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.
***
>> CARLOS ALBERTO AFONSO: We'll try to present the work of the Dynamic Coalitions.
We have had since the beginning of the IGF actually, but in the last nine IGFs we didn't have this opportunity to have this direct interaction with the work and the results or the outcomes of the work of the Dynamic Coalitions. And this is an important opportunity we have to have a better interaction with them to hear what they're doing and to think about other Dynamic Coalitions that may wish to be formed and presented of the outcomes of the future.
I'll pass on to the moderators to begin, to really begin the session. Thank you.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: Thank you very much for introducing us. Just a few words before we start.
The IGF has a long tradition of being experimental, trying out new formats and to improve the discussion, integrate new issues and new people. This session now sort of continues this tradition and we hope to make progress with this format on two challenges: One concerns the integration of Dynamic Coalitions which for a long time rather played a marginal role in the IGF; the other issues concerns a long‑term question, and that is the outcome orientation of the IGF. Quite sensitive issue. Lots of reports have noticed that the IGF is very good at addressing issues and discussing them, but it is not often clear what follows from that. We want to tackle these two issues and perhaps combine them.
One has to say, it hasn't been easy to prepare this session. We have been discussing the modes of doing this until the very last minute.
I will now hand over to our two Co‑Facilitators for explaining the rules of the session today and that of tomorrow morning.
The Co‑Facilitators, they're old hands when it comes to IGF procedures.
>> Thank you.
This is a pilot project and a pilot project is how do we take the work, the good work that these Dynamic Coalitions have been doing? The Dynamic Coalitions, they're all bottom‑up organizations. They have all sort of come to their methods and their methodologies for coming to agreement on things on their own over the years.
We have gotten to the point now where we have been meeting with these Dynamic Coalitions over I guess ‑‑ it is the last six months or so to figure out how to move beyond Dynamic Coalitions doing their own work.
As was said, basically is there a way to make the work of the Dynamic Coalitions more part of the IGF process? Can we find a way to take the work they have done and declare that it is output from the IGF? Now, at the moment, we're not sure how do that. We'll talk about that at the MAG, at the Multistakeholder Group, they have talked about this process throughout the year and will continue to talk about it.
What we're doing this time, we have taken one full session and divided it into two halves. At this half each of a number of the Dynamic Coalitions, those who believe that they have output that's ready for further consideration and one that has strong output but believes it needs another year's work before it is ready to ask for a certain amount of feedback from the community. The point today, is each will be given 7 minutes to present a paper that they wrote, those papers are all online, all open to comment. We'll present that.
At tomorrow's meeting, we'll have most of the time dedicated to discussing those works and to see whether any have reached a point where the community feels in its feedback that, yes, this is stuff we want to put out or, you know, the feedback may be that it needs more work, it is something that we like the progress that's been made. And so we're really going to try and engage the moderators, the Chair, we'll try to gage to what degree has this work reached a point where it may be considered for IGF output. We're still really working on that problem.
Another part of this, it is that we're within this pilot experiment, we're trying an additional experiment with rating sheets.
Rating sheets, it's something that Jeremy will explain once I finish. They're basically a set of statements we ask between 5 and 10 statements related to the papers, this will be posted somewhere and the community, all of you, will be able to indicate the degree to which you agree, don't agree, are confused by, add your own comments, to basically get some more feedback. Now, this feedback is meant for the Dynamic Coalitions. The extent to what we may use it in further discussions is still very open. We need to see how the experiment works. With that, I'll ask Jeremy ‑‑ sorry. I'll pass it off to my co‑facilitator, my senior co‑facilitator to say a couple of extra words.
Thank you.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you.
Let me also put it as Avri said, the Dynamic Coalitions have been with us since the very beginning. They were a compromise, some groups on the two established proper form on working groups and others were opposed to that as it looked too much like proper sort of institution at the IGF. It was meant to be a platform for dialogue, and at that time they felt it would be inappropriate. What's happened, they have evolved kind of in the margins of the IGF. Some of them went away again, disappeared, while others stayed on and actually produced some serious work. The work was never brought back to the mainstream of the IGF community.
