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. 

***

>> Thank you for coming so early. Can I encourage you to come a little bit forward and not to sit at the back? This session is really organized more as a roundtable. It will be much more effective if you can sit either closer here and to this side or this side. Not to occupy the rows of seats behind the scaffolding. That will help the dynamic of the room to get everybody talking. If you have an intervention in mind that you really want to come up and speak, you can also sit here.

Please don't sit in this row. This is open. We don't want anyone's backs facing anyone.

>> JUAN CARLOS: Good morning.

I'm from Derecos Digitales, Chile and you're welcome to the main section on Human Rights on Internet access roundtable, with me is Mrs. Anriette Esterhuysen from the Association for Progressive Communications, South Africa. We want to welcome you all.

To start this session, by introducing the Host Country Chair for the opening remarks, Mr. Thiago Tavares from CGI.br.

>> THIAGO TAVARES: Good morning, everyone.

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin this morning's Human Rights access in Internet Governance roundtable.

I would like to welcome you all here today and I'm looking forward to our discussions. The Internet can be a powerful enabler of Human Rights. As a medium of communications, the freedoms fostered by the Internet to express ideas connect and associate with others. This is impressive. This freedom is essential elements of personal autonomy and basic Human Rights.

Internet access is growing steadily across the world and changing the Internet in every aspect of our lives. For more than 3 billion people who have online access the Internet directly impacts of the ability to access news and information, political speech, religion and culture, markets and trades and libraries of knowledge. It is important to sustain and grow access. It is even more people connecting online every day.

To do so in a way that supports Human Rights, the IGF has become over the years a unique, important platform to facilitate the dialogue on Human Rights and the interlinkage with Internet policy in governance. Each year Human Rights issues have become increasingly more imminent in the IGF with a large proportion of workshops this week, in fact, we're speaking to the different dimensions.

I would now like to give you the floor to our moderators Anriette Esterhuysen from the Association for Progressive Communications, South Africa and Juan Carlos from Derecos Digitales, Chile.

The floor is yours.

>> JUAN CARLOS: Thank you, Mr. Thiago Tavares.

I would briefly introduce the format for this session.

This session will be a roundtable and we aim to have a very participatory session where we will open the floor to questions and ask our discussions around the table to discuss the key questions that will be provided to them. Some collected through public calls within the theme of this session.

The session will be split in three parts that we will be interrupting for comments and questions from the audience and the Dynamic Coalitions as well.

We will have a timekeeper. They'll help us carry this conversation in a dynamic manner.

We also have to announce that some people will have to leave, this is the final day of the IGF, and some have important commitments.

I want to start by asking Frank LaRue to open the start of this session.

>> FRANK LaRUE: Thank you very much.

The idea today is to see what are the key issues we have seen that are specific concerns for Internet and freedom of expression around the world that have come out in this IGF meeting.

I find that all IGF meetings are very diverse in topics and complicated to hone down. In this session, we still have the diversity, but there is a couple of topics which clearly came out systematically and we have seen several panels:

One is the issue of hate speech and prevention of hate speech. The idea of dangerous speech. What can be dangerous speech and what can be defined as hate speech? This is becoming very specific a concern with question of migration around the world and the hate that's thrown verbally by the migrant, different ethnical communities because of the differences in race, culture in general. It correlates with this, this I think is important of this IGF, it is the look at gender‑based harassment and problems. I think APC has played a key role in this in raising this issue very strongly, how can we prevent the incitement of violence against women, because they're lawyers, prosecutors, other cases. I have heard about this in other panels. For me, it was a very crucial element, an important element of this IGF. I personally believe, this is only my position, that when we talk about hate speech we talk about incitement to violence, and it seems that the gender focus on women organizations are successful in raising the issue that violence against women doesn't only mean physical violence but psychological violence. Consistent sexual harassment, harassment of women can actually turn them away from a career, can shut their lives, can silence journalists and women that are demanding the right to study or the right to equal access to justice in any country.

In a similar case, hate speech has also been addressed from a perspective of LGBT population and in some areas of the world it is a part of the political debate that's been used during electoral campaigns and it has a distortion of the democratic process, the electoral process where candidates use anti LGBT population language to supposedly increase their popularity but also to provoke discrimination and in many cases mobs and violence against LGBT Human Rights defenders that had a very brave approach in opposing this, including legislation that in some countries has been proposed and they have had to backtrack.

A similar issue again, this time we're looking at the limitations, whether valid or not, a similar issue has come with the prevention of national security and radicalization of youth. How can prevention of radicalization is the term being used. I think this is a legitimate concern, we had a panel yesterday, but the prevention of radicalization was expressed by many people as very much a multitask approach. It cannot only be seen from the position of speech, can only be addressed through Internet as a key element of counter‑speech, yes, of prevention, positive messages, but it also has structural issues in every single country that also has to be addressed. It is a legitimate question, but it is also a temptation to look at radicalization only from the optic of communication and the use of Internet when that is not the real problem and the real problem is who are the messengers, who are the people with credibility addressing the young people what, are the conditions in which the young people live?

Finally, let me say the question of again, link to national security question, question of surveillance, privacy. Which clearly now we have a Rapporteur, this is a very important development, he has come to this session with the Rapporteur, freedom of expression as well and I think that this has been an excellent possibility to get to know him and to address this issue.

Clearly, how fast is technology going? How can we exercise the safeguards of privacy in a world where it even seems that public opinion is willing to give away privacy to guarantee security.

I personally don't think there is a contradiction that we should fall into the idea that privacy and security is in contradiction or the privacy, security, freedom of expression are in contradiction, on the contrary, we should say that they're a complimentary, it is an open debate because the technology is going so fast. We have an element of corporate responsibility, how are corporation pace that handle the software of surveillance or decryption or encryption and decryption using this technology? Is there a registry of who they're selling it to? Selling it to rogue states, authoritarian states? This is a big concern today.

I would finish by saying that the challenge of this IGF is to look at this problem in the complimentary of freedom of expression and other areas of the Internet in the world.

>> JUAN CARLOS: Thank you very much.

>> [Applause].

>> JUAN CARLOS: I will start this part of the session regarding freedom of expression, right to assembly by presenting the Professor Joe Canatacci, UN Special Rapporteur on Right to Privacy in Digital Age, Bishakha Datta from public policy, Ebele Okobi from Google, Mr. Niels Ten Oever, Working Party on ICANN and Human Rights & Article 19, Netherlands, Guilherme Varella, who is not present at this moment, and the permanent representative of Belgium to the Council of Europe and the director of RPD Mexico, the digital rights defense network, Alejandra Lagunes.

I will ask brief questions, and I hope you'll be able to answer for which you have 3 minutes.

I will start with the professor Joe Canatacci, Special Rapporteur regarding the remarks just made by Frank LaRue. What's the challenges regarding privacy regarding the Rights of the use of the Internet and what are the challenges of privacy in the current era of digital rights?

>> PROF. JOE CANATACCI: Thank you very much. I apologize for being slightly late. I was kidnapped in the corridor three times in 100 meters.

Very briefly, I think that in the opening comments made by Frank LaRue and also in the general theme of the session, what is most interesting to me is that there is life beyond privacy. We have to get people accustomed to think in a general framework.

When one asks the question why privacy, right, what is the function of privacy? What's the role of privacy? In the same way as we're asking what is the role of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly traditionally?

On this particular context, I think that it is important that we have a structured dialogue about another right, and that is an over‑reaching right which is already recognized in some countries and that's the right to personality. My answer as to the reason why we have privacy is because each of us has or should have a free, unhindered right to the development of our personality. It is in that context that privacy is essential. It is in that context that freedom of expression is essential and other fundamental rights are essential, including the right to protect our reputation and the challenge of the Internet is of course it enables us to do so many new things but it also helps us develop our personality in many directions but it also may provide certain risks to the development of personality by providing choke points. There are areas where the flow of information in our direction and flow of information out of what we do may actually be impeded by a combination of individuals, governments and corporations.

Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Co‑moderator jumping in.

That's an interesting idea. It has been interesting to hear you, Joe, develop this idea.

Do you feel that there are risks worth strengthening and interpreting the right to personality in the context of the Internet and that it could limit freedom of expression in way that defamation sometimes limits freedom of expression? I don't understand that much about the right, doesn't exist in my country, South Africa. It seems that that could be a possible conflict.

