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. 

 

***

>> MODERATOR: Good morning everyone. My name is Eric Gardin. I'm from the center Waterloo based (Indiscernible).

I'm going to be moderating the session on Destabilization of

Internet Governance. I will provide a couple of words of

comment and introduction, and then I'm going to turn it over to

our esteemed panelists.

I think just in the interest of time, space, and, you know, the interest of the audience, I will have each of the panelists introduce themself, maybe say a corky fact about themselves, perhaps non-related, sort of, I play the violin for myself, something like that, liven things up a little.

In terms of the motivation for this particular panel, what we basically started with when we were pitching it is this notion of technical arrangements of infrastructure have the open free flow of data based on the universality and interoperability of the technology. This has generated economics wealth of economic wealth. The Boston group puts that at 26, as high as 14.2 trillion.

It also means people increasingly view the Internet for

 

example a crucial vehicle to access knowledge. Crucial for

 

their personal enjoyment. For social communication, free

 

expression and political expression online, and at the

 

individual level, increasingly use it to find employment and to

 

better their economic livelihood in the future.

 

But as the interests net has expanded we have seen the opposite trend has private companies and Governments have turned toward the infrastructure and use they had to politicize to obtain some sort of policy objective. This could be Pakistan censoring YouTube with all the effects that that had in 2008 or it could be something like data localization laws or data routing requirements and it can go as far as manipulation to the domain main system and police property rights.

There is a lot of politization and this is destabilizing the Internet at a technical level and stabilizing Internet Governance at a political and social level.

Without further ado from me, since you're not here to hear me speak, I'm going to turn it over to Anne, and then maybe speak for about five minutes or so, and we'll get as much audience participation after that as possible.

Thank you.

>> ANNE De LATTRE: It's a pleasure to be on this panel. I'm the Secretary General of the OECD and the Internet Governance, and we contribute to the work of the commission. In particular, working on the benefits of an open Internet.

The Internet is a catalyst for economic growth and well-being, but there, as Eric just said, forces that can destabilize the Internet and these forces seem to be growing in number and in strength. Organization policies, which is the most frequently example given have been implemented or under consideration in a growing number of countries.

So at the OECD, as I said, we started to assess what Internet openers, economic and social benefits are, what objectives are driving different approaches to it in different countries, and what policies can achieve desired degree of openers for the future.

Just to start with I would like to make four points. The first one is that Internet is a multi-dimensional concept which encompasses technical, economic and social elements. Neither absolute openness or absolute closeness is ideal.

There are legitimate reasons for certain boundaries, but drifting away from a general preference for openness may be costly.

Second, Internet openness is being influenced by a growing number of forces, both positive and negative, particularly stemming from concerns about data security and personal privacy.

My third point is that data flows do not follow obvious rules. They do not obey or establish geographic borders and they take the shortest route between two points. And there is a difference in terms of measurement between what we can measure, which is geographically based and what happens. On the network.

And my first point is that with the pervasiveness of global value chains interest national trade now relies more than ever on Internet openness.

Thank you very much. I didn't introduce myself by the way.

 

My name is Anne Katblank, and I am the Division of Economic

Policy at OECD, which sits at the director of science and

 

technology.

Thank you.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Anne.

So, Professor Vint Cerf, of Google, you would be next in

the roster.

>> VINT CERF: My name is Vint Cerf. I am presently Google Chief Evangelist, and I've had a long history with the beginnings of the Internet.

I'm particularly concerned about this topic of interference with the technical infrastructure for political or policy reasons.

Let me just give you a few examples. The Internet was designed initially as a largely neutral platform and that was very valuable because it basically just did whatever it was told. It was described as the stupid network because it didn't know what it was carrying and the packets that were carrying bits didn't know how they were being carried. The advantage of that ignorance has been a proliferation of applications on the IP layer and below that a proliferation of communication technologies used to carry packets from one place to another.

What we've seen, however, is that that technical infrastructure is being distorted by various policy initiatives. An example of this would be IP level blocking in order to inhibit access to certain distributions in the net for policy reasons, political reason or DNS blocking which might be argued to be intended to prevent people from abusing intellectual property access, for example, there are many excuses that are given for these kinds of behaviors.

The DNS take down, for instance, where you cease a domain name is a fairly blunt instrument because it instantly shuts down anything that was at that domain name, much of which might have been perfectly legitimate. And, so, it is sort of like arresting everyone in the apartment building because one family is doing drugs. It has to be overkill.

I would like to point out, however, that even if the technical community can develop more refined instruments that would be of use to, let's say, law enforcement one thing that we need to be careful about is that these instruments are abused, but there is the other side of the coin which is when you are trying to debug what is wrong in network, which is not operating correctly, you sometimes need the same kind of mechanisms. You may need to inspect what is going on looking at deep packet inspection is sometimes the only tool that can help you figure out why a network is not performing the way it should.

So the same tools that are used for engineering sometimes get used for other more political purposes.

The domain name itself is essentially neutral. It's a look up system. It doesn't care what the domain names are. All it is trying to do is bind a domain name with an address. Names themselves are not neutral. They have semantic meaning, and this triggers all kinds of potential debates over the validity or appropriateness of particular domain names. So these kind of debates in some ways interfere with the neutrality of the rest of the system. I am not trying to refer here to net neutrality, simply to the fact that the network is a platform which is unconscious of the applications and content that it's supporting.

In some cases, there are attempts to force packets to flow in a certain direction or deliberate interference with the normal routing structure of the network. Sometimes that the result of an accident.

There are cases where somebody is told please block this particular destination in this Country and in the attempt to do that the engineers manage to block access to that particular destination over half the Internet. And it is not necessarily deliberate, but it could be by accident, but the damage is done.

Oh, by the way for those that don't know, when the original net design was done at the IP packet layer, we put in what was called source routing in order to allow the source to actually control the path, whether either strictly or loosely, but that was put in there primarily for test purposes and not necessarily for the control of traffic flow. And that particular feature isn't used very much, except for testing, but it is another example of something that was built into the architecture that could be used for other reasons.

So we have a kind of tension here between running the network, being able to observe what it is doing, being able to control how it's doing as work for engineering reasons, and the same tools being used for political reasons. And that tension is rising and is something we have to deal with.

The last point I would make is the engineering task force which is one of the major bodies making standards for the Internet has generally resisted demands that it put into the protocols, mechanisms that would allow political use of the Internet or political control of the Internet, or back doors, for example with regard to crypto, so the IETF has tried to maintain this neutral platform and not allow it to be used in ways that some people might object to.

So I think I will stop there, Mr. Chairman, since there is plenty more to be said.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much.

