big barriers to connectivity which is awareness as well as cost.  But we've constructed it in such a way so that none of the participants ‑‑ none of the content provider, operator, Facebook is making revenue at that point.  There is no exchange of funds. 

And the reason we designed it that way was so everyone's incentives were aligned to get onto the full Internet because that is the purpose of the program.  And so far, it's working. 

So we recently released data that 50 percent of the people who come online though Internet.org are buying access to the full Internet in 30 days.  So that's an effective transition. 

Again, I want to emphasize that our program is not designed to keep people in free basics.  It's designed to get people onto the broader Internet.  So far it's working.

We're obviously really interested in the feedback of the community, and we recently made a lot of changes to address concerns and criticisms including changing the name, including providing SSL encryption by default, including clarifying and narrowing the privacy policy. 

But our whole purpose is to get people onto the broader Internet so I think the focus of is some better than none isn't quite the right focus, although it's an important conversation.  I think the focus is what is fastest way to get people onto the full Internet, and ours is an innovative model to try to do that. 

There are other models.  But we think what we're doing is working well so far, but we're open to have further conversations about how to do better.  Thank you.

>>HANANE BOUJEMI:  Some people may have questions for you. 

We take advantage of the fact that you are here.

>> AUDIENCE:  I'm happy to have conversations with anyone.  I'm sitting in the back. 

>> HANANE BOUJEMI:  Great.  After the session.

Thank you for the clarification. 

And I think this sets the tone of the real purpose of the project from the representative of the company.  But I think the discussion will be on, and we can always elaborate on the decisions.  But the good news is that there is room to give feedback, and it will be incorporated and included in the policy ‑‑ in the public policy of the company. 

Okay.  So I can see the timer on the top of my head.  I just noticed we have 18 minutes to go. 

And I think I will just proceed with the third part of this session which is mainly a business meeting where we try to recruit more people to join the coalition and deal with ‑‑ it's not admin but procedural matters.

So, Marianne, maybe you want to speak a little lit about how we would like people to join the coalition and display more information on that maybe on the website which is www.internetrightsandprinciples.org

This is the website.

We also have a Facebook page and a Twitter feed. 

So if you would like to follow us.

So, Marianne, please give us more details about the election process and so on.  And that as well. 

Sorry.  I didn't mention that we do have elections at the moment.  I think the polls open today or tomorrow for people who would like to nominate themselves for the steering committee or chair or a co‑chair for the coalition. 

>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN:  Thanks.  Just to note the rest of our steering committee are helping us here back wherever they're based because they couldn't get here.  So we are very much a global team. 

The main business and sort of communications happens on our listserv.  So all that information you can find on the website.

You can join the listserv.

And our Twitter feed is @netrights and #netrights.

And just some quick updates about the activities of the coalition between the IGF meetings. 

The first exciting and important piece of news of moving the charter work but also the coalition's expertise into other domains is that the Council of Europe has granted the IRP Coalition observer status in its committee for the CDMSI. 

I think people in the room can take it out in full.

It's basically the committee for media and the information society for the Council of Europe ‑‑ am I correct? ‑‑ 47 member states of the Council of Europe, a very important place where human rights and rule of law are discussed in various ways and to gain observer status is extremely exciting because it means something.  It's a form of recognition of the work through the charter.

And if anyone here from the Council of Europe wishes to extrapolate on what this committee does or means ‑‑ I'm looking at someone so if there's time. 

So this is twice a year these meetings take place, in June and December.  The next one is in December.

Now, observers do not have votes but may attend the five‑day meetings at their own expense but, hey, it's Strasbourg.  And we may also respond to documentation directives ‑‑ I think that's the correct word ‑‑ material that's been developed from the point of view from the Council of Europe that's out in draft form.  So that's where the listserv is very useful. 

We've only just been granted observer status so we're working out the work plan.  But the second meeting is in December. 

And the Council of Europe works on totally public domain so every document, every agenda item is available on their website.  So we'll feed that into our communications.

So that's the very big announcement. 

At the IGF, we've been also busy in other workshops.  We've co‑organized two workshops on the so called, now no longer called, the right to be forgotten.  It's now the right to be delinked or deindexed rulings.  And we've had two fabulous workshops, 31 and 142. 