>> PROF. JOE CANATACCI: No. Actually, to the contrary, there is a risk if you don't frame the right in that way.

In fact, there are a number of countries which have integrated the right into the Constitution. Germany is perhaps the leading country which has done so, but you have other countries like Romania, a number of the Nordic countries in Europe which integrated that right.

If you ‑‑ I suspect that you will recognize this is a discussion which goes far beyond the 3‑minute limit which is why I'll take the advantage of this reply to say that we're organizing what we hope would be a major meeting about precisely this subject privacy, freedom of expression, other freedoms, defamation, reputation, protection of reputation and we hope to organize that in October of 2016 and if anybody listening is interested, please contact me directly about it.

Thank you.

>> JUAN CARLOS: Thank you.

I want now to ask a question regarding this, Partik Hesilius, and what's the role of the private companies in this area. How can ICT companies service providers, infrastructure providers adopt and apply stronger commitments to Human Rights especially when they're in conflicts with one another or perceived conflicts with one another?

>> PARTIK HESILIUS: Thank you.

You know, many times companies are put in a hot spot on this complex, issues related to Human Rights. Sometimes we do it voluntary, other times we have to take the role aspirators to decide how to handle Human Rights. Another great effect of the Internet that brings people together but also more to do with Human Rights, hear recognized with different jurisdictions in the same time for particular issues. This has to do with catalyzing affects that the senior Internet has on Human Rights. We're seeing the analysis of the Human Rights violation online is not only more complex, but also richer. We try to have a holistic approach when dealing with Human Rights.

I will highlight the importance of self‑regulation. When we don't have particular rules in particular we have to deal with issues that, you know, you need to deal with issues immediately. So I talk about self‑regulation with a little reference with our friends, that's the community, the greatest example, YouTube, how ‑‑ there is no one‑size‑fits‑all solution to deal with Human Rights, and you always need input of the locals, of those that feel this is harming them. By having the early warning system of the user when they flag a video they concern that sure is inappropriate or in violation, in hate speech for example, which is difficult to define what is hate speech and that varies from country to country and different cultures. Those users are flagging the videos, allowing us to take a deeper analysis and to help remove some of the content.

Then we also have an approach for analyzing complex issues that really harm people like what we did with revenge porn. For example, earlier this year we began to honor requests from people to remove nude or sexually explicit images shared with others without their consent. This I think has a very good ‑‑ a lot of people, they're relieved that those images are not appearing now. This is the kind of approaches that we are taking now.

However, there are other issues, when we're put on the spot to take the decision that judges or the different institutions from the government should decide. For example, right to be forgotten. We don't want to be there. We don't want to be the ones deciding what should be published and what not. I think that this ‑‑ this needs to be rethinked.

>> JUAN CARLOS: Thank you.

Going on with the standards to be upheld to safeguard Human Rights on the Internet, I want to ask if this Human Rights guidelines, Niels Ten Oever, should be obligator for software developments even further than for private companies, but speaking about the particles of the Internet as well.

>> NIELS TEN OEVER: Thank you so much.

We need to realize that technology is not neutral. The implementation of technology is not neutral at all either. If we see the Internet as an enabling environment for Human Rights such as freedom of expression, we have to preserve that, that happens at all levels, for a global network. We need a universal standard and what functions better than this than Human Rights?

Human Rights are interrelated, interdependent and universal, privacy is technically relevant for freedom of expression, right to be presumed innocent, these thoughts are not new. This is thoughts that were made explicit in the WSIS process, and we have the Human Rights Resolution and the Resolution on the Right to Privacy in the Digital Age and the NETMundial outcome document which reflects that Human Rights should underpin the Internet Governance principles.

The Internet standard RFC, 1958, it says that the Internet community believes that the goal is unfettered connectivity and the tool is the Internet protocol and the intelligence is end‑to‑end, and an organization like ICANN in Article 4 of the Articles says that they're going to respect international law and it is quite likely that an explicit Human Rights commitment will be added to the ICANN by laws. We seem to have agreement for quite a while there now but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

It is about procedures, standards, processes for application and remediation. We're working with the ICANN and ITF, but eventually all should make this explicit, you can think of the regional Internet registry, exchange points, service providers and hosting providers. How we're designing our public spaces says a lot about our societies.

Do we have broad sidewalks? Are the sidewalks accessible for wheelchairs? The same is the case with technology. Does the technology allow for censorship? Does the technology allow for accessibility and internationalization? We need to decide demand and to make it explicit what we want that to look like and how we get there. It is time to move from policy to practice.

>> JUAN CARLOS: Thank you, Niels Ten Oever.

I want to jump from the development of technical and industry standards to how they apply to what has been mentioned by Frank LaRue and Joe Canatacci about this life and the right to develop one's own personality.

I want to ask Bishakha Datta about this. I want to ask how do the freedom of expression and privacy deal with this?

>> BISHAKHA DATTA: What do we talk about with online freedom of expression, we talk about politics, religion, we tend to talk about protecting political religious descent and journalistic speech under threat. That's how we have come to understand freedom of expression over time.

Conversely, what do we not talk about when we talk about freedom of expression? We don't talk about sexual expression. Either because we don't see or understand this expression or because we don't see this as legitimate expression even though this too is under threat online. It is vital to note that the Internet has emerged as thee space for sexual expression be it providing information, sexual education for personal exploration of claiming sexual rights, so much so that 98% of activists in one survey said that the Internet is an important public sphere for advancing rights in the sexuality domain. That's advancing rights for a wide range of individuals, cutting across class, income, language, other access divides including migrant workers, people with disabilities, et cetera. At the same time, 51% of those in the same survey said that they had experienced violent or threatening messages, intimidation, censorship, that's not from the State but what we call non‑state actors and that's having images, information removed from social media platforms which is a form of private censorship, having private information and private intimate images made public without consent neither by the state or private platforms but by other individuals using the platforms.

I guess when we think about the intersections between freedom of expression, privacy, et cetera, we need to ask a few questions: How can we uphold the right to all forms of expression, including those that are stigmatized? How can one expression of one user silence another? That privacy, anonymity is upheld by the State and other users, how do we use consent as a standard to distinguish between sexual standards that are consensual and not, and how do we bring an ethics of online consent allowing all of our expressions, including sexual expression to flower?

>> [Applause].

>> JUAN CARLOS: Thank you.

Continuing with that, that one silences another and the perception that there may be some source of not legitimate expression, I want to ask Dunja Mijatovic, OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Bosnia‑Herzegovina, welcome. I want to ask about the communities at risk and how the Rights of freedom of expression can be balanced with a right to dignity, physical integrity and to privacy.

>> DUNJA MIJATOVIC: Thank you very much.

As the name of the organization serves, security for cooperation and security and cooperation, so we deal with freedom of expression as an element and component of security because when there is no freedom of expression, there is no Human Rights there is no security, vice versa, no security without full respect for Human Rights. That's one of the main points of ‑‑ starting point.

When we look at freedom of expression online, I would tackle the point that you made about the balance. I think balance is often a wrong term to be used because it implies a compromise that needs to be reached. All the basic and fundamental Human Rights need to be fully respected. It is not about balancing one against the other, they're all as important as equal and that's why freedom of expression, the part that I work on, I consider very much important.

We need to also stop looking at social media and new online medias as anything particularly new. These areas have been around now for I would say decades, and become as it has been pointed out, the most dominant platform for us to have access and to also impart and depart information. It is essential to keep them all free and independent as the name of my office. I deal with media freedoms and freedom of. Journalism, this is a growing trend and it brought more people into the profession, more people in the context of the freedom of the media and expression as Frank LaRue pointed out, it brings new challenges and problems that have to be dealt with. In a way we have tools from the offline world to deal with the online challenges as well, issues as hate speech, violence, issues such as threats to violence, they're not particularly new attacks against minority. None of this is new. They're taking place on a different place and different platform.

What we're looking at in terms of our issues, it is important, safety. Safety of people who are expressing themselves online. It is a major issue and it has been pointed out in the conference many times, safety of female journalists is particularly different and particularly challenging in comparison to the male counterparts. That's something that our office deals with and something that needs to be tackled with in a multistakeholder environment. Another important point to make, we need more education, education on how to use the new platforms, how to adapt, what are the codes of behaviors on the new platforms, not just for journalists but for everybody. Can we behave on them the same way as we behave in a street, in a normal discussion or this appearance of virtuality an idea that they can behave inappropriately or may be rude. Those are main points to be considered.