Those who are just coming in, there are some seats up front, so if your legs are going to get tired, feel free to just wander up. There will probably be more filtering in, so it will be good to get everybody seated, if possible.

We're going to turn now to Raul from the Internet Society who will give us his thoughts.

>> RAUL ECHEBERRIA: Thank you very much. My name is Raul

Echeberria. I'm Vice {resident for Government Engagement and the

Internet Society. Unfortunately, I have to reorder my notes

because Vint said many of the things I had to say, but I could --

>> VINT CERF: That is what happens when you get multiple engineers on panels like this.

>> RAUL ECHEBERRIA: My assumption is usually technical measures cannot solve societal and political problems.

I think that we have made progress in that sense in making the government to understand that. It's not magical, but it's because they have tried many times to do things. DNS blocking is one example. Trying to push for including back doors for other things inside of the protocol is another example. The ideas of customizing some of the Internet protocols for responding to political needs. So forgiven countries it has been another mistake that has not worked well.

So I think that all intent there is a history of failures. I would like another example is that, for example, with the IP address management. I remember a Country that there is no need to mention that there was a regulation in the Country saying that the ISPs could use only IP addresses located to that Country, but that concept doesn't exist. So they -- the government interpreted the IP address rest located to the Country are those addresses that are in the hands of the incumbent so it was a way to protect role of the incumbent in the market. So the small ISPs, the only way to be in the business that they had was to buy connectivity for the incumbent to get IP addresses from them. But they realize at some point that they could go to the area of the region and get IP addresses and nobody could stop that. So they started to get their own addresses and to buy connectivity to other upstream providers. So it didn't work. And I think that is the regulation is still in place, but obviously it cannot be enforced.

We from Internet society we have approached that problem from constructive. Obviously fighting when we have to fight. We have initiated a program a few years ago that there are some problems that we call the privacy silos. We bring 20, 25 policy makers from different regions to the ITF meetings. So we have the opportunity to show to them how the idea work, how the people design protocols, how did the protocols, what are the things that are being considered in the discussions and it has had a very positive impact in the relation with governments with about this kind of things.

Other things we are doing is to organizing in partnership with intergovernmental organizations many times courses for policy makers. That is course these are not prepared by ourself. Not by as but prepared by experts. So this is a way also to have a more informed decision.

I remember that sometime there is a saying that is attributed to somebody, that sometimes we don't have to allocate bad faith to the actions of having so many stupid in the world. Sometimes it is ignorance what bring some stakeholders to promote some very non-smart measures. So approaching that from the perspective of the being engaged with the governments, bring them on board on understanding on how the Internet works, on how the technologies are available, how the standards have availability, something that has been very positive in our perspective.

Thank you.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you. So we'll turn now to Natalia from

American University.

>> NATALIA: Thank you so much. Thank you all for being here and for being warriors and being here on a Friday after so many days of events.

It brings me distinct pleasure being here representing professor Laura DeNardis, my advisor, and for giving me the chance of being here right close to the founder of the internet, to one -- Marilia, one of the persons I admire most in the field of Brazil.

My background is law and economics and I started working on the DRL with antitrust, but more and more I became interested in the infrastructure issues that relate to the field.

Oh, you told we should say something about us that was --

>> MODERATOR: : I was so far the only one who has, but

 

feel free to jump on that bandwagon.

 

>> NATALIA: You said the violin, I used to play the violin,

too, but I'm a frustrated violinist. So I don't play it

anymore.

I wanted to raise a couple of points related to the Internet stability and one of the issues that have been really prominent here on this meeting which is zero rating.

As I said, for me, someone with a background on antitrust, it's hard for me to see the issue as black and white, right or wrong. It is easier for me to see it as it depends perspective and depending on the potential of harm, but it seems to me that there is a fundamentally change in the way the Internet is perceived.

As Dr. Cerf was mentioning, we had the stupid network and apparently there is a change in perspective, there is a change on how we are perceiving the nature of the Internet. For me that may be from an economic point of view. This might be something that is not black and white but maybe from a policy perspective if we analyze it through the lenses of destabilization, then this could be a way also to go in terms of assessing the rating.

Let's say many times we see content filtering, initiatives in other countries and blocking as something that can destabilize the Internet but maybe it is not take that different if we look at it this way.

Another issue that I believe may effect a lot, the destabilization of the Internet is increasing fertilizations of markets. So I think we need to understand better what is going on. Because used to have a separation in players and since markets are becoming increasingly integrated, we need to understand how the markets are evolving to actually make these policy choices.

Over regulation is another thing that we need to balance. That is also the main issues I said. As someone with a background with antitrust it is always hard to see things from a purely policy perspective. I also see the economic implications, but I guess we should strive to find a balance between regulating and over regulating, because maybe if we have too much regulation and regulation is fragmented, that will be something that also we destabilize the Internet.

Finally, another issue is transparency. Transparency in interconnection agreements, transparency may be in this private agreements, maybe regulation could establish limits, not necessarily on limitations on this business models, but becoming -- but making these business models more transparent. Making sure we have access to, you know, what is being -- what the deals are and what the rules they're being played.

So these are the four points I would like to raise, and thank you so much once again.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you. So we'll move to Marilia now.

>> MARILIA MACIEL: Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be

here.

My name is Marilia Maciel. I am a researcher and coordinator for the Center for technology and Internet Society of the (Inaudible) foundation based on Rio de Janeiro. I am also one of the Counselors representing non-commercial interests in ICANN GNSO, which is the body that develops policies for the generic top level for the main organization.

I would like to depart from the idea of destabilization,

because when we talk about destabilization we are somehow

 

departing from the assumption that what we are talking about

today in terms of infrastructure, in terms of governance

arrangements is functioning in a stable manner. And I do

believe that to a large extent the functioning of the Internet,

the day to day Internet is functioning in a stable manner and

it is very remarkable that it is, but on the governance level,

I think that is important to question if the arrangements that

we have today are indeed as stable as we think.

And I'm not only talking about the specific policies that are being put in place interference on the architecture of the Internet and I do agree very much with the engineers that spoke before me that this is a very negative trend, but also the governance arrangements that we have. Are they really as stable and mature in terms of architecture, or in terms of procedures for decision making, for instance, or are they still in the process of being made or in the process of being crystallized and therefore they are in the moment of our natural political dispute over these arrangements, that is perceived somehow as a trend of destabilization but it's a trend of making or making the shape of this arrangements.

I think that a governance arrangement that they are not stable now in a sense that they are not crystallized. And what I see as a trend in terms of governance is that we are in a process of large privatization of the different layers of that compose the Internet.