You can look at those transcripts where we unpacked what these different rulings meant around the world, particularly in the Latin and South American context and in Korea. 

So that was in collaboration with the U.N. Commissioner for Human Rights, and, of course, with our friends here from ITS in Rio de Janeiro and other NGO organizations in the area in which we're working.

And, of course, the presentation, the main Dynamic Coalition session.  I think that's the updates for now, just so that's clear to everybody. 

>> HANANE BOUJEMI:  Thank you.  What about the elections? 

So I think we're working on the announcements.  It will be sent to the listserv shortly. 

If you want to join us, you need to subscribe to the link.  It's on the website.

So the announcement is seeking members from the global community to step ‑‑ to become a steering committee member or to apply to become a chair if you think you're qualified.  I mean we're always looking for new people and it will be interesting to have some members from the YOUTH IGF from Brazil.  So we keep the discussion about Latin America going on even if we go to a different region next year.

Marianne, maybe you want to give more details about how many members do we need, who is going to step down?  Who is ‑‑

>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN:  We have a two‑year rotation. 

So we have established that from this year on, those members who have been on the steering committee for some time will either step down or stand for re‑election. 

So we have an election process.

But there is an incoming co‑chair position.  The ongoing co‑chair is Catherine Easton, who apologizes that she can't be with us in meet space but is with us live. 

So we will have elections for co‑chair.  You need to nominate ‑‑ it's not self‑nomination.  If I remember correctly, a nomination.  Usual electoral process but you will hear about that on the listserv process. 

Robert Bodle, who is the outgoing co‑chair, will inform us on that.  There are about three or four places open for election, either for someone who stepped down or if you wish to nominate yourself to take the place of someone who wishes to stand again.  But all those details will be made clear.  Is that clear ‑‑

>> HANANE BOUJEMI:  In the email.  Yes.  Thank you, Marianne. 

I'd like to thank the remote moderator.  We have remote participation, all the colleagues who couldn't make it to Brazil are listening to us now.  So do we have any questions from remote participants so far? 

Anything? 

Nothing? 

Okay. 

Do we have any questions from the floor? 

Yes? 

Okay.  Could you please proceed to the microphone. 

>> AUDIENCE:  Thank you.  My name is Georgio.  I'm from the youth program. 

And we're launching today in this IGF the observatory of youth of Latin America. 

So our intention is to initiate the participation of the youth of our region, searching to resignify the Internet as a power space and to orient youth to the empower and participation, especially for the youth where the diversity of voices that characterize our region are present.

So I have a question for you in the sense.  We took a look at the charter, and there is a little mention for the youth.  And my question is how can we put the youth especially in the marginalized regions as a core principle of the Internet and participate jointly in those kind of coalitions? 

Thank you very much. 

>> HANANE BOUJEMI:  Thank you for your question.

Who would like to answer? 

>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN:  In the charter, we ‑‑ what is extraordinary about the charter is it addresses the three generations of international human right law and norms, including rights of children in the Internet, the rights of persons with disabilities, the right to development.

So young persons are integral to all articles in the charter but with particular attention to the last half.  By that, I mean Articles 10 onwards, because in those articles, we address issues such as the right to education rights, right to culture and access, the rights of children, the rights of people with disabilities, the right to work, the right to online participation, the rights to legal remedy and fair trial, the right to health and social services.

And the idea of the younger generation and youth is deeply integral to that text so I invite you to engage with the text on the online platform because that last half really needs some input from the younger generation. 

And it's all available online for you to comment live. 

So thank you very much. 

>> HANANE BOUJEMI:  Do you have another question? 

>> AUDIENCE:  Just a comment. 

We're launching this ‑‑ our charter in this IGF.  So I would like you if you have any comments that I ask you to read and we have a lot to learn from you, and we can clarify some doubts if you have any. 

So I really would like to invite you to gather with the young people. 

Thank you very much. 

>> HANANE BOUJEMI:  Thank you very much.

Do you have any comments on the question of integrating youth into the charter? 