Within the IGF two years ago we sort of thought it was time to take a step further and introduced the Best Practice Forums as part of intersessional work. This year we came up with another track for intersessional work, and in addition it was decided to bring in the Dynamic Coalitions as a third track of intersessional work. They're distinct clearly from the Best Practice Forums as their themes were self-chosen, bottom‑up, they were never discussed by the Multistakeholder Advisory Group or approved by anybody. They were self‑chosen themes. There were only very basic sets of conditions imposed of them, they need to have a website, they need to have a mailing list, and in the process we discovered that each of the Dynamic Coalitions has different rules, different internal procedures, but it was then decided we would not change the rules in mid‑game and led them get on with that. That was a decision taken at the Paris meeting of the MAG in early September.
Where we are now, we have Dynamic Coalitions, they all have different rules and procedures, internal procedures, and we have to accept that and respect that. The idea is also that after this session there will be a stocktaking and with the objective of moving towards some common baseline, some common rules, some common procedures. That will be a process that will not happen overnight. That will be a part of a big discussion.
For the IGF I think it is an important moment. It can show that we have a mechanism in place where they can do serious intersessional work, and that also ‑‑ up until now the Dynamic Coalitions had other freedom and could kind of use the IGF label, but moving forward I think it will also be necessary to impose certain obligations and responsibilities that go with using the IGF label.
As Avri said, we're in an experimental phase. This is what we're doing today and tomorrow, it is a pilot project. Then at the end of tomorrow's half of the session, we can decide whether or not it was a pilot project that deserves to be continued or in what way that would need to be corrected. That will not be a part of tomorrow's session. That will be taken up later by the Multistakeholder Advisory Group.
With this, back to the moderators.
>> RACHEL POLLACK: Thank you.
I'm Rachel Pollack. I'm a newcomer to the IGF and the Dynamic Coalitions, but very happy to be here today.
I would like to just start by explaining the order a bit more of today's discussion. First, we'll hear from the Electronic Frontier Foundation who will speak for 5 minutes about the idea rating sheets and describe this. The Dynamic Coalitions will speak for a maximum of 7 minutes, and to have fairness in the order we'll pull names from the box to determine the order.
Now I hand the floor over to you. Thank you.
>> JEREMY MALCOLM: Thank you very much.
As explained, we were in agreement on the kind of thing we want to accomplish to bring the output of the Dynamic Coalitions to the IGF as a whole. We were not sure how to actually go about that. I suggested we used a methodology, idea rating sheets. That's the experiment we're going with this year.
I'll see if this clicker works ‑‑ yes!
What are idea rating sheets? They're ‑‑ can we please have the presentation on the main screen? Apparently not. Something is happening.
There you go.
So idea rating sheets are a simple methodology you can use in face‑to‑face meetings to gather feedback on ideas. You can also use it to collect or to generate ideas as well.
We're only using it for generating feedback on the ideas because we have already produced the ideas in the Dynamic Coalitions themselves. We have prewritten the ideas on the sheets. You don't need to write the ideas on there. All you have to do is put the feedback on those sheets.
Here is an example of an idea rating sheet. Net access should be financed by a tax on domain names ‑‑ that's a fictional idea. I'm not suggesting it is a good one.
On this sheet it shows strong agreement for some reason. What happens, you fill in one of those dots depending whether you strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree or confused by the statement, you may not understand it. When you fill in a dot, you sign your name.
This is not meant to be anonymous. We're meant to stand by our convictions and to put our name down to prove that we are not falsifying the dots. You can't fill in 10 dots because then there is not the right number of signatures.
You have the opportunity to write a brief comment on the strengths and opportunities that you see in the idea or the concerns and weaknesses or both. That's optional. You don't have to do that. Don't change what's in the idea box.
We have different colors of pens. There are all of those colors ‑‑ don't memorize those, they have labels on them. I have put the labels to what you see there, correspond there.