If you look, for instance, at the infrastructure layer we see that interconnection arrangements, they have been private arrangements and they will continue to be un and to a large extent private arrangements and there is very little transparency of the terms of this arrangements between private companies that deal with interconnection.

If we look at the level of standards, we see a trend towards proprietary standards that proposes a threat to the Internet, so this is another trend towards privatization.

If we look at the DNS management it is very clear for everyone that sees its conception I can lead a private organization, and we have seen recently how the massive, new top level domains that have been created which can be vital for development of domain industry, that's for sure, but that was very little -- there was very little consideration in the process of creating these top level domains with regards to issues related to, for instance, development of regions that are underdeveloped when it comes to domain names or interest related to community applications or even security issues with regards to conflicts between domains that were created and preexisting domains and these bugs were fixed on the hush and on the fly.

If you see at the application layers there is a trend that companies are becoming bigger and bigger and gigantic companies in that extent through many different markets on the Internet.

I don't think that privatization is bad, per se. I think this process of privatization has brought economic growth to the Internet. I've just seen that it happens without, first of all, consideration with regards to what is the public core of the Internet that should be really governed as the public good, more understanding about that should be viewed. It happens without notion of public interest. What are the principles that should guide us, even if this is private infrastructure then what are the principles that should guide up in a way that it is governed on the public interest by the end of the day, and without oversight.

We know that when privatization usually happens on the national level we do put in place structures of checks and balances, agencies that have the role to bring some redress into the relationship between the public interest and the private interest and this is kind of absent in Internet Governance regime and I think that this is something that we need to think about.

If we look at governance arrangements, I think that they are not very stable for a sec reason, which is a historical reason, which is that many of the players that control the infrastructure that we're talking about, they have been based in one specific jurisdiction, which is the US jurisdiction, and that leads to the fact that we have exterior usual effect of US law in other jurisdiction and this is what we're talking about here basically when we talk about domain name seizures based on intellectual property laws, for instance. With we're talking about intellectual property law as it is applied and interpreted in the United States.

And, on the other hand, there is this exterior usual kind of movement, but on the other hand it is very hard for law enforcements and actors that are not US based to have access to information such as personal, individual information or to take down content that they deem necessary. If they go through the vehicle of neutral legal assistance agreements, they need to understand the laws of California or Virginia and they need to go under a US courts based on US law to request for content to be taken down or to request information for individuals.

This regime is just not sustainable. The contrary effect to this, because every action provokes a reaction that many actors are trying to localize data centers, data localization. I not agree with it, but I see as a very natural response to a process that is un sustainable in the long run. So we need to think about more sustainable scenarios in which different jurisdictions can collaborate.

And, of course, there -- it is also said that, okay, by not giving information to people that request it we are also denying information to authoritarian governments that come to us seeking for information to kind of persecute bloggers and activists and some part of that is true, but there are many democratic governments that seek for information and they do not have access to information they need to persecute criminals for solid and serious reasons, but I think that other than if we are talking about not politicizing technology, and I think that it is very important to keep technology free from such political influences, but if we look at technology as a way to do censorship, that is (Indiscernible) technology. If you look at technology as a way of fostering democracy, we need to be clear about it. So we are politicizing technology in both ends, in both directions and I think that it is important that we are clear about what we are doing and our intents when we deal with it.

I think that I am kind of reaching my time, so I'll cut here and maybe we can take some questions.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much.

And last, but certainly not least, we have Marichia from the member -- from the European Parliament.

>> Thank you very much. I'm here on the edge because I have to leave a little bit earlier, and because we have such a big panel. It is a great pleasure to be a part of it.

I'm also a member of the Global Commission on Internet Governance, for those of that you have observed our presence here, but I don't speak for the commission.

I'll be very brief because a lot of my points build on what the last speaker has said. But I just wanted to zoom in on the notion of Internet Governance. Because if we're here all together at the Internet Governance Forum, we may think that Internet Governance is a vastly developed field and that there is a lot that is going on, but there is really hardly any formal Internet Governance yet in the world and I think that is something we should remember.

So the question is what is being disrupted in the theme of this panel.

A lot of us I think here together are sharing, perhaps, loosely, but that's the sense that I get, sharing a notion that the open Internet and connectivity between individuals worldwide holds a huge promise that has not yet been delivered. A lot of exciting things have happened, but I believe that a lot more can happen, but a lot will depend on what kind of governance steps will happen next.

I think the promise of enable leaning more rights of people, more development and inclusive prosperity will be possible if the Internet remains open.

Now, many governments states, but also others, but mostly governments and states fear precisely this disruptive impact of the open in net of new technologies more broadly, and we've seen a lot of manifestations of this already. We've seen the Egyptian government turn off the Internet all together when they wanted to try to prevent people to use it to organize and demonstrate.

We've seen the Islamic Republic of Iran building an Intranet which is disconnected from the worldwide web and a hundred percent monitored and also heavily, heavily censored.

We all know about the great firewall in China and there are many examples I could mention.

But sadly speaking, also in open societies attempts to get a hundred percent national security have led to attempts to get a hundred percent access to the nation flows going over the network.

I think this kind of abusive power is something that we have to take very seriously. It has been hotly debated, but it remains important to do so. And particularly the weakening of inscription, I believe, has been a major mistake.

Similarly tapping under satisfy cables has been a very big step and has had a major backlash and diminishing trust, but also not only trust of consumers or Internet users to use services or the Internet itself but has led to the lack of credibility and legitimacy of governments of open societies to address data localization in Russia.

These steps are really justified in a one-on-one manner by saying, well, we don't want NSA or other intelligent services to spy on our people. And it's very difficult to have a good answer vis-a-vis these kinds of arguments, even though we know that data localization is often used to tighten the grip on them and their expression and their accessing information.

I would like to place this in a slightly broader context. The world is not only changing very rapidly with regard to new technologies. If you look at the societies of freedom house or other ranks would consider to be open, having a free press, having a free Internet are shrinking and the amount of countries where people are not as free as I believe they deserve to be are growing.

Economic power of less free countries is also growing and the demographics of less free societies are also growing. And, so, in the multi-lateral setting, so places like this, but then mostly governments, it is go around the table and seeking to make decisions, the balance towards freedom is becoming very, very tight and sometimes is already lost, actually. And it becomes, in this context, so in light of the rapid technological developments the way in which we've effectively seeing states using it as an extension of their power rather than a potential for horizontal connectivity along urine verse Al values, it becomes even more important that open societies lead not only in terms of a global outreach, but first and foremost lead by example by giving meaning and depth to what values such as universal human rights actually mean in practice.