>> SERGIO BRANCO:  No.  I think Marianne covered everything well really. 

>> HANANE BOUJEMI:  Is there another question from the floor? 

>> AUDIENCE:  Hi.  My name is Carmen. 

I'm from Estonia, but I also am an expert in Council of Europe.  And since Marianne was talking about before that they got this observatory status and I'm also a member of the coalition. 

So just to clarify that this status is really a big thing because the coalition actually is given an assessment that they do have the knowledge, they do have an ability to make contributions to the Council of Europe framework for setting standards. 

And what it gives the coalition, for example, the CDMSI, the Steering Committee of Media and Information Society has subcommittees. 

I'm in one of them which is on Internet freedom.  And, for example, in December meeting where Marianne will probably go, they will probably adopt an Internet freedom indicator status that is going to be a very form kind of idealistic way of assessing states against the standards of the human rights of the Council of Europe.

So I really want to congratulate the Dynamic Coalition on this.  And I hope this gave better understanding of what this observatory status of CDMSI is. 

Thanks. 

>> HANANE BOUJEMI:  Thank you very much. 

The indicator is on Internet freedom.  Sounds like an interesting forum.  So we're looking forward to participate in that. 

Do we have any more questions on the process of elections? 

Yes?  No?  General question?  Yes, that's fine. 

>> AUDIENCE:  So hello.  My name is Catherine, and I'm here from the Human Rights Big Data and Technology Project which has just been established at the University of Essex in England. 

One thing that the project really thinks will benefit the Internet governance would be a human rights based approach because we think that approach would sort of draw together human rights, development, ICT, and big data.

And by a human rights based approach, we mean things like equality and nondiscrimination, true participation and inclusion, the indivisibility and interdependence of rights, and then the tripartite obligation to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights. 

So these are all issues that have already been debated at the IGF like ‑‑ you know, the discussions are there, but perhaps the human rights based approach is like a sort of methodology through which you can sort of channel these debates. 

So I was wondering what people's views are on suitability of using a human rights based approach for channelling the debate. 

Thank you. 

>> HANANE BOUJEMI:  Just on human rights and human rights only? 

>> AUDIENCE:  No, I think the debates are already there.  People are already focusing on human rights.  This coalition is a great example.  But I'm wondering what people think about the suitability of using a sort of framework of a human rights based approach to sort of draw in together these issues and using it as a sort of organizing structure for debating these issues that are already being debated. 

>> HANANE BOUJEMI:  I think we have a main session on human rights tomorrow.  And we are present there as well I think for the first time.  We'll try to consolidate at the moment the work that is being done with different organizations or coalitions on the issue of human rights.  And I probably agree with you because we need to be in one room discussing these issues. 

But I think the main session is one of the most important slots of this forum because the focus will be all on human rights. 

Of course, there will be panelists discussing issues from their own perspectives; but I think the floor is open to questions in the same way as we have here, and you can ask all the questions related to the human rights approach that you would like to discover.

I think if we don't have any more questions, Marianne would like to add one last point about the main session tomorrow before we close the meeting and we have a break on time. 

>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN:  Just in response to that observation, the two main sessions that are DC output main sessions on Thursday afternoon and Friday morning segue straight into the main session on human rights.  And at that main session ‑‑ and, of course, it's in response to Meryem's point about working together ‑‑ all the Dynamic Coalitions will be present because we have Dynamic Coalitions dealing with specific rights as well. 

It will be from the floor and programmed in, and we'll be presenting once again the charter, which in itself is a framework for debate from a scholarly point of view. 

I work at Goldsmiths so perhaps we can get together afterwards.

Thank you. 

>> HANANE BOUJEMI:  Thank you.  And I would like to thank everybody for taking interest to coming to the session. 

I'd like to thank Sergio by the great work done by the Brazilian colleagues.  Thank you from the bottom of our hearts on your hard work.  And we're very happy you joined the coalition big family which is spread all around the world. 

We thank Carlos Affonso.  He had to leave because of another commitment.

Thank you, everyone.  We wish you a great time in Joao Pessoa, and we hope we can engage in the future with you to share experiences and to work together in the future.  So thank you. 

(Applause)