Where are the sheets? They're this the back left corner of my perspective of the room. They're laid out in tables there.
There is a sign for each Dynamic Coalition and a series of sheets. One sheet for each idea that that coalition put forward. We have seven Dynamic Coalitions that made idea rating sheets. Of those, six are laid out on the tables. There is one which we couldn't fit on to the tables because there were 21 ideas and we hoped for between 5 and 10 ideas. That one, I'll explain what to do for that one.
You don't have to complete all of the sheets. Maybe you only have strong opinions about a few ideas or maybe only a few Dynamic Coalitions. Feel free to dot as many or few as you please.
We also have an online version. This is for two reasons: Firstly because we have remote participants; the second reason, because we don't have much time here for everyone in this room to use the paper sheets. Instead, when you go back to your hotel, you can put your feedback in there at your leisure. You go to the Internet Governance website and click feedback and it will lead you to an online version of the idea rating sheet which should be self‑explanatory, you move the slider from strongly disagree to right for strongly agree. Only do one, don't vote twice, either use the paper sheets or the online sheets.
I would recommend giving that we're finishing this session at 6:00 you may want to take the time to complete the idea rating sheets during an interval of this meeting when you're not interested in what else is going on.
Sorry. That came across the wrong way.
>> (Laughter).
>> RACHEL POLLACK: You should be interested in all of the session!
>> JEREMY MALCOLM: If you find yourself with a free moment, feel free to go to the back to complete the sheets. If not, use the online version because we're going to be coming back tomorrow morning to collect up the sheets and there probably won't be a lot of time.
We'll complete the ‑‑ we'll capture the completed sheets tomorrow early and we'll try and produce a brief summary on which statements received really strong approval and which ones didn't, and for the Dynamic Coalitions who wish to have that feedback referred to in the session tomorrow then you'll be able to avail yourself to that.
Reporting back session tomorrow, we'll have the feedback from the participants here. We can get feedback directly from the sheets.
I think I'm done ‑‑ I'm done. Yeah. That's it! Probably not time for questions but individually, I'm available.
Thank you.
>> RACHEL POLLACK: We're running short on time as we have nine Dynamic Coalitions to speak. We'll ask you to limit your remarks to 7 minutes. Please set the timer for 7 minutes.
We'll start by pulling out of a hat.
We have Dynamic Coalition on Public Access in Libraries.
>> CHRISTINA de CASTELL: We include 140 participants from all stakeholder groups and we presented this statement over 2015 and it builds on prior efforts to discuss the role of libraries and access to information both within and beyond the IGF at national, regional, international levels.
The feedback on the Principles on Public Access in Libraries will help to us continue to underline the critical role of libraries and ensuring access to information both in the WSIS+10 review and the national development plans that will follow the Sustainable Development Goals defined in the UN 2030 Agenda.
Over the past few days we have heard that achieving access to information requires more than investment in technology infrastructure, requiring a policy environment supporting governance and power stakeholders in publishing information online and ensuring it is accessible and an environment ensuring individuals have the ability to find and use the information provided via the Internet and an environment that ensures that communities have the capacity and incentives to publish local content online.
Hundreds of millions of people use the Internet through shared connections and through providers of public access such as libraries. Libraries are used, safe institutions that already exist in many developing countries. They include skilled and qualified library staff who are for the public support on technology and training on information and media literacy. Libraries provide an avenue to achieve access to the Internet and ensure that people have the skills they need to access information through technology.
The members of the Dynamic Coalition on Public Access in Libraries agreed to the following principals, infrastructure: Libraries should be recognized as a vehicle for universal access to the Internet; libraries should be used to initiate universal, affordable infrastructure in developing countries and underserved communities in developed countries; libraries where they don't exist, information and documentation centers should be recognized as a vehicle for ensuring universal access.
Policy, policies and legislation should create an enabling environment for universal access to information by supporting the role of libraries in providing public access to ICTs, Internet connectivity and technology training. Copyright, national and international copyright frameworks should balance the public interest in accessing information with the rights of authors and others to provide public access to libraries in all formats.