And I do observe a tension in the notion of trying to see technology as entirely neutral. I thought it was nice notion to design the Internet to be stupid, but it has become, of course, remarkably smart. It was pretty clever for having that intention. But engineers and, perhaps, more broadly, companies are designing for profit. Or designing with intent.

Let me just put it more broadly. So it to be profit in many cases because so many element of the Internet are in private hands, but engineers are usually making a combination of code or of software and hardware because they have a goal in mind.

And in that design, values are also built in. And this way, in the national norms or laws, de facto norms, not written down in law, but de facto norms are being developed in a daily basis. The way in which facebook allows how much nudity is proper it is not necessarily the law of any land it is just this norm that this social media company believes is appropriate.

The same goes for speech. What might be entirely free and legal speech in country can be politicized or deemed inappropriate by a company and this is where we see a blurring of norm in a way that I think we have to keep track of.

So, what I basically wanted to say is that engineering for property is not the same as engineering for the public good, and I this I that there are not that many actors in the multistakeholder space that are only focusing on the public good. Multistakeholderism or multistakeholder platforms, it's a process. It doesn't necessarily say anything about the values based upon which we are seeking to get agreement or to work things out.

So, all in all, I wanted to end by saying that I think all actors, but particularly, perhaps, people that are drawn to the IGF and have a part of the excitement and promise of the open Internet and especially the people using it globally should make stronger choices. We should be more explicit about the values that we're seeking to pursue and the ways in which we want to get there. Just talking about multistakeholder procedures as such are describe ago process of what is becoming increasingly a field that is very political and where there are real interests at stake and I think we have to be sort of open about that. And I would hope and encourage both private entities and Civil Society organizations and Internet users and particularly, that is also the field I know best, decision makers and policymakers in open societies to show much more leadership and more meaning than these values because we're at a critical point and I think we have no time to lose.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much for that.

We will now, I think, take some questions from the floor.

This room is organized a little bit like on obstacle course with this weird thing. That side is completely inaccessible.

So while people come up to the mics and I will ask the remote moderator the question received online as well.

If anyone has questions, please come up.

>> VINT CERF: Are you willing to let any of the panel respond to what we've heard so far?

>> MODERATOR: To each other.

>> VINT CERF: Is that okay? That is what panel discussions are sometimes about.

(Laughter).

>> VINT CERF: I like very much many of the points that have been made.

We're here in a place called the Internet Governance Forum and I'm beginning to think it might be wise to think more about stewardship than governance if we want to keep the government functioning in a positive and constructive way. Maybe we should think about rename go this.

There is a book called code is law by Larry Lesig and it gets to the point that what engineers write as code often determines how the Internet works. At the same time those programmers could be put under political pressure to do things that maybe they don't agree with.

One thing you can tell that is driving some of the engineers is they're putting in features to support confidentiality and integrity of the Internet. That is a very deliberate statement value that goes into the technology.

A couple of other examples of how policy can re-road the utility of the Internet, one of them is the forced use of operator resolvers, or government resolvers, that means the name resolution is going to go the way the government wants it to go, not the way the system was designed to go.

And we see that happening in a number of places.

Finally, on the localization initiatives that you read about, one thing that does center fear with the actual utility of cloud base systems that gain their value from distributing content all around the data centers. We do it at Google, others do it at Amazon and so on. When you force localization you remove a great deal of resilience from the system and from an engineering point of view that is very damaging.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

>> MODERATOR: Raul, would also like to say something, I

 

think.

>> RAUL ECHEBERRIA: Yes, thank you. Wow, a lot of things

were said.

I think that Marilia made good point in her speech, but I disagree with the conclusion that the Internet Governance system is not enough stable.

I think -- I have the opposite view. I think I have seen in the last year the strengthening of the Internet Governance organizations.

We have to remember that not all the Internet Governance organizations are structured to US law. We have the original registries that four of them are outside of US and they are subject to different laws and, in fact, they have worked for all the time without governmental interference and they have managed very well to panel with governments and to engage with governments and I have not heard about any really intention of the governments of the countries where they are ready to take over their responsibilities.

And we have the idea, if the idea is not subject to any particular law because it's an organization, that is not incorporated anywhere, so if it could have problems in one Country, they could (Indiscernible) operating many countries of the world.

Other thing is that I don't like to enter into a feel between making distinctions between democratic or authoritarian countries, because stuff is very difficult to make the distinction who can take, who can decide who is a democratic Country. And many of the even many of the countries where there are elections and apparently democratic systems are questioned by other countries and countries that don't have the regular elections in the way that we have in the Western world, they claim to have their own way to democracy or system based on other values that are as important for them as the democracy. Democracy is the value.

I think that is giving too much power to the government and base it on the good faith of the governments, I think that this is something of interest.

But I think that is a data localization has been mentioned and a couple of times and I think this is a very good example of what we don't have to do. And because I have my -- this is not a point about data localization. I think sometimes we can briefly say that (Indiscernible) the government are concerned about this issue, I think that many of the points that they have are good points and they are understandable concerns. But it is something very difficult to implement in one hand, because, for example, if I am a Guatemalan citizen, now I am in Brazil now, and I can be using here content provider services that are based in the US, so the information that I'm can au dating in this moment, where should we store it. Who should have the authority over that information that I am creating now. Is it Hawaiian government? Is it the US? Is it Brazil?

This is very difficult. Even when we have transactions between -- because it's not everything about accessing facebook. It is the transactions that we have between peer to peer relations. So it's where that information should be stored.

And I am very concerned, because, of course, I would like to see much more companies, like facebook or Google created and borne out side of the US in other parts of the world, but I come from -- there are very good successful companies in Brazil that are growing very much and in Uruguay there are some companies that are going to other countries. So we have to be careful with the regulation that is discussed because we could be setting barriers, first of all, the companies from countries like Google wide that are going out to other countries in the region and are establishing making business there.

I think that data localization is the issue in terms of innovation and it's negative for the newcomers because if I fancy that we can be sure that if Google is to put servers in every Country in the world, maybe they can afford that, but what about the other companies, the newcomers. The companies that want to compete with them. So they will be in trouble if they have also to accomplish laws and regulation about data localization. But, as I say, this is not about data localization, but this is a very good example when measures, base it on good faith, base it on good arguments and good points that the arguments have, but when they choose to go to top down approaches, or even through the parliament on legislation, but without the participation of all stakeholders, the result we have on the table, laws or proposals for laws are very difficult to implement that have -- it's not very clear what the impact that they have in the economy, in the local economy, and also in the (Indiscernible) economy.