>> JUAN CARLOS: Thank you very much.

I want to ask the room if ‑‑ we have a missing panelist. Apparently not.

Then I want to finish this round of questions asking Mr. Garcia, under this discussion, regarding the issues that have been raised and others that have been raised in the IGF regarding the Internet and freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, privacy, considering that Mexico is very likely the next host for the IGF meeting, I want to ask you, what are the key Human Rights issues that you think we need to pay attention to going to that meeting?

>> LUIS GARCIA: Thank you.

As Niels Ten Oever said, Human Rights is a framework which should guide our discussions with regard to the Internet. However rights that we have but rights are violated and often we're told that some rights, for example the right of privacy is dead. It is not dead. It is a right we have but it is violated systematically. It has been denied systematically by several agendas, for example, one is the cybersecurity Agenda that's been developing outside of the Human Rights framework and there is now knocking on our doors for example in Mexico in the form of cybercrime legislation that would literally make you a criminal for using the computer and to give great discretion to authorities to punish.

It is important to take in context how the Internet is being used. In the case of Mexico, it is a country in which the Human Rights Special Rapporteur on Torture, other special representatives from the UN has characterized as a country going through grave and serious Human Rights crisis with the disappearances, torture, killings and that this is affecting particularly certain groups such as journalists and Human Rights defenders. When some agendas such as one on cybersecurity tries to put privacy or encryption in contrast with security, what I would like to tell them is that in my country the line between the government and organized crime is often non‑existent or at the very best blurry.

When ‑‑ in my context, privacy encryption for journalists, for Human Rights defenders is security, security from the aggressions of the state and non‑state actors as well.

In the case of Mexico, I want to mention as well that several surveillance provisions have been adopted that affect the exercise of rights in the Internet and Mexico became inspired by the directive of Europe and implemented that same thing in our legislation becoming uninspired to remove it after the tribunal of the European Union declared it invalid and we're challenging in court, what is not happening, lack of safeguards is a problem, especially the context that I'm describing and often we don't know which authorities can practice surveillance on some people or warrants that are required for the surveillance provisions. We're a big server of a malware hacking team, it was demonstrated how it is not hypothetical that this surveillance can or will be used against Human Rights defenders and political dissidents but something that we can prove out of the league of the hacking team.

There are other parts, other discussion, we're hear discussing this, but in other forums, the discussions is not happening such as the trade negotiations of the TPP, which are happening outside of here and determining how we exercise our rights.

Finally, with no accountability, no accountability here either. There is no representative from Mexican government here, just Delegation of Two people in the session that they held yesterday there was not even a space for questions. We need and we want a Civil Society to discuss this issue with Mexico, but they need to show up for the discussions.

Thank you.

>> JUAN CARLOS: Thank you very much, Mr. Garcia.

Before we open the floor to the questions, I want to ask all of our panelists, both from this part of the session and all others that surround us in this table to ask one another questions regarding what we have just discussed on privacy, freedom of expression and assembly.

Feel free to take the mike to ask a question of your fellow panelists.

>> ROHAN SAMARAGUE: UNESCO, more of a question, a suggestion of how we can integrate this discussion to the broader international and regional Human Rights systems. We have the governing bodies of other convention, child, women, the racist, the people with disabilities convention, and how should we maintain those governing bodies and also inform it and all of us take serious advantage of the universal periodical review of our countries to inform on violations and have good practices related to the protection of freedom of expression, privacy, journalism, other Human Rights defenders related to the Internet, to make this underlying that if we want this broader perspective of Human Rights and using the different systems, to keep them in the loop of the discussions.

Thank you very much.

>> JUAN CARLOS: Any further discussions? Anyone want to respond?

>> KATHY BROWN: I would like to put the question to those of you who ‑‑ Kathy Brown ‑‑ who are thinking about this every day.

The cross‑border nature of the Internet allows speech to go from one place to another in ways that, of course, involve some cultural norms, cultural taboos, political issues that exist off the net but which seem more and more to migrate discomfort to affect and chill speech by individuals. The very nature of the Internet however has no border, human begins has come to be able to discuss issues of human concern of cross‑borders in ways that may affect their political standing, their standing in the community. They may be quite innocent in terms of their expression. I'm very interested in how you all are thinking about this issue as we in the Internet Society actually push the very cross‑border nature of the technology.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you, Kathy.

That was Kathy Brown from ISOC.

Before the other panelists respond, I see Rohan has a question too, a follow‑up question to that, because picking up on what was said about regional, international mechanisms. Because on one hand there is that, that cross‑border nature but then on the other hand there is remedy, how do you seek remedy if you don't do that using the existing framework of national Human Rights instruments then going to the regional level and then into the international level. Is that something ‑‑ we often talk about how rights apply across jurisdiction, we rarely talk about how remedy can be provided. Maybe respond to that too.

Let's have ‑‑ I think you wanted to add something too.

>> ROHAN SAMARAJUE: Thank you.

As I was preparing for this session, I was going through the international convention on human and political rights, certain and political rights, and in particular when it comes to a positive approach against discrimination, by governments, what that normally requires is the collection of very detailed demographic information so that particular actions that are against discrimination can be targeted properly. For example, I have been asked about the cast composition of my board members by a funding organization which I was appalled by. In my country we don't count these things. We don't collect information of this nature. I was wondering how issues like positive approaches to eliminating the discrimination, are they not contradictory to some of the privacy concerns, particularly in light of our Mexican colleague's important point that governments are not benign, that governments should look at the Rights of citizens and should we encourage them to collect more and more information?

I think we need act on principles and the right for non‑discrimination. I think what it practically means is that a strong anonymity, privacy, anonymity, the content, it should be enforced on the network. It means we have to go back to the principle that all packets are equal and should be treated equal, which means that net neutrality should be standard basis.

If we start by differentiating networks, start by differentiating the websites, start by differentiating the protocols, we need to look at the packets, headers, the contents. All of this is protected, the only way to protect rights strongly on a technical level by strong privacy, security, having a very strong definition of net neutrality and content agnosticism.

>> JUAN CARLOS: I know many want to respond.

I want to ask our newly returning member of the panel, Ambassador, and plenipotentiary of permanent representative of Belgium to the Council of Europe, where are the key issues around privacy previously that the Council of Europe is considering and what are the approaches you're considering

>> Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to underline the work that's happening at the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe being a European organization of 47 countries. We were talking about enforcement being the issue on certain fundamental rights. Well, those 47 countries signed up to something, they signed up to the Convention, the European Convention of Human Rights and they have a very strong judge, they have the court, that will create a case law on certain infringements of certain rights that serves not only because, of course, the question of enforcement, it is at hand, but also will be orientation of what we understand about what we understand regarding freedom of expression and privacy.

Why are governments interested? Why should they be interested? Well, for those 47, the answer is simple, it is their obligation, they have to. Why? The state should protect its citizens offline and as a continuation of it also online because we spend more and more time online and we're more and more interconnected. That's one thing.

Another thing I would like to say, you have in an area of 47, a watchdog with a stick. That's the end of the process, enforcement infringement, remedies, but there is also at the start a very important process and this is what's happening here, it is influencing at the start so that companies, techies, so that academia, governments, Civil Society, so that they can take these discussions into account from the onset while developing their business model, while thinking about the new infrastructure where the default option is protecting rights.

The guide to Human Rights for Internet users is I think the most wonderful product the Council of Europe did in this prevention area.

Thank you very much.

>> JUAN CARLOS: Thank you.

I want to give two more opportunities, please be brief, one minute each,

First, Bishakha Datta.

>> BISHAKHA DATTA: I want to try to answer your question.

What's really interesting is that if you look at political and religious ‑‑ the sort of typical speech that's considered ledge mitt and protected as freedom of expression you find a lot of culture relativism among countries. If you look at sexual speech and expression, there is very little variation, most countries tend to see this as illegitimate. What I want to say, for this speech to also be protected and to get Human Rights claims, we need, A, freedom of expression in the community to back this, we need organizations like the UN Human Rights Council which passed progressive resolutions on sexual orientation and gender identity to understand the relationship between sexual speech and expression and these kinds of things, and we ‑‑ the time has come for this to be made explicitly a part of the freedom of expression for it to be protected.

>> JUAN CARLOS: Thank you.