Accessibility: All people irrespective of gender, age, capacity, race, ethnicity should have access to information through ICTs and the skills needed to participate fully in society.
Privacy: Individuals have the right to privacy when they seek information using the Internet. Internet users in public venues such as libraries must not be subject to surveillance of their activities.
Skills development: Libraries should be supported in their role of offering training and skills development in using technology, media, information literacy so that people can access the information and services that they need.
Open access content: Through providing technology and Internet access libraries offer and promote access to free online content supporting education and development, complementing access to commercial content through online subscription resources.
Local content: Through providing technology and offering support libraries have the capacity to promote and enable the creation of local content and to ensure its preservation. Libraries should be supported in using and facilitating access to open data and open access solutions and libraries role in providing access to government information and services should be recognized.
The next step of the Dynamic Coalition on Public Access in Libraries is to identify concrete actions that IGF stakeholders can take to further the implementation of the principles.
We hope you would like to join in developing the recommendations by participating in the Dynamic Coalition on Public Access in Libraries and continuing this conversation.
Thank you.
>> RACHEL POLLACK: Thank you for keeping the remarks concise.
The next speaker, Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility. I, therefore, call on Nicolo Zingales.
>> NICOLO ZINGALES: Thank you very much.
The Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility is pleased to present the work developed in the course of the last year.
Throughout mailing lists in a participatory and multistakeholder fashion the recommendations are grounded on a framework for business and Human Rights according to which governments have a duty to protect Human Rights, corporations have the responsibility to protect the Human Rights and they have a joint duty to offer an effective remedy. The aim of this recommendation is to provide guidance on what constitutes responsible conduct by online platforms in the protection of Human Rights of their users, in particular privacy, freedom expression and due process.
This guidance has been developed by reference to the Council of Europe's Guide on Human Rights for Internet Users and international Human Rights documents, a variety.
Through this recommendation we not only identified minimal standards for the respect of Human Rights platform operators which we refer to as standards that shall be met, but Best Practices which we refer to as recommended or should be followed for the most responsible adherence to Human Rights principals in the drafting of terms of service for this platform.
One of the issues that we had to deal with in the developing of the recommendation, it is the conflicts that may be between international Human Rights law and national laws which may implement international standards somewhat differently. This recommendation recognized the need for a company to submit to national laws, but only to the extent that these are not legitimate. We define laws as procedural legitimate when they are enacted on a basis of a democratic process. In order to be substantively legitimate this law must respond to a pressing social need and having regard to the impact being proportional to the aim person.
The first principle that I mentioned, due process: Due process in this recommendation is defined as clarity and predictability of the substantive law, the right to an effective remedy against any Human Rights violation and the right to be heard before any potential adverse decision is taken regarding one's self.
In this respect the recommendations require meaningful notice to be provided to user before the amendment and termination of contracts, specifically given the impact that this can have on the Rights of individuals. It also recommends that platforms make termination of accounts possible only upon repeated violation of terms of service or on the basis of court order. And regarding adjudication, it suggests that platforms should offer a quick solution system, but not as a substitute of regular court proceedings, only as a complement to that. In particular, it requires platforms not to request waver of class action rights for their users.
With regard to freedom of expression: This recommendation recognized that certain platforms can be seen as more public spaces that constitute speech enablers and, therefore, should be subject to higher standard of scrutiny. They in any case should provide clear and separate mechanism that are necessary and proportionate to the purpose in removing any content from the platform.
Regarding government blocking and takedown: Platform operators should execute such requests when grounded on legitimate law as referred to earlier. Platform operators should also adopt law enforcement guidelines and release periodic transparency reports.
With regard to privacy: We define the Best Practice for platforms to limit the connection of personal data which is necessary to achieve a specific purpose with a general purpose consent. We ask a user to opt out for data collection even after the consent is provided.