This is a lesson that you have to learn, that there is nothing that we have to encourage all the stakeholders to work more together, we have learned a lot on that, but there is a lot of much work to do on that, and in order to try to solve the needs and the problems that each stakeholder put on the table.

>> Maybe just briefly. Also because I almost have to leave, so if you

see me leaving, it is because my airplane will take off.

I think it is important that we start thinking about what could be universal values. And I would be happy not to call them democratic. I spoke of open societies and repressive societies deliberately. But I think the people living under oppression know very well what it means. I don't care what label it has, but I feel a responsibility towards all those people and I also think that the open Internet has a great potential to give and enable people's human rights in a way that is unprecedented and that we should at least try to work with.

And even though there is a wide variety of exciting and technical and diverse topics being discussed, a core discussion on what values can we agree on from Google to Brazil to ISOC to the OSCE, we're not really having. Sometimes I'm wondering why not, because maybe we're overwhelm by the complexities, but I feel intuitively or just from all the conversations I've been having this week among a lot of people here participating in this very important multistakeholder discussion there is a sense of what these values could be.

I think it is emerging but maybe subconsciously and maybe we should make it more and solicit and see how far we could go. So just to say that this was not so much about elections oars no elections but more of universal values which I hope can be a starting point. I hope.

>> MODERATOR: Steve, you can go ahead and pose your

question.

>> AUDIENCE: Thanks. Steve Song from the network startup resource center.

I and many of my colleagues have been working for, you

 

know, longer than 20 years in trying to spread Internet access

 

everywhere, basically, to build capacity and the expertise to

 

develop the Internet and for years saw it as a benign good, that

 

more Internet equals more good, and obviously in recent years

 

that it is evident that it is good and bad and that there are

 

harms associated with being on the Internet, but yes these

 

initiatives to connect to people and initiatives to sort of

 

protect people from harm tend to exist in kind of parallel

 

universes in that we want to connect everyone, yet at the same

 

time we want to protect everyone and we get into these debates

 

now, like about zero rating where, you know, I see the Internet

 

we're all driving a bus that we're building and upgrading at the

 

same time and some people don't get on the bus until we're

 

ready, until it is upgraded, and what I would like to know, my

 

question is: Is there a role for Internet Governance in

 

reconciling this tension between want to go connect everyone and

 

doing it in a way that also protects them, as it happens?

 

>> VINT CERF: That is a question key, I think, for this

year.

One very obvious response to this is that the engineers should be creating tools that allow people to protect themselves. As the Internet of Things emerges one of the things I worry about is not people, but devices that don't know that they shouldn't be talking to this thing somewhere else. Don't take commands from that thing. So we need to start building mechanisms that allow for strong authentication for the equivalent of white listing. I don't want my refrigerator taking commands from the 15-year-old next door. This needs to be confined to family and friends.

So, providing tools for strong authentication,

confidentiality to protect privacy is a really important

contribution as the system continues to unfold and unfold

and continues to incorporate more and more things as well

as more and more people.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make one other observation related to this whole question of openness. In 1994 Internet society held an INET meeting. George, you were probably there. Was it Prague? Yes. Thank you. We asked George Soros to speak on the subject of openness and he said to us then in 1994, just because the Internet is open now is no guarantee it will stay that way. It's now 2015 and it is time to remember what George Soros said.

>> Thank you. One thing that I'm finding very interesting in several panels that I have attended is that sometimes we are creating this dichotomy between law and technology and I have heard through several panels that law is helpless, encryption is the only way that we have to protect ourselves and to protect our privacy and I do think that there is a very important role that encryption and other technologies have to play but I did think as well that legal frameworks and parameters are very important not only to us but future trends as well. If we allow these trends of (Indiscernible) for instance in-laws that have been proposed in several countries such as UK, we are nature lies go this not only for us but for future generations and we are putting the burden only to protect himself or herself and people in developing world have incredibly different levels of access and awareness with regards to technology and encryption and other technologies, so this is something to bear in mind.

Just coming back to the discussion on the public interest. It was a

very interesting panel this week and I encourage you to take a look at the transcripts trying to come down not with the concept but at least with some ideas, some principles that could anchor a common understanding of the public interest.

One thing that I put forth on that panel is I see the document that was produced last year during the NETMundial was a good starting for that. I believe that document was raised for human rights principles, and not putting it in a kind of binary way between democracy and non-democracy but really stating the principles that are core for respecting human rights everywhere are but also used with technical principles such as open interoperability that we are talking here on this panel that is so important to keep the open part of the Internet as free as possible from political and regulatory influences.

Well, I think that this discussion is very interesting. My just maybe a final thought. Sometimes I wonder if destabilizing is not necessarily a bad thing. I think that some destabilization may be, it is interesting. When we talk about Internet Governance regime, this notion of regime is very anchored in the notion of a particular order. Order that has been established over the years, and an order that kind of gives priority to certain and most powerful actors and interests and sometimes from time to time I think it is natural that we go through a process of change inside the regime which is kind of destabilizing to reach another configuration and a configuration maybe that will be more horizontal or maybe be more participatory or be an order that can be co-constructed between different actors in another and better way.

So it is not necessarily bad to destabilize a little bit.

>> MODERATOR: I'm going to read out the remote question, because it follows directly to Marilia's point here.

The question was from Fernando Marquez. He asked: could you address the (Indiscernible) of Internet for us. Is an Internet of Internet Governance needed and what is the rule for un Internet Governance Forum. It builds off of a little bit of chaos may not be the outcome here.

>> VINT CERF: Can I respond in two ways? This is a very interesting phenomena that we're starting to see international government happening, springing it up on their own. It is an important indicate to are that this dialogue is increasingly important to many people around the world.

I would like to suggest to you that stable does not mean static. In ICANN for example there are processes built in to reexamine itself and its process owes a regular basis and to adapt them.

So I think we want to be careful not to be enamored of destabilization when we only need to be enamored of flexibility and adapt to change. We don't have to be unstable to do that.

>> MODERATOR: Turn it over to you. If you could please introduce yourself.

>> AUDIENCE Thank you so much. My name is Navin. First thank you so much for the panelist for sharing their views.

Instead of framing my point in a question or comment, I would just like to place a perspective and see if it gets some responses.

I think from it may not be -- the way the Internet is (Indiscernible) and other data and other connectivity it may, according to me, it may not be appropriate to term it or look at it from a prism of stable necessary or try to de-stable.

I think on the riper side it really underscores the dynamics which the Internet has to offer. If you remember when we started 20 years ago this were only Governments and stakeholders. As we proceeded most stakeholders started joining and their issues it not only made the Internet much more open and ubiquitous at the same time it is not restricted to any particular group.