>> PATRIK HESILIUS: I also wanted to address the issue with how to ensure freedoms and how to regulate these things.

It was mentioned the various instruments like the European court of Human Rights, super nationals, at the end of the day, most of these things are on a national level. It is the countries that make the laws and have to enforce them. What the international organizations such as the one I work for, what they do, it puts pressure on the countries when they don't abide by the freedom of expression, commitments, you have to you have to act with such cases, not just observer, there has to be action on a national level, an action and international level in terms of supervising and ensuring that the nations abide by the rules they have voluntarily agreed to themselves.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I asked my co‑moderator to give me a chance to say something too.

I think absolutely, something that I have been really impressed by at this IGF is how the community is developing new instruments for accountability. We have the ranking digital rights research, for example, and instruments that make the private sector more accountable that provide States with data which the States then can use to hold private sector more accountable and vice versa.

Also data violations committed by governments. That's something and I really having been a part of the IGF from the beginning, I think that's a product of this community, that we not only are relying on the traditional mechanisms which don't work very well in the offline world either, and enriching them with new tools, new instruments and new activism as well.

>> JUAN CARLOS: Thank you.

I want to open now ‑‑ 30 seconds.

>> I would like to reinforce what Anriette Esterhuysen said.

I think we have to watch out by pointing the responsibility to protect Human Rights only on the shoulders of the governments. The UN General Assembly said that the Human Rights, should be protected but offline, rather than cyber defense, proliferation, we see the countries working on the cyber offense and legalizing what's been revealed by Edward Snowden, we have seen more invasive surveillance laws and not a stronger protection of Human Rights. I believe we should focus on strengthen the multistakeholder model there and focus also on the responsibility to respect Human Rights by businesses, operators and people that are actually running the Internet because putting it in the hands of the governments may not give us the area and the rights enabling space that we're so direly looking for.

>> JUAN CARLOS: Thank you.

I want now to ask the Dynamic Coalition of Freedom and Expression and Media of the Internet, if she's present in this room? Please be very brief, a one‑minute comment to the discussions.

The Dynamic Coalition only Dynamic Coalition on Child Online Safety, Marie‑Laure Lemineur? One minute please.

>> I'm not Marie‑Laure Lemineur, but I speak on behalf of the Dynamic Coalition on Child Online Safety.

The position of the Dynamic Coalition on Child Online Safety is that children have the same right as any other group in society, but due to the vulnerability there are certain rights given to especially to this group and we do not think that freedom of expression and protection of children are in construction but we see a need to ball the Rights of freedom of expression to the right of children's privacy and the right of children to their physical integrity and therefore we should also not think of children as a minority group. Recent research shows that soon to be 1 in 3 Internet users worldwide are children, and when it comes to developing countries, it is 1 in 2 Internet users. Let's not think of children as a minority but a very important group that's got the same rights.

Thank you.

>> JUAN CARLOS: Thank you.

Finally, I want to ask Andrea Saks to give us her comments.

A minute, please.

>> ANDREA SAKS: I want to raise the profile of the abuse and the discrimination that occurs for Persons with Disabilities when some of their private details are exposed such as employment and even in other areas in countries where it is not well understood that they have rights and they're even killed. It is a very important issue, and that's all I wanted to bring to the attention of this group, to take those people into consideration.

Thank you.

>> JUAN CARLOS: Thank you very much.

I want now to open the floor to discussion by questions from the audience, if you want to ask any of the panelists, please come to the microphones and speak.

You have one minute, please.

>> AUDIENCE: Hello. Good morning to all. It is not so much a question as an announcement.

We have during the IGF started a Working Group to study Internet anonymity in Brazil and to discuss the right of anonymity among others. I will be tweeting the link to the group during this panel and later here accepting anyone that wants to take part in the group and that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

>> JUAN CARLOS: Thank you.

>> Hello. I'm the spokesperson of the Italian Parliament

And I would like to bring here to the attention that on Day Zero we brought and presented the Declaration of the Internet Rights from the Italian Parliament after a year of public consultation in Italy, and it was a first time that the Italian parliament did this public consultation on a platform. The Declaration of Internet Rights was something that came out of the discussion on other rights that need to be considered. It came out after 10 years of discussing on the Internet rights and regarding other rights of the protection and recognition of all rights from other declarations to the right to Internet access, right to online knowledge, in net neutrality, personal data, anonymity, right to be forgotten which is the balanced with the right to be informed, platforms, network security, and the Internet Governance. It is on the ‑‑ the declaration is in English and Portuguese and Spanish, and it is on our website and we're hoping that this will contribute to all of the other rights that are being made that's trying to be drafted.

Thank you.

>> JUAN CARLOS: Thank you.

We'll now close the floor after the next four questions. Please be brief.

>> STEVE SELTZER: Steve Seltzer from LaborNet and we're part of ABC.

We're greatly concerned about the role of these trade agreements such as the Trans‑Pacific partnership which include codification and other rights and the danger is that smaller countries have little say really in what goes into the agreements although they're part of the negotiations, it is big countries and particularly big corps corporation was a vested interest, Google, Facebook, major corporations, these are the ones driving this implementation of this language in the trade agreements. If this passes, the TPP, this will affect the entire world communication network. I think that's got to be addressed and looked at seriously. There is really no debate and discussion in the process of what will happen to democracy and freedom of the Internet when these things pass because basically it is a done deal.

I think this has to be looked at, how we'll stop it, how we'll challenge the validity of the process.

Thank you.

>> JUAN CARLOS: Thank you.

>> MARCOS URUPA: I'm Marco Urupa, Civil Society of Brazil.

The part of my opinion for the discussion is how the big corporations manages all the information, personal, transitionally and to discuss Human Rights without this point and have done this. My question is how you think about this, discussing Human Rights without discussing these matters, it is dangerous. The big heads of corporations, it is very, very dangerous in my opinion.

Thank you

>> JUAN CARLOS: Thank you.

>> DEATRIZ COSTA BARBOSA: Good morning.

I would like to enforce the problem with the intermediaries in the field.

News already talked a bit about this. In one hand, we have some States giving up their roles in areas in the platforms to deal with that, on the other hand, even we have many examples and many cases of platforms that said that some hate speech, some Human Rights violations do not go against their principles so they let this content online all of the time. How can we deal with that and try to prevent somehow man rights violations to continue? I think we should put a bit more strength in the rules of the intermediaries in this process.

>> JUAN CARLOS: Thank you.

One last comment or question please.

>> ORESTE POLLICINO: Many thanks. I teach media law and Human Rights and Internet in Italy.

I really enjoyed the week in IGF. I have a suggestion for the next edition, I think it is important to reinforce the legal background of many debates. It is very interesting to speak about general assumption, general principle. The Civil Society should benefit also about knowing which is already the balancing that's been struck down by the codes in Europe, for example, in the United States, in the Supreme Court. We cannot just speak of general principle, assumption and just saying that what, for example, what companies should do or are bound to do. We're already having a binding status quo. This status quo is decided by many years of case law that's clearly binding.

My suggestion would be to take more in consideration the legal background instead to just speak about general principle and secondly, this is a second consideration, today if we take into consideration which is the main actors in the legal order? It is really dealing with the issue, the answer is the courts. Let's look more carefully to the reasoning, let's look carefully how courts are balancing the fundamental rights and content. Let's see how constitutions are taken seriously from Human Rights and starting with this then maybe we can start a general debate.

>> JUAN CARLOS: Thank you.

Before responses, I want to ask our remote moderator it is we have remote participation in the debate? I see a hand waving no.

Thank you. I want to ask the panelists if anyone wants to briefly respond to what's been asked first regarding ‑‑ there was suggestions in the first regarding international agreements but also the role of corporations and intermediaries.

30 seconds, please.

>> Yes. I will take the questions on the role of corporations and intermediaries. Particularly in the infrastructure, what we have been doing is investing a lot on encryption and the protection to the users. Encryption as was stated by many Rapporteurs, a key tool for data protection and protection of privacy. We're facing a lot of pressure from not only government but also from other corporations when we try to encrypt traffic because it is really difficult to go to the massive surveillance if we encrypt the traffic. We need the help of the rest of the stakeholders to keep doing this.

Also from other corporations like, you know, we see ‑‑ you know, Telecom, telecommunication companies are investing a lot of money in the packet inspection. This also has, you know, a great impact on privacy.