With regard to data use: We require a consent to use personal data for purpose and duration specified in the terms of service. We identified the Best Practice of specifying that constant is limited to existing services and does not extend to the future services. Platforms are to give users the opportunity for getting accurate data concerning them. We require them to always permit the users to delete the accounts in a permanent fashion.
Finally with data protection with third parties: We identify the Best Practice of providing a way for users to be informed of full uses of the personal data by third parties and the value form of legal process and the platform should release a periodic transparency report for each jurisdiction which it operates.
We very much look forward to your feedback and to the discussion.
>> RACHEL POLLACK: The next speaker is from the Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things. I pass it on to Maarten Botterman.
>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: I appreciate this extra flavor.
I'm representing the Coalition that didn't come here to ask for rough consensus or to seek that, but to really place something on the table that can help us to over the coming year come to something that we believe would deserve the discussion. We may be a bit further away, but this is the intent.
With that, we have put a draft declaration on the table in the full understanding that the Internet of Things is happening. Tens of billions of things will be connected over the coming years collecting, sharing data, even acting. This is all driven by the business opportunity and also by the social needs that require that.
If we look, for instance, for the completion of the Sustainable Development Goals, there is a couple of those where it is clear that connected technologies are needed to make possible. That they happen.
Very happy to see that we have still 7 minutes.
With that, we need the space to innovate, and with that, we need to develop that in a responsible way. In these discussions earlier on, it is like we shouldn't have the regulation because this domain requires space, but there is obviously regulation that should be respected and how do we deal with that in such a way that we can develop this and help us to come to a future we want. We believe it requires ethical standards in order to come there, and as formulated in the Internet of Things the good practice principle for now, we feel that the Internet of Things could practice aims of developing IoT products, services, taking ethical considerations in the account from the outset, to find the ethical, sustainable way ahead using IoT creating a free, secure and enabling rights based environment, the future we want.
So to have the framework for the IoT good practice, what's ethical, where we stand now, the inputs to the debate, it is the values that are the product of applicable law, cultural values, morals, habits, and globally expressed in the outline of the Universal Human Rights and the Sustainable Development rules that are adopted by the general meetings of the UN.
Good practice in IoT practices and services, it requires meaningful transparency to users. Understandable, clear terms of use and the ability to act on those data that require user control in a meaningful way.
Without going into full detail on all of this, I would like to point you at the document and really invite you to use this amazing platform even when we're not in Joao Pessoa and even throughout the coming year.
What we have done to get where we are, it is to involve stakeholders over the world already into this debate, have people from Civil Society, from governments, from big business and from the technical community on board. And this morning we made quite some progress and had some valuable insights raised in a meeting where, for instance, the new ITU Working Group 20 on standards was present, Information Society was present, business was present, also we have good participation of the room. Various IGFs provide good focal points for these discussions. We look forward to continue to open up and to invite you all to participate in that over the coming year in the meetings that were organized and in the online platform discussion that's made available.
I would like to leave it at that.
Thank you.
>> RACHEL POLLACK: Thank you for your intervention, for your openness to receiving feedback.
Our next speaker will be from Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LEBOLD: As acting Chair for this meeting, it is a pleasure for me to be able to present an update on the work of the Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values in the absence of the coalitions main coordinator who unfortunately was not able to come to this meeting.
I'm honored to relay the following message, what's the Internet, about what makes it what it is. What's the architectural principles, core values and what is happening to the core values in the process of its evolution? What is it that needs to be preserved and, what changes are inevitable? What does the Internet community say that can't be changed? How much ‑‑ how could changes and improvements be brought about without compromising the core values? How is the different positions between stakeholders be redone to look at these values? We had a workshop with ISOC, the first Chair of the Workshop on Fundamental Core Internet Values examining these questions. Since IGF 2010 the deliberations continued as the theme of the Dynamic Coalitions Internet Values since the first workshop. The coalition has held yearly workshops with distinguished speakers and experts ‑‑ and I'll go through a few of them just to give you an idea of the people that were there back in the day to tell us really what the values were about and whether we're losing the values as time goes.