So if there are any new challenges that are coming on the way now and future hopefully, I think it at least gives more scope for dynamicsism and openness and opportunity to engage if a dialogue which further underscores the importance of multistakeholderism.

So my comment is why are we trying to comment on stable necessary or de-stable necessary. Why are we not looking on the brighter side it is dynamic and giving more opportunities to grow.

Thank you.

>> VENT CERF: Thank you. Your comments made me realize something maybe everybody else already knows but I hadn't thought about.

What you think about the Internet spreading around the world and you think about the people who are using it in one Country or another, their experiences of the Internet are not uniform. And they are effected by the equipment that is available, by the technology that is supporting their access, varying speeds, but also by legal framework in which the providers of Internet service operate. And until you were speaking I hadn't thought about the fact that there is a big diversity of opinion which can arise out of the fact that our experiences of the Internet are not uniform, and that they are varied and we have to appreciate that more. I am now realizing I should appreciate more that your experience and my experience may be very different even though we might say to each other we're both using the Internet. And, so, there is a change in uniformity here which we're going to have to understand more deeply when we start talking about governance on a global scale.

>> AUDIENCE Hi. My name is Bin Crete. I'm from (Indiscernible) with the CCTLD for dot (Indiscernible).

My question is around governments destabilizing through law. So one of the things was brought up around extra territoriality. So I guess my question is: Do you -- the do the panelists think that by attempting to create extra territorial law governments are effective to stabilize themselves because the thing that makes them unique is they have territoriality.

>> VINT CERF: I'll be brave

There is an element of extra territoriality that shows up especially when laws are passed in one jurisdiction and an attempt is made to apply them in other jurisdictions where you don't have the authority e to do that. The right to be forgotten is an example of something that is focused on a legal rendering in Europe but which is now being applied elsewhere or is argued that it should be applied everywhere.

I think you can't force that to happen unless the jurisdictions, other jurisdictions choose to apply a similar kind of rule.

Raul's point was interesting very on. As you move from on Country to another you are using the in net according to the rules of the place where you get them to be at the time. And, so, even though you might say, I'm a citizen of the United States, but I'm in Brazil right now and I'm subject to Brazilian law for much of, you know, anything I do, including my use of the Internet, so I don't consider that to be an extra territoriality. I think that you accept the fact that you are subject to the laws of the Country you happen to be in at the time.

But for any Country to insist and demand that its laws be applied everywhere in the world collides with the notion of Sovereignty and you could easily imagine a lot of debate over that.

>> RAUL ECHEBERRIA: Okay. You are tempting me, Vint, to jump in this.

As I mentioned before, in fact the problem is that the conflict that there could be between different laws, different countries laws, because, for example, if a Country is concerned about information of data citizens, I will always be a Guyana citizen even if I am in Brazil or US. But if another Country is concerned about information that this candidate in the Country, so if I am in that Country using the Internet I will be subject to two laws at the same time.

So this is what makes the laws difficult to implement and sometimes this is because I think that's -- I think that's -- I don't know if it -- this is a realization of the Internet Governance but it creates situations that sometimes the measures that are taken creates situations that are difficult to solve because conflicts in the laws or laws that are difficult to implement ask so creates a vision that we have to deal with them later

in an unpredictable manner.

But with regard to the question that was made by last speaker, I think that's -- there are many, many different ways and I think that you mentioned some, so the Internet has to use laws in more than one Country, and there are lateral agreements or agreements between two countries or conventions in a group of countries that sign and there are binding bodies that can take decisions. I think that the challenge is to understand what are the mechanisms that we have by level and to do things that are proper for those mechanisms, and not try to do things that cannot be later implemented. So that's my point.

There are always way to incorporate between government.

And then what I think is the most, probably the most important conclusion in my view is that is what destabilize the ecosystem is that when the decisions are taken in a stakeholder manner. Even if the last decision is taken by a government, for example, that's is important is that the decisions have taken in a very formal manner and the participation of stakeholder, so it is to ensure that the missions are adequate for responding to the concerns.

Finally, because I decided before I agree with everything you say in your last intervention. I think it is important to have the layer of frameworks for what we do, and when I say about data localization I share sometimes the concerns. I want to know how my information is managed and under which leg of framework it is managed.

When the ideas are put in place that are not (Indiscernible) in the best way, so we have problems with things that (Indiscernible). So the motivations are good, but the conclusions, many times, destabilize the system.

>> MODERATOR: Anne, and then we will go to question over

here.

>> ANNE DE CATTRE: This discussion is extremely rich and I very much appreciated what some professor occasions and provocative thoughts that make us think differently.

I don't have the answer to these big questions. What I see is that we have two forces in a position between the Internet which was born global and countries and laws which are, by deaf mission, territorial.

Jurisdiction on this global network has been is one of the most difficult issues and us being on the table we've tried several times in different forum we've tried different solutions. Even trying through central areas like what is the jurisdiction applicable for Consumer Protection or what would be the jurist discussion applicable for privacy protection. It led nowhere.

So we are in very messy situation where we have a patchwork of laws and one global network which does a new -- that is (Indiscernible), but nevertheless.

The second element that I wanted to highlight is that we have not just holder, consultation, let's say, at national level in most democratic countries that is the case, but what we've seen, which is new is a multistakeholder model, develop at the global level for the Internet Governance. That is new. That is different.

But that begs the question as to whether, and that is not

(Indiscernible) at the origin posing this question.

We shouldn't make the mistake to December place democratic, whatever they represent, democratic processes by multistakeholderism. And if I think about what Mahed said earlier, she mentioned the need for leadership and the need to identify the values and here there is a question: Who should be in charge through which process to identify the values that should guide the way we govern the Internet and we use it.

So, I'm sorry, I'm just adding to the complexity just to say that eventually sometimes, and that is what the OECD does, we try to be pragmatic and what we try to do is un tangle this question of openness, which has many different facets from technical to economic to social, social including the fundamental liberties and so on, and we try to see whether initiate tiffs of an impact which is measurable economic social impact which is measurable. It's a huge and complex work that we've started to do. And for the moment, our stance is that there is nothing like closeness or openness. It is more about where do you want to situate yourself, your Country and you as an individual on something that is a multi-faceted continuum between closed and open. With all these forces that are playing against each other.

Thank you.

>> MODERATOR: If you could please introduce yourself.

>> AUDIENCE: Hello. Yeah. Hi. My name is Liz Mahiro. I am part of -- hello? Yeah.

Okay. Okay. I am part of the youth at IGF program and also part of the observatory of youth and also part of the center for tech following and society.