In terms of the intermediary liability question, I think that's not putting more broader in terms of ‑‑ it is quite the opposite. What we need to avoid is censorship by proxy.

This is what happened. I'm using a phrase that I heard from a colleague in a panel, I think it is a great phrase, and it was stated in freedom of expression and Human Rights, protecting the intermediaries to avoid the censorship is also key but of course we need to be accountable and we try ‑‑ we need to work in self-regulation to avoid the problems that's been manifested.

Thank you.

>> JUAN CARLOS: Okay.

Mr. Garcia?

>> LUIS GARCIA: International Human Rights laws are law, this is binding and self‑executing. We need to also discuss that. I think we should be able to discuss what courts do and do badly

In particularly this year, Europe, just emerged with lots of very bad decisions such as the Delphi case making webpages liable for everything that the users do or the right of forgotten case. We take that seriously. We balance those decisions on some regions and impose them on other regions and we have to take the Human Rights and Internet in these discussions. We have to be technical. I agree, we need to look at the Internet and access to Internet as a Human Rights. It is part ‑‑ it facilitates with many other rights, with this regard, the States have obligations to affect which means that they need to impede the companies and intermediaries and violate the Rights of the users and have a need to fulfill this right by guaranteeing that access to the Internet and to many people.

My final comment is, courts, these discussions, many other things, they're being bypassed by trade agreement discussions that put Trade Investment Rights over Human Rights. This is something that we can't allow or everything that we're talking here, it is even including in particularly the court decisions, it is just irrelevant.

>> JUAN CARLOS: Thank you.

Two more responses.

>> Please don't balance fundamental rights, just respect them regardless. The second point on the role of intermediaries, the companies have corporate social responsibilities maybe to be with the Human Rights but not an obligation such as states, states have an obligation and the national Human Rights law to respect that, that's why I have a serious problem with giving this responsibility to implement the Human Rights and principles to the intermediaries such as the right to the index as it is known as to the right to be forgotten. It is not a job, not a role to do this. It is the State's responsibilities that have signed up to international Human Rights law.

>> JUAN CARLOS: Thank you.

>> BISHAKHA DATTA: Quickly about the intermediary liability, from the perspective of users, the conversation is really one about platform responsibility.

I want to agree with the speaker who just talked about the difficulties that users actually face. Two things, one, I think if intermediaries took sort of a consumer perspective and understood that a happy, satisfied customer is a loyal customer makes sense, it is complicated. We want to avoid the private censorship on one hand, we want to strengthen the censorial by the private but there is intersessions where the intermediary must be able to observe the Human Rights standard and take down that content. The final thing, the black box of community standards needs to be made more transparent.

>> JUAN CARLOS: Thank you.

Now we'll start the second part of this main session on access to Human Rights and development but not before giving a round of applause to our discussion, this is a discussion that will continue definitely.

[Applause].

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you.

So the Chilean lawyer is handing over the moderation to the South African Civil Society activist. I do first names, I don't do Mr., Mrs., I'm just warning everybody, that's our culture. No disrespect intended.

Thank you very much, Juan Carlos. Thank you everyone else.

We started this session to focus on freedom of expression and then on access of Human Rights and development. As we have already seen, it is very hard to separate them which is why I don't want the first lot of discussions to leave yet.

I think as has been said by some of the questions from the floor, there is a risk at just staying at the level of general principles. One of the things that I think needs to be done is framing access in a way that we try to frame freedom of expression through the experience of certain communities, people with disability, through sexual rights, access to needs and a deeper framing. To start us on that, I'm actually asking Juan Carlos if he can just share some of the analysis that he's been working on to frame access in a more specific way which then can allow us to integrate it in right frameworks

>> JUAN CARLOS: Yes.

The work that we have been carrying out, Derecos Digitales, Chile has been dealing with the access, as part of the realization of Human Rights, not just political, Human Rights, privacy, freedom of expression, but also to go further into economic, social, cultural rights. For this access to the Internet is paramount to those that want to include this kind of interaction to the exercise of the rights, but what we have seen though is that access to the Internet while it may help the development and may help into the exercise of this rights, it is still something that's not being exactly given to all around the world in similar conditions.

Linkages between Human Rights and the Internet, it is a part of this in the growing layers of this, we mentioned concerning the ICT industries, considering the protocols and practices of the many parts of the digital interaction. In this IGF in particular, we have seen the discussion on Zero‑Rating and net neutrality with different views on the value of certain schemes to have access to the Internet or to certain services and whether ‑‑ the discussion whether a little access now is better than full access maybe never. Similar conclusions regarding the value of the full Internet, the power and especially the potential.

It is another question on whether a true access to the Internet effectively can help this development goals in the long‑term apart from the key examples that we may find in different places of the world.

It is an open question on how effectively this access can be provided where there are also social, cultural norms that may act as barriers to equal access, to the full enjoyment of the Internet as a tool for Human Rights? The following discussion will try to delve into those issues.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much, Juan Carlos.

Kathy, I know you have to leave. I want to ask you first, ISOC is a champion of access in many ways for many years. From the technical community perspective, or ISOC's perspective, how do you feel access policies and technology development can combine to integrate Human Rights principles?

>> KATHY BROWN: Thank you, Anriette Esterhuysen.

I'm pleased we're having the conversation about access within the Human Rights conversation because where else would it be? It seems to me as we have been saying all week, that the two imperatives for us in the Internet age right now, in the 21st Century is to connect the unconnected and ensure we have trust on the Internet. The last conversation, our conversation in my mind went to this issue of trust.

I'll talk from my one minute on about this notion of access: If you don't have the infrastructure, if there is no infrastructure, you do not have access by definition.

We have right now half of the world ‑‑ barely half the world ‑‑ who have access and the other half not.

Let's start with the fundamentals. We cannot have a world in which half the world is not connected to what's really become the essential nervous system of the world's economies and we know that as this technology evolves that the Internet is also going to be the marketplace, the service delivery network and also the means by which people are able to get the things that before perhaps were available offline but have increasingly become only more available online. I'll give you an example of that:

There are payments made by governments, for instance, that are very much what people live on where in some countries right now the only way you can access it is online. It has moved that far. Now let's think about the development challenges with respect to what happens when we all become, first, online, then secondly, what has to be thought of to the point of let's think about access as a very new thing, this is not just to get on and play games, this is actually going to be for the delivery of services for the development of a marketplace in the developing world as well as in mature markets where it already has happened. We have to take these things into consideration as we think about development principles, policies, deployment.

Trust, if we do not trust this tool that we have, if with do not think that our own data identity personality is protected in a way that we feel free to use it, we also self‑decide not to get on it or governments decide we don't trust enough, we have another denial of access. Thus, this idea about ensuring ways, mechanisms to ensure trust, restore trust in some ways is hugely important, one without the other cannot be done.

I think as we think of the technology solutions, with respect to how the technology is deployed where it is deployed, what technology ensures the protection of the user, encryption for instance, other technologies that are in the hands of the users, this is going to be part I think of the policy of connecting the unconnected.

Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much, Kathy.

I see people around the table agitating to speak. Dynamic Coalitions, do any of you need to leave or are you able to be here still? Good.

Okay. I'm looking at the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights & Principles, can you leave or ‑‑

>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN: No.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Picking up on that. I would like to ‑‑ I will go next to you, I wanted to ask Ron to go next.

So LirneAsia, talking about little access now versus the access never, the fact that Zero‑Rating, free service, these services have been discussed at length. What is your view in ‑‑ as somebody that's been working in access policy for a long time, how would you like to see access from a rights perspective integrated into that regulatory access policy context?

>> ROHAN SAMARAJUE: I believe that Zero‑Rating has been unfairly sucking up all attention at this event. It has been talked to death and I have no intention of talking more about it.

What is important to remember is that without infrastructure there is no access. For the last 20 years I have been involved both as within government, conceptualizing, implementing government policy and also as a researcher, policy advocate from outside of government working with multiple governments in the region of LirneAsia and we have had great success with improving the access with regard to telephone. It is one of the greatest public policy success stories in the world. We have before us a challenge of connecting people to the Internet. I think it is really important to look back at the lessons that we can learn from the past. From a situation where governments sought to engage in a positive rights approach which would require targeted interventions by government which would require collection of information about people, it pulled back to a regulatory role and allowed for decentralized solutions both by the private sector and by the end users.