Panelists and discussion in the Egypt workshop included Daniel Darverai, Allan Michael, a member of the parliament of the United Kingdom, a director of One Web Day, the then coordinator of the Internet Government Caucus, president and CEO of the Internet Society at the time, Markus Cameron, the director of the ITF, a long time ICANN Internet society leader from the National Autonomous University of Mexico. The workshop defined the topic and listed a set of values.
And then the first official IGF meeting of the coalition took place in 2010 with a long list of additional speakers, a long‑time Internet activist, an ICANN activist, a then‑Chairman of the Board of the ICANN, again the Imagining the Internet Center and again Markus, the leader of the IGF Secretariat. There is a pattern here! Many had ‑‑ many of the above speakers and many others that had taken place over in Istanbul who was, of course, the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information to the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Now, the meetings focused on different aspects of the current values. Intersessional work includes several sessions at other venues from the Future Web 2010 conference, seminars in India and all of them were along the themes of the impact of altered core Internet values and business, commission, innovation and an open, universal Internet. What makes this coalition different from the work of other Dynamic Coalitions relating to defending the Internet model? For one, the values are based on the technical architecture and of the Internet itself there are other coalitions doing an excellent job of linking the Internet to freedom of speech, Human Rights, both issues are very important overarching issues and we commend the Dynamic Coalitions on the work they have done; however, the other issues are so fundamental that they sometimes have the ability to overwhelm the core reasons why the Internet works, how it works.
Among the Internet core values, the following are the most significant ones: A single domain name system, permissionness, innovation, open, borderless, user centric, end‑to‑end, robust, reliable. Some of these values have eroded or broken over the years. For example, the end‑to‑end nature of the Internet was broken when network addressed translation was used to ease the scarcity of IPV4 addresses. It was technical, not political. On this occasion the Internet continues to evolve technologically and now we're seeing the introduction of IPv6 the core value will be restored ultimately.
As the Internet evolves more challenges with the delivery of Zero‑Rating services, we saw that in the previous session, bandwidth capping, address translation, port blocking, filtering and depacket inspection. These are serious threats to Core Internet Values.
Our session at this year's IGF Core Internet Values had showed an exchange of views based on the one‑pager that's been put online at the contribution of the IGF process. One page. Please, comment on it. There are a lot of comments. We need a lot of input on this.
We have participants with Kathy Brown, CEO of the Internet Society, Director General of APNIC, the regional registry from the Asia‑Pacific region, the University of West Indies and the U.K. government's Department of Culture, media and sports.
We discussed the meeting of a free Internet, Zero‑Rating services, Internet as a technology providing end‑to‑end services, fragmentation, finally the possibility of drafting a document which stakeholders including large Internet organizations, Civil Society and governments could actually commit to, thus ensuring that the future Internet does not deviate from the Core Internet Values.
As was explained by the government sector panelist that this would be unlikely as it would turn any point into an interstate negotiation, other panelists agreed with that, and the way forward was seen to actually have a Best Practices document but no signature at the end of the day.
Plans for the forthcoming year are, therefore, to consolidate the core values into a dynamic living document. And why dynamic? The Internet itself is dynamic. The moment you print something it risks becoming obsolete. By sustaining the ongoing discussion of each year's threats to the Core Internet Values, the coalition aims to keep as dynamic and up‑to‑date as the Internet's evolution. Work will continue on the mails list and everyone is invited to join.
Thank you.
>> RACHEL POLLACK: Thank you for the overview of the history and the Coalition of Dynamic Values of the Internet.
The next speaker is from Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility.
>> LUCA BELLI: Thank you.
Good morning to everyone.
The document that will be presented this year as to request feedback has been ‑‑ is not the first outcome of the Dynamic Coalitions actually. The Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility was created in 2013 to produce outcomes. A main goal was to produce a model framework on the net neutrality and to create ‑‑ to figure a dialogue and debate on the Net Neutrality, a global debate, to try to enshrine the tendencies of the debate in an annual report that's been published every year and discussed at every IGF since 2013.