And when thinking about the destabilization of the Internet I cannot help but wonder about the place of cybersecurity. And following up on the last question about the rule of governments, what I see coming from a more academic perspective, of course, but what I see is that when it comes to cybersecurity is a very captured theme by governments, like government captured theme, and when it comes to places and forums like IGF and multistakeholder participation and everything that it was in the Internet Governance ecosystem, if I can say ecosystem, I see that when we're talking about cybersecurity in these places it's somehow emptied because of this narrative and capture that the state has over cybersecurity issues. And the implications, when we come here and talk about Internet Governance and how can we make -- how can we resist surveillance and power abuses and think about the place of sign you are security ask this relationship and how governments are, like, capturing this term. So I would like -- it is more of a comment but not a question, but, yeah.

>> MODERATOR: There were several yeses and head nods and such, so if anyone wants to respond.

>> Well, civilians, I guess that when you mention cybersecurity you're thinking national security and civilians, yeah.

Yeah, this has been mentioned several times. It is both a duty of the state to ensure national security. It is also something that especially in the context of the Internet can take huge proportions and have a global reach.

It is certainly eased at the origin, whether it is the true reason or whether it is the reason that is given, and there are other reasons, it is certainly at the origin of this movement we have seen about the data localization. That is the link is very direct.

What can be done for this is not that easy, nevertheless, we could think that a number of principles could be established at global level on what surveillance, what type of surveillance is legitimate, justified, and what is not justified.

We have in the OECD privacy guidelines, but we've been trying to push that for many years without any success. There is in those guidelines a provision that says that any exceptions to the principles for protection of privacy and personal data, even for Sovereignty or national security purposes should be as few as possible and made known to the public.

And that's a basis on which you could have countries, governments gathering and starting to look at how they can put that into practice and agree at a high level. But that is a very complex issue.

That said, security, digital security risk is not captured by Governments, and what we need to understand is that digital security is an economic risk. There is the national security and goal but there is also the economy and digital security risk and that is what is absolutely essential managing these risks to continue to do business on the Internet.

Continue to have social interactions on the in net. >> MODERATOR: So the clock is ticking down fairly quickly.

I am going to take a couple of questions at the same time and then have the panel respond.

Yes. In sequence, yes.

>> AUDIENCE: Something meaningful.

 

Thank you.

My name is Andres. Anne's provoked my reaction and actually I do not agree that the situation is messy with Internet Governance.

The problem is that we're trying to approach Internet Governance with our existing understanding and knowledge about how well does it govern. In other words, we're using the wrong tool to fix the problem or to resolve the problem. It is almost like doing the dental surgery with a hammer, more or less.

>> That happened to me last year.

>> AUDIENCE: The global system we were trying to squeeze the global system within the rules of Vattelian territory Sovereignty that we know more or less 400 years and that is the problem.

Until we will not find the way to get out this current thinking, we will always be subject of very serious contradictions. So that is point No. 1.

Point No. 2 is we know that there are soften players, 193, four or five sovereign, but the question is whether big global players and Internet field I will not mention -- I will not mention companies. Where their legitimacy in decision-making process is less than legitimacy of governments. And what we know today is that only governments can ledge late, because they're sovereign entities and that is also wrong.

The third point is that we do not know though deal with the scope. That is additional complexity to the governance issues. For instance, if you take a bank robbery, it always existed, but the problem is that if someone robs the bank in real life he or she can take as much money as one can carry away or bring away. Some six months ago I came across the article about bank robbery, electronic bank robbery, one guy with the click of a mouse stole 300 million Euros from several banks across the Euros on infiltrating in their computer system making sure that ATMs at a certain point in time started giving out cash. That is completely different. We don't know how to deal with those things. We need to put the new thinking in this governance paradigm.

So thank you.

>> If you would just allow me for a second. I meant messy in the sense that we don't have the responses to these complex issues.

>> AUDIENCE: George Sawowski.

Your comments provoked me to come to the microphone so you're become ago real provocateur here.

It was the comment about making sure that multistakeholdersism doesn't usurp the rule of legitimate democratic processes. But what is interesting is multistakeholderism is acquiring a greater degree of legitimacy through organizations such as the IGF by virtue of its increased inclusion, its participatory nature, and to the extent that that happens, multistakeholder takes the role of being a provocateur in the social space with respect to not only democratic governments, but also other governments and I think that is really important to remember and one of the reasons why this is a very valuable process and why the IGF should be mandated for the indefinite future.

Thank you.

>> VINT CERF: Thank you very much, George. I think that

is a well-made point. I wanted to pick up something on Yanis

 

was saying.

When he mentioned 400 years I think he was referring to the Vattelian treaty that settled a war and established the concept of Sovereignty. (Indiscernible) speaks its global character, its non-national character. What that suggests to me is that to respond to Yanis’ point is that maybe it is time for us to start thinking about this global system and the things which we would like it to produce, the things we would like it to support.

One of them might very well be safe tee and security and privacy. Maybe it is time to have that global discussion about the commonality that we experience in this global network and the commonality that we would like to preserve. So the dialogue now becomes really multistakeholder becomes globally multistakeholder, and talks to objectives that we might have that are global in scope as opposed to national in scope. Certain it's certain that we will not agree on everything, but it's possible we might agree on something, and if we had a global agreement on something, that's a place to start.

We have other international treaties that speak to preservation, for example, of the ant Arctic region, the peaceful uses of space. Pain we should be thinking about the law of the Net on a global scale. We are all part of this environment. It's a shared responsibility.

(Applause).

>> MODERATOR: So three more panelists would like to respond ask then we will take all three questions in sequence and collect them together and then we'll have some final thoughts.

>> I'm very glad that I provoked two reactions in the room. That

is a measure of success.

But, to be honest, the question goes back to the ownership of the question between multistakeholderism and democracy goes back to (Indiscernible) wanted to provoke a discussion, and I think it works.

>> I think that this is very good. Thank you, Chany, for bringing this to the table.

I think the realistic review is an example of something that has been done by all stakeholders and all stakeholder machine manner for ten years it is now being reviewed by intergovernmental organization and even if there have been some opportunities to participate in the process at the end of the day there will be a lot of -- a bunch of people, the members of the general assembly the United Nations taking decision inside of our room.

I think there is a need also for improving those organizations. Whoa e discuss very much about how to improve the IGF and how to improve the Internet Governance but there is also a need to discuss the international governance and I'm sure we will see a lot of that in the next ten years, because at least I perceive there are some people claiming for these kind of changes and I also think that all what we have done since the beginning of the discussion, the Internet Governance in 1986, maybe, all what we have done I think that we have an impact in the way that the world is government in general ask the countries are government, too.