Just to give an example, prepaid was not a solution that somebody from government or from the private sector came up with. It was innovation at the level of the public.

In this ‑‑ this was not clearly a positive rights approach. What are positive right approaches that were adopted by the government, for example, with service funds, they have been extraordinarily failures, throughout the world, the record is clear, that most of the service funds, they have either not succeeded in dispersing the funds or when dispersing they were not dispersed in the most effective manner. I would like to point to the opportunities that are posted by a negative rights approach, we allow the different actors to do what they want, when there are problem, we intervene. To give an example, in Pakistan and Bangladesh, the design of the services, it was changed, when we, among others pointed out that the cultural environment of the places is not conducive to women using these places without the designs being redone, the governments did that. Even with regard to the Internet access, the challenge that faces us, we should place less reliance on a positive rights approach and more reliance on decentralized solutions and negative right approaches.

Thank you

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you.

Panelists, if you want to respond to one another, wave your hand.

I'm going to ask you, from Facebook, Ebele Okobi, to talk about a positive, a negative rights approach but to talk about efforts to connect women, to connect women in a way that's actually empowering and not just adding numbers to the goal of Connecting the Next Billion.

>> EBELE OKOBI: Thank you.

We all know that access to the Internet enables the exercise of virtually all of the rights guaranteed by the UDHR. We know, however, that everywhere in the world, not just emerging markets when something is scarce, associated with power, women and ethnic, cultural, sexual, other minorities, they're disadvantaged with access. That's the same thing when it comes to ICT, whether talking about women in tech leadership in the U.S., in Europe, in the gender gap in mobile phone ownership across Africa. We know increased access conveys tremendous benefits. Of course, the most important benefit is equity.

I'm weary of conversations where women and other minorities or women and actual minorities are asked for justifications on getting their ecoshare of opportunity. It is like being asked to justify why women should have equal access to air. We know having women creators and decision makers in tech lead to better products and increased access to technology makes women safer and makes them more better be able to unlock economic opportunities and more connected to friends and family which are really important particularly. We know access enables women and other groups to make voices heard, technologies absolutely are a platform to give voice to the voiceless.

Those of us here know the stories that are often told on what I call the country of Africa, in general, aside from maybe one story per year, it is called Africa Rising. They are about disaster, disease, catastrophe, African women as victims, they need to be rescued.

One of my favorite authors did a talk on the danger of the single story. There is so much truth and beauty in the speech, but the best is that Africa is a continent where there are catastrophes, yes, but other stories, and it is just as important to tell those stories. That's a thing that technology does, I think it is powerful. It enables people to tell their own stories.

The danger of the single story about the country of Africa is going beyond bad press impacts the economies, tourism, investment, countless business and policy decisions that directly affect our futures. Given the above, there are a few recommendations for policy that enables this kind of speech and actually enables equal access. One is that national ICT plans should move from rhetoric to concrete, measurable targets backed by specific program, resources, tracked by data.

Governments should provide low‑cost free public Internet access. They should ensure that the spaces are places to be safely accessed by women. We know many public Internet spaces that are provided often are unsafe for women. That's a reason why we're partnering with localized ISPs and others across Canada to offer express Wi‑Fi. Government should make information about the legal rights and women healthcare available on the Internet, that's reason why that type of content is in free basics. Civil Society and companies should work to address online violence against women. This is why we're working with women groups on identifying ways to make our platform safer.

In Africa we're also in the early stages of looking at initial fives to look at ways that men can change their behavior. A thing that strikes me about the conversation on online violence against women is it attracts exactly the conversation about offline violence against women making women responsible for their own safety. It is important for us to think about ways that men can change their environments so that women can express their rights to free expression.

I'll stop there.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much.

I'm now going to ask you to respond to some of the points that were made from a government perspective. I want you to pick up on something that Kathy said earlier about how public services are available only online, that also create exclusions? Is that perhaps an example where the Internet can enable rights but also deprive those of ‑‑ without access to rights that they may have had access to? Particularly, Ebele Okobi's point about public access, safe access, do you have experience in Argentina to share in that regard?

>> OLGA CAVELLI: Thank you for the invitation. I'm honored to be with this distinguished colleagues here.

My comments will be ‑‑ I work with the government, but I'm also a university teacher and an activist towards the gender balance and women accessing their rights, especially the online world. I would like to share with you a positive perspective and especially taken from the words made by the professor Frank LaRue that this IGF has had a special focus on gender equality and gender balance and our colleague from Facebook, thank you for your comments. I would build up from there.

I would like to focus on three items, access to information, access to online tools and access to education as relevant elements for women exercising their rights.

Access to information: I think that information gathered together, data collected with all of this fantastic services that we have, it is a fantastic source of information for governments. Now we have recently had in Argentina a very strong public ‑‑ when people go to the street altogether, how do you say that in English? Demonstration? Demonstration, not a protest, but an explicit desire of going against violence against women. Now there are new ideas for laws, regulations, rules, this is happening not only in Argentina but other countries in the world. That gathered information, it could be fantastic, a source of data to know what to do, how to address those norms and regulations.

Also governments and other stakeholders like Civil Society, companies that could use that, access to online tools, I'm positive in imagining also in the developing world access for psychological support for women who are victim of violence. Imagine women that cannot go to a place that could access a public center near their ‑‑ she doesn't have access at home; but near her home, she has a place to access.

Access to health services, to sexual, reproduction information. How to avoid infections, how to make decisions related to sexuality. That's important for the developing world.

Access to education. Education is relevant for empowering women and allowing women to operate their rights. It brings economic independence and that brings a way to avoid violence. Some women don't have anywhere to go when victims of violence. If they have access to education, then they can do and know what to do.

Finally, from what Kathy had said about the cross‑border nature of the access and in the Internet, for those not connected to have centralized or decentralized information centers for women to access the tools. I would like to stress the fact of a project that is for support, it is a fantastic idea, it could be also for women.

Thank you very much.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much, Olga.

Now I want to ask the Dynamic Coalitions at the table if they want to react to any of the remarks or share some of the reflections that emerged from their meetings here. You know who you are, you can introduce yourself.

The other panelists, also, if you want to react. Then we'll open it to the rest of the floor.

Introduce yourself first.

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: It may seem a long right from the Human Rights discussion, but the Internet of Things is a game changer that touches us all and also touches on Human Rights. It brings a lot of good things. It brings obviously ‑‑ it is currently driven by business opportunity but there is also social needs, societal needs, an example is the tsunami network that's been rolling out to protect the citizens against the natural disasters and there are many more things that I won't expand on.

Sustainable Development Goals that can't be achieved without technology, without connected things to support it. The same time, there is also concerns about it because big data is something that's already big today and will get much bigger tomorrow. It can address privacy issues. It is interesting that the European data protection supervisor there for privacy protection of Europe, they have remarked in the last opinion that beyond privacy protection it is about human dignity.

What it means is that we need societal dialogue. Societal dialogue cannot happen without people knowing what's going on and I can guarantee you too few people know. Initiatives from Information Society to have clear briefing papers, it is very important. The second thing, we need stakeholders to really get an approach, an ethical commitment, we cannot rely on law alone and the current explanations, business will have to take an ethical stand and develop a fairness principle. This is what our coalition is committed to over the coming year as well to deepen that further.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I want to ask you a question.

In return, it is that we talked about positive rights versus the negative rights approach which in layperson language with the Internet of Things I would say we let it happen and then if bad things happen, we intervene or we try and govern it at a corporate level as well as a State level to try to prevent bad things from happening. What do you think should be the approach with regard to Internet of Things?

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: We need businesses to be aware of what's needed to act ethically and they don't know yet. They have to think of it themselves because of Civil Society, from people, there is no response, no clear understanding yet. That needs to develop. That's one thing.

Law is already there. Law needs to be obtained and in that way Human Rights are clearly part of it. It really requires in that way to step up and to grab that opportunity and to come forward with clear expressions there. It is not a race that's done today.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks.

I will ask the Dynamic Coalition on Net Neutrality & Rights and Principles, do you agree that businesses are not respecting Human Rights because they don't know? I'm putting it crudely, but do you think it is more that they're trying to get away with not having to increase the cost of compliance for as long as they possibly can?

>> LUCA BELLI: Good morning to everybody, Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility, to answer that question, I will not say that businesses do not know, but I would rather say that some traffic management practices are more profitable for businesses and others. The question is not if they don't know, that they could infringe Human Rights but the question is where the profit lay and what's allowed by the law or not.