The first ‑‑ as I was saying, the first outcome was the model framework on Net Neutrality and it has ‑‑ the purpose of the model framework was to provide some regulatory indications on how to regulate Net Neutrality was a transposition of the Working Group process. We decided to open the mailing list, a public mailing list, where everyone could share information, but also cooperate in the deliberation of this document. The result has been presented in 2013 at the IGF. It played an inspirational role, both the Council of Europe has used it as a working material to deliberate a recommendation, and also some Committees of the European parliament have used it as an inspiration to amend the initial proposal of the commission on the connected regulation.
Last year, at the IGF in Istanbul it was quite clear that something more was needed to consider it an IGF outcome. So that was very clear in the IGF Chair Summary that suggested a need for a validation process to consider this an outcome of the IGF. We decided to use, again, the ITF to transpose that process to use the last call process used by the ITF to go from a draft to a request for comment allowing all of the participants to further comment and to refine the document. We have decided not to have a regulatory model, but the policy statement, a principle statement.
The result, it is that we shortened the document and modified it. We had a very intense consultation period during six months involving a wide range of stakeholders and in the first part, which is corresponding to the first idea rating sheets, it is the preamble that sets the basic fundamental element of Net Neutrality and also the aspirations so it is accessible to all people. Net Neutrality plays an instrumental role in preserving the Internet openness, fostering enjoyment of Human Rights and fostering competitiveness and more, spreading the benefits of the Internet world to people.
The third part of the preamble, it is that it is the interest of the public by preserving a level playing field by providing equal opportunity for intervention and development of new applications, services and business models.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: Can you read slower?
>> LUCA BELLI: I have only 7 minutes!
The third point, it is suggested very intensely, particularly by private sector participant to the consultation, that competition among broadband networks, technologies, all players of the Internet ecosystem is essential for ensuring the Internet. And the last point, all individuals and stakeholders should have the possibility to participate in the deliberation of any Net Neutrality regulatory instrument.
So after I think this fundamental elements, we define some safeguards and we have stated that the instruments should at the minimum provide the following safeguards: First, we defined principle of Net Neutrality, and then Net Neutrality is the principle according to which Internet traffic is treated without unreasonable discrimination restriction or interference regardless of its sender, receiving, the type of content.
The previous definition on the model framework didn't have the qualification unreasonable. This was added due to the debate we had. We felt the need to introduce something, some flexibility and the private sector participant particularly felt this need and we felt that if the unreasonable, that's quite a concept, it had to be added. We should have defined what was reasonable traffic management.
Reasonable traffic management is defined immediately after, and it states that entrant service providers should act in accordance with the Net Neutrality, and any deviation from the principle may be considered as reasonable traffic management as long as it is necessary and proportionate to secure the security and integrity. Which is agreed by many stakeholders. To mitigate the effect of the temporary, exceptional conjunction primarily by means of protocol agnostic measures, when not practical by other measures. We have to use the term protocol and specific to make sure we're talking about the service, not specific application or competing application.
Also the third exception, which is also in the Marco da Civil here, and suggested by the India participants ‑‑
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: You have to wrap up in the next 30 seconds. The clock is off.
>> LUCA BELLI: We have law enforcement, a separate principle, it is not reasonable traffic but acceptable traffic management due to the overblocking problems that can be led to transparent obligations, meaning that operators should provide meaningful information on the conditions of the speeds.
And then to go very fast, the last two points, they're privacy, and someone could wonder why privacy is here. Several traffic management practices need a prior depacket inspection, a prior monitoring and, therefore, we stated it all, all Internet players should comply.
>> RACHEL POLLACK: Thank you.
>> LUCA BELLI: Last point.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: You need to stop.
>> LUCA BELLI: Resource implementation.
>> RACHEL POLLACK: We'll hear from Dynamic Coalition on Gender and Internet Governance, Bishakha Datta.