One more comment very brief about sign you are security. Just mention something. This is something that is not understood yet. That this is obviously cyber securities is a topic where the government states need to have an active role, but all the complexity that is behind or inside of the cybersecurity topic is not a single process that could be lead by just one stakeholder.

This we also mention again the review process. This is a point of conflict in the draft of the WSIS review where there is a call for the states to play the leading role in that. This is something that some things should be leaded by governments, some other things will be leaded by other stakeholders. Private sectors, civil society and technical community all have a role and all have leading roles in different aspects. We come back to the same point again that is only -- the only way to move forward is through collaborative process with the participation of all stakeholders. This is the way that we will avoid destabilization of the Internet.

>> Just following up on your comment of cybersecurity, I think that your diagnosis is completely right. The people making the decision on sign you are security are not here. The army, the people that are part of the military are complex much even if they were I'm not sure it would be getting the message across using the terminology that we use. There is a very specific vocabulary set of norms and laws that they use that we need to appropriate ourselves of these vocabulary to be able to get this message across and I this I that even human rights activists since they are dealing with Internet Governance that discuss cybersecurity are starting to realize that.

So I see this community as a pre-IGF in a pre-IGF stage. Before the IGF I think there was letters conversation between government, the technical community, the private sector and maybe we need to bring them in because they are totally separated in a silo. At least that is my perception.

Just a little comment on the point on the government's ledge late in cyberspace and this is wrong. I think that this is right to a certain extent. Not only thinking that Vint mention before but the code is law but also thinking in terms of service that platforms that we use that sometimes apply even more efficiency in our lives than norms themselves. So we need to think if these terms of service are even fostering the principles that we have been discussing here, not only human rights principles but technical principles as well, such as interoperability. Are we able to take our data. Are we allowed data portability from one platform to the other. It seems to me that it would be really important to foster interoperability. Are these processes multistakeholder, including users of the platform, they have a voice in the process of defining the terms of service that are the contracts that will buy them to the platforms. So I think we should think multistakeholder is in different areas as well as terms of service to me it's a good area to think about that.

Thanks.

>> MODERATOR: We're right down to the wire, I'm going to take all three questions and put them in a bundle, with the questions as short as humanly possible, please.

>> AUDIENCE: Thank you. I am Tony (Indiscernible). I am the

Executive Secretary for CRASS, the Regulators for Southern

Africa.

When Johanna was speaking, my issue is to agree also with the view that static does no mean -- stable does not mean static, or whatever.

But I then want to take it to a practical level. Why don't we look what happens international government, which is working. Even a democracy like has been said. There is an army, even the most democratic Country we find probably is an Army, they have a police force, they have laws which can be enforced, they can prosecute. So I'm thinking the model that should work should almost borrow that same concept where we let the government take -- the governments of the world take after all these multistakeholderism or all the reason which I would like them, public consultations in politician, the MPs will take the views and then their head and laws are made and passed through the various stages any further breaches, people arrested and so on.

So I think realistic that same model into Internet Governance. So internationally there will be a police force that can prosecute, that can, indeed, a law, international law that is agreed by all governments that it holds, binds people, holds everybody accountable and people observe the terms and whatever happens in national governments.

Thank you.

>> AUDIENCE: Hi. Can you hear me? Yeah.

So my name is Odeara (Indiscernible). I'm an organizer

Ambassador from IT media Law at Bourne University, UK.

A very brief comment which could also be a question, although I'm not really sure that we have the answer to that yet.

We are dealing with a transnational order which means that we don't really have adequately the responses yet.

We have the tools, but so far responses have been weak. To

give you one example from a public law perspective we have

 

fundamental human rights, but they're certainly lots of things

 

to be done.

 

We have undergoing reforms in the European union level, then the domestic implementation of them. So we have a long way ahead of us, not to mention the safe harbor with the US. The Schram case.

So definitely the answer will not come from just the human rights perspective.

And then what are we left with? The terms of use. It all boils down to the user being treated not as a human rights subject but as a consumer. And I'm not very happy with that, you see, because my background is public law, and human rights. So my question really is this: How do we make sure in this sort of forums where Civil Society takes place, where people are given a platform and they can be heard, how do we make sure that we discuss more about situations like the TPPIP for example, where -- to give you the best example, reverse engineering and DRM are stopped. So that could have a detrimental effect to the user in parliament.

My question really is: How can we make sure that we restore not just user's trust but the user's empowerment? We make the user stand at the heart of the current discussions ask not just merely observing things happening around him.

>> AUDIENCE Thank you. My name is (Indiscernible) and I want to make a brief comment to Vint and Yanis' reflections about relativity.

Indeed what we see is now more and more governments introduce concepts like cyber Sovereignty, international Internet segment. I think this creates a problem which could lead to the fragmentation of the Internet or denationalization of the Internet.

By the way, this is not so new. In the charter of the United Nations we have the principle of Sovereignty which speaks about borders. In the universal declaration of human rights we speak about the flow of information, regardless of borders. So the problem between a bordered space and an un bordered space is not fundamentally new, but we, as Yanis has said we cannot settle the problems of tomorrow with the instruments of yesterday and we have to be innovative in the interpretation of Sovereignty. And in my eyes this is the way forward speaking about cooperative Sovereignty. I think the principle of hearing was adopted in the Tunis agenda by the heads of states that means yes, probably did not understand what they signed, but we have it in the Tunis agenda that the concept of fearing for internet governance is Internet Governance definition which has adopted by the heads of state and also historically this is not new. 400 years ago the king had to learn to hear power of its parliament. So this was 400 years a power struggle where is the real decision making power, in the palace or parliament. So history comes back but in a new environment.

Thank you.

>> VINT CERF: That is a wonderful characterization. Maybe the word transnational should be captured here very carefully. Not international, but transnational. Maybe we need transnational institutions that are recognized for their processes and authority. That would be a very interesting development.

>> MODERATOR: So my time management is terrible and I

apologize to everyone in the audience for that, but I would like to give the panelists each a chance to respond to any comments or express their final thoughts. We will just move from this side to that side and then we will break for lunch. Or not respond.

>> Thank you for the opportunity to participate. The discussion was great. Thank you very much.

>> For me, thank you for being here until this late hour, and have a nice lunch everyone.

>> Yeah, I think that all comments remind us that the Internet is not Internet Governance is not a single thing. There are several interests within the Internet and several networks and yeah, that is my final comment and thank you so much.

>> VINT CERF: I'm really glad that we're causing all this

trouble.

(Laughter)

(Applause)

(Panel concluded.)

(12:20)