What we have been working on over the past years of the Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility and we have discussed this during this IGF, is to have a strong principle, this is instrumental to the full enjoyment of Human Rights to freedom of expression in the first place because ‑‑ and the restrictions, the discriminations, they have the potential to jeopardize the freedom to impart, receive, to seek information, it is also ‑‑ it also entails privacy obligations, net neutrality privacy obligations because the analysis, the depacket inspection analysis that frequently proceeds traffic management could have serious consequences on the privacy and data protection of users. We also have included this in the statement that we have presented this year, the need for precise and strong and meaningful privacy protections.

Finally, the last point I wanted to raise around access, what we have discussed this year about this business model that we have decided not to advertise here at this session, but is that those business models have the potential to fragment the Internet and Internet access is access to all Internet, not to a portion of the Internet. If the goal is to provide an open platform, a global platform for communication and innovation, we should focus on empowering people, allowing them to associate, to build community networks rather than providing the network applications.

Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you.

Maybe you can respond to my question, Pedro, when you respond n respond to what was said by Maarten as well, the challenge to Internet of Things: We have the Internet companies here, we have the telecommunications, the companies here, and there is a common discourse around Human Rights and we may not always agree. There is a common conversation. With Internet of Things, isn't the challenge that there will be a whole range of new types of businesses that are implicated and involved in this and they're not yet part of this conversation? Is that a challenge, could you perhaps suggest how the IGF community should respond to that challenge?

>> PEDRO LESS ANDRASE: I would like to discuss more on what we were discussing before, I fully support what was said, I think we have to stop discussing about this ‑‑ this is a patch. This is ‑‑ in the dynamic of talking about this, we have to discuss ‑‑ this is ‑‑ this is key. I think that as long as we can provide more connectivity, more abundance of broadband to access the whole Internet that will be much better discussion we have to have.

I'm very concerned about what you mentioned about the depacket inspection, we're seeing now some cases in Latin America and the Caribbean, particularly there, where we see operators doing ad blocking at ISP level, that's a way to have censorship, publishers, they cannot get money for what they put online. This is used to get revenue share agreements from different platforms and it has a very complex effect. Going to Internet of Things, yeah, there is a challenge. We were discussing before about the collection of personal data and that was something that was mentioned also, an issue of discrimination, and the privacy legislation, it was based to avoid the discrimination, as much information as I have for you, I may have more information to another service. We have to focus on how technology is providing you more services rather than deny you services. I think that this is a big differential from traditional privacy discussions and others, there is more services that give you more service, that's why we have to focus less on the collection. I think that the collection is something that is not going to stop and now with censors, the Internet of things, data will be everywhere.

What we need to ‑‑ what we need to look very careful is misuse. Those that misuse personal data need to be punished. That I think needs to be the standard. I think if we still try to focus on collection of personal data, we won't win that battle. There is so many sources. It is really, really difficult to do that.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you.

Rohan you have been waiting, Lisa too. Dynamic Coalitions, they do the work, they do the intersessional work, and we're not giving them the floor enough.

Marianne Franklin, do you want to respond to any of the comments so far?

>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN: Thank you for giving us the floor, Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights & Principles, thank you.

I would like to make general comments. The Dynamic Coalitions have been meeting in the last two sessions, main sessions and we have recognized and ‑‑ in a deep way the overlaps in all of our work within existing Human Rights framework by law and also within emerging conversations about Human Rights. So in that sense, there is work to do in the good direction.

This main session marks a huge landmark in the history of the IGF. It is a great leap forward that we're having this conversation in a Human Rights framework. I would like to note for the record and congratulate everyone.

The way that governments use the Internet makes a difference. The way corporations use the Internet, it makes a difference. The way ordinary people are using the Internet also makes a difference. It is these ordinary people that we all are trying to reach.

The Internet Rights & Principle Coalition, they have generated a Charter of Human Rights & Principles for the Internet. We resonate with other Declarations and Bills of Rights that proceeded us and are following along with us ‑‑ some will say it is in competition with us, but however, the point is here, more is more. More is more! I celebrate the diversity.

My question to all of the panelists from the corporate, government, Civil Society sector, we have a tool that's being used to communicate to ordinary people, but there are different constituencies, different audiences need different sorts of communication. I would like to ask the corporations, the government representatives here, how do they envisage their legal and corporate social responsibility obligations? How do they envisage the communicating these to ordinary users beyond the terms of use and judicial processes? We would appreciate input there.

Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you.

You want to say something as well, then Lisa?

>> GUILHERME VARELLA: Briefly, to support the idea that this is very important to include this discussion that we're having in this session of Human Rights and that said, you all know, probably most of you know, that this week, the UNESCO general conference officially acknowledged the outcome document from the connecting the dots conference, many of our issues we're discussing here was discussed and endorsed the Internet universality concept, a multistakeholder Internet is being discussed. That's good news. This is the next step for UNESCO. We have to have more detailed indicator for those things, otherwise it is difficult to operationalize those concepts and how do we do this with the SDGs, see more and more detailed indicators on all of the issues.

Thank you very much.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you.

Dynamic Coalition on Gender and Internet Governance.

>> BISHAKHA DATTA: We can't discount the fact that women have been provided many opportunities be it in the work, studies, community, in their personal lives and it has provided women with information, of course, on the services, productive health, sources of support, freedom of expression, the expressed views and opinions, sexuality, also the freedom to participate in public spaces and associations.

If we look closely, we're really talking about only a certain number of women, a certain segment who are connected and that have access. We also have to talk about the quality of access that they have, the speed for instance and the connectivity that's a barrier to the access and the trust that they have of the technology and skills necessary for women to gain access.

Of course, there are studies. The figures that are available would say that men ‑‑ there are more men connected, and what does this mean? We're excluding a large number of women, and often they're the marginalized, underserved, and this includes the poor women, the rural women, Women with Disabilities, Indigenous women, and the LGBT as well. We're denying them information towards achieving healthy life, the opportunity for developing, to raise from their status, to be empowered and to obtain gender equality. Even those who have ‑‑ that are connected and sometimes even those that are not connected, even experiencing abuse online and they're subjected to hate speech. Studies such as those done by APC would prove to this.

How can women and the marginalized groups be motivated to be online when the spaces which they think can liberate them can be also spaces where they experience abuse and violence? We cannot talk about the equality, good governance, freedom of expression when women are silenced and if they're not safe spaces for them.

Thank you.

>> [Applause].

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much.

Anyone from the audience who have any questions, lineup. We can only take two. You have to stand up quickly.

Then we need to start drawing to a close and we'll close with Frank LaRue doing a summary for us but I want the panel to respond. Make the questions very brief.

>> MARIE‑LAURE LEMINEUR: Thank you.

Marie‑Laure Lemineur in my personal capacity.

I would like to hear the views of the panelists on the issue of the costs of access and how prohibitive costs in some countries and regions impacts rights to access.

Thank you.

>> AUDIENCE: Language is culture, language is politics, language is economics. I would like to hear the right to expression in terms of multicultural multilanguage understanding. There seems to be a dominant language in Internet or the others, they're understood as sub language. Languages, cultures, politics, it is understanding. I would like to hear a bit about that.

As we have heard in terms of psychiatric research in the University ‑‑ in the University here in Paraiba, I'm a psychiatrist by training, and we know there is new psychological suffering in this and distrust because of the limits and new cultural, digital culture that we have.

Thank you very much.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much.

Now I also believe that there are a group of young people in the room. I'm going to ‑‑ if any of them want to ask a question, then I'll give them special privilege.

We're going to take one more there, one more there and then this question at the table, then that's it.

>> AUDIENCE: Good morning. I'm from a Brazilian Consumer Association.

I would like to ask among the various types of Zero‑Rating plans with limited amount of data and applications, could you talk about the difference between the normal Zero‑Rating and free basic concerning the potential damage of the preservation of the non‑discriminatory corrector of the Internet and access of Internet and Human Rights and freedom of expression and privacy.

Thank you.

>> AUDIENCE: I'm Maria. I'm a participant of Youth at IGF program.

In Brazil we have a concentrated media in the hands of one group, at election time many heard Best Practice and began execution on the media regulation. It was criticized by many as a form of censorship. How to ensure freedom of expression that contributes to information instead of manipulating people without it being considered censorship?

Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Yes.

>> NICOLO ZINGALES: I'm from DCPR.

I walked in late. When I walked in I heard concerns about data collection. I'm from Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility. We'll talk about the work that we have been doing in recommendations on the Human Rights and referring to terms of service as a fundamental and effective way to commit for companies to respect the Human Rights of Internet users and in this regard I want to mention there is a fundamental fight taking place in Europe as well as other jurisdiction over the proper system of protection of personal data.

On one hand, you have users which demand very strict protection over, you know, what possible users of the data will be made in the future. On the other hand you have companies that says we want to collect it all and then think about what possible uses we want to make of this and if you interfere with this model we'll cap down the innovation. I want to suggest this is not a dichotomy. We can embrace responsible forms of innovation and companies can commit to identifying a list of categories of users that will be made in the data of the users.

I want to say if you look at our recommendations in terms of service on Human Rights, we provide principles to guide the way forward for companies that want to be responsible.

Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much.

I'm afraid I have to close now ‑‑ actually, yeah, you have entered with a group of ‑‑ sure. Sure.

>> AUDIENCE: Thank you.

I would present here, I'm part with the Youth Group of Latin America.

More of a question, this is a special thank you for this kind of program that really gives us the opportunity to have a voice and in a space in IGF. In addition, it helps us advocate for our own rights because we young people. We deserve this space. We deserve to express our opinion. We have never been a part of a group here to present a statement of our youth. We really want young people to have an active participation in this kind of event and conferences.

We would like to urge all of you to invite us to be part of your activities. We young people, we want to be a part of the activities, keep on inviting us. We have here over 50 from participants from Latin America. We have been here for a week. It is wonderful for all of us. It helps us know what we want to do in favor of governance for our country, really giving voice to a lot of young people around the world.

Thank you very much.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much.

A good place to start is joining all of the Dynamic Coalitions that we have heard from around the table. They're all open.

Also one has to work hard as well. I think that's always the challenge about this process. You have to come and give voice and you will need to work.

Please, find, speak to the Dynamic Coalitions organizers.

Panelists, I'm not going to summarize. I think you can all respond to what you feel comfortable responding. Just one minute responses.

I mean, there are ‑‑ the issue of indicators, of how to measure whether we are making progress in a rights orientation, the other theme, it is this ‑‑ the issue of culture, language, that's come up, and I think when you respond, do think about the next steps, about how we can actually ‑‑ I'm going back to a speaker who spoke during the first session, how do we move from just talking about rights at a level of generality of principles to really making substantial progress at quite a specific level.

One‑minute responses. We have to leave time for Frank LaRue to summarize.

>> There were questions regarding indicators about women in ICTs and about prices. Price information is available from multiple source, including the ITU and what they report is advertised packages rather than what people actually get. Researchers on the ground, they look for value for money. When you look for value for money, you find that there is a problem with some of the developing countries.

With regard to women and ICTs, generally speaking, with regard to the youths, particularly with telephones, whatever phone‑based activity, poverty levels, socioeconomic levels wash out gender effects, when it comes to ownership the against effects are still strong particularly in the early stages of adoption.

Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you.

Pedro?

>> PEDRO LESS ANDRASE: Just a quick question from Marianne Franklin and making information to the users besides the terms and conditions, what we have been doing, we put a lot of information on videos, friendly material for kids we have been working with different organizations like TelisSonera and around others around the world, the power of video, that's really, really important to achieve that.

>> ANRIETE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you.

>> LUIS GARCIA: A brief note, Indigenous People, they're absent, not just the cost and access, coming from a country where I have gone is going to Mexico next year, it is a responsibility not only to approach this on the Indigenous People to impose this but to ask them how they want to relate with the technologies and how to promote and preserve their culture and customs. Just what do we do? I think we need to take discussions seriously. We cannot come here, we cannot make comments and go backdoor and negotiate rights and negotiate rights in trade agreements and push and surveil people all over the world.

I take seriously these discussion, I hope governments, actors, that they take these things serious and not just come here to show and do other things with other forums.

>> [Applause].

>> PARTIK HESILIUS: Whether we're making progress it is a struggle because of new issues. With regulation, self‑regulation, one thing I would like to make a quick point when it comes to the Internet our advice to the governments is be very careful, cautious, to regulate with a scalpel not an axe as we have seen some try to do. In terms of how to implement these things. I mean, we have to keep an eye on the issues and not let Human Rights issues be swept under the carpet for other priorities that the governments have. Everybody has priorities, but for us, Human Rights has to be number one.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: That actually reinforces what Luis was saying about not negotiating rights in one context and undermining them in another.

Olga.

>> OLGA CAVALLI: The comment from the colleague from Brazil on language, language is a huge barrier in developing countries. Also culture of things and Indigenous People, so those are cultural issues that must be taken into consideration and we must go back home to have this not only talking here but doing things concrete at home.

Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much.

Now, Frank LaRue, he was not only the Special Rapporteur in freedom of expression when we got the online, offline resolution, he's very good at this.

Frank, you have the last word.

>> FRANK LaRUE: I promise to do it briefly. A lot has been said.

Let me say that it is very clear, this IGF, some of the problems were marked. I think also I'm pleased to see that Human Rights approach, the Human Rights perspective, it is really caught on. It is holding into all of the debates. This is major progress. What was said, Human Rights is the common standard we have. It is the regulation we have in the world, the common regulation which no one challenges because it is part of the universal consensus.

Secondly, I think what I heard here today, it is that if we deal with Human Rights, we are trying to redefine Human Rights from protection of privacy, protection of children, accessibility from people with disability to non‑discrimination against everyone. My feeling today, it is that people feel empowered now to begin establishing what are the mechanisms of enforcement of these principles and these rights. In a way I think that the IGF next year will be also marked by that. What are the mechanisms, the regional mechanisms, the domestic mechanisms, international mechanisms, how do we make this effective? Often we're told the technology is going faster than the debate and certainly much faster than the law. We cannot allow that to be an excuse for systematic violation of these principles like on surveillance, on the breach of privacy, many other rights.

My feeling is that we have to retake control of the protection of our rights. Here we all talked about the States having an obligation to protect and promote Human Rights, they cannot delegate that, they have to assume their own responsibilities, the States, with the collaboration of intermediaries and the collaboration of Civil Society. They cannot necessarily resign their responsibility which is the case of the two court cases that we were mentioning here in Europe, the Delphi case and the other, I think they're that they're worrisome because of that phenomena.

In that sense, we have to solve the question of volume. I know there will be many requests and many states say they can't handle it. This will be a problem and there has to be a dialogue between states and platforms and technical Facilitators, there has to be a solution to that.

Secondly, we have to assume our responsibility is very important to reemphasize corporate responsibility. We talked about the questions of the surveillance technology and many technologies that are going very fast.

We don't even know that are being used or done. They're being sold to authoritarian regimes, jailing bloggers and persecuting journalisms, assassinating the journalists or allowing harassment of women, this is a crucial question, we have to have a series dialogue between Civil Society and the corporations to enable our mutual responsibility in a society in a more proactive role in finding that.

The second part, I think, I'll say the question of access, I was really moved because I think that that is a crucial issue. Access was seen as a given before. It isn't. Access is very complicated. From the connectivity, which in developing nations is not happening. To not only connectivity but the types of services or the quality of broadband and the quality of services and the Internet that people receive that may create two types of citizens and sort of a digital gap which we should not allow to the question of illiteracy, whether women are discriminated versus men or as was said by our young colleagues, that there is a language barrier, cultural barrier, one question is paramount in the IGF next year, it is cultural diversity and Internet. How do we balance those? I don't believe in balancing rights by the way, I agree, there is not balancing rights but this is trying to link the two, the use and access of Internet with total recognition of the wonderful diversity that we have in the world and guaranteeing full accessibility to all sectors and benefit to all sectors.

Thank you very much for your participation in this panel.

Thank you.

>> THIAGO TAVARES: Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for a very informative and substantive session.

Thank you to the moderators and to all of the speakers who have intervened and made the discussions so lively and so informative.

I also would like to highlight the presence here for many young people. They're here at this IGF to make their voices heard, to take part in this substantive discussions that will impact the future. My thanks to all of you sincerely for all of you being here this morning and for your valuable contributions into our important discussions.

It is now time to close the session. The meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.