If the timekeepers, please, could you start the clock at 7 minutes now. That would be very helpful.
Thank you.
>> BISHAKHA DATTA: Thank you very much.
The gender ‑‑ the Dynamic Coalition on Gender and Internet Governance, or DCGIG as we refer to it in short‑term, started back in 2008. I was not part of the IGF deliberations at that point. The reason that it started is out of a fundamental belief that gender cannot be seen as an add‑on, an extra, something that comes at the peripheries of Internet Governance, but something that's actually fundamental and integral to the Internet Governance that no one gender should be able to articulate, define, identify Internet Governance, rather Internet Governance must be shaped, defined and articulated by different genders.
Now, when it started in 2008 the term that was used for gender was actually even though it was called the Dynamic Coalition on Gender and Internet Governance, what we were talking about was really women. The ‑‑ if you look at the documents, you would see that the word women actually predominates. The main mechanism used to see whether women played a critical role in Internet Governance is a mechanism called the gender report cards. Very briefly, what the gender report cards represent is that in every global IGF workshop as part of the report back, the workshop moderator is required to report back on diversity considerations. For instance, there are specific questions around how many women and men are there on the panel, how many women and men are there as moderators, as participants, how many times gender is mentioned, so on. This is baked into the IGF process. This was thought to be a good way to see if we were coming closer to our aspiration of gender parity defined in those days very much by women/men in a binary sense.
Moving forward to 2015 we had a really good meeting today. You will see this in the idea rating sheets, we want to make a series of propositions: One, we would really like to expand the definition of gender to include more gender identities. We would like to include transpeople, that's transmen, transwomen, we would like to include people who identify themselves as intersex and we had an interesting discussion on how would we do this. We don't want to add another column starting to tick off trans, et cetera, in the workshop reports, but we would like to see if it is possible for the IGF registration process to either add another column or to find a way to allow people to self‑identify across genders beyond men and women.
The second important thing we looked at today, we looked at how to add a qualitative dimension to discussions on gender parity. While the report cards help us looking at the women in the room in terms of numbers, sometimes it is not possible to measure significance through numbers. For example, we know that the findings are showing very clearly that the numbers of women as moderators, panelists, participants, it is going up, but they're going up more in the subtheme on Internet and Human Rights. Where what we really want is for gender issues to be sort of cross‑cutting issues and to be there in many more sessions. This is something that we're also looking at, how do we actually accomplish this.
The third thing that came up, which may be a bit new, it is that there were certain cases reported this morning ‑‑ and this is not in the report, it was only reported this morning at the Gender Dynamic Coalition, there were mentions of cases of sexual harassment that women have faced either at the regional IGFs or online during IGF governance processes or at the global IGF. I'm not at liberty to actually describe specific cases right now. Let me say that they were not numerically ‑‑ there were a few cases mentioned. One of the arguments made at the Gender Dynamic Coalition is that if we're talking about getting more women to participate, you know, to empower women and to help women achieve their rights through the Internet, et cetera, well, women have to feel comfortable in this space. A thing we need to think about since a few of these have now been voiced, is do we want to have friendly space policies? Do we want to include something around sexual harassment in the code of conduct? This was something that was enthusiastically endorsed by the meeting this morning and this is something that we really would like to have feedback on.
In conclusion, we have five ideas that we have put up on the rating sheets. I have sort of given you a broad view, they're specifically broken down. We would very much like comment from everybody.
Thank you.
>> RACHEL POLLACK: Thank you.
We would like to reiterate that this sheet in particular is very clear and encourage everyone to take a look at a model perhaps for the future.
We have two speakers left. One, the next will be the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights & Principles. We have two speakers, Hanane Boujemi and Marianne Franklin, time is still limited to 7 minutes.
I would add that the idea rating sheet is available online only in this case.
Thank you.
>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN: Good afternoon.
I'm sharing the presentation with Hanane Boujemi. We won't take 7 minutes but 3:30 each.
The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights & Principles was established in the 2008 IGF. The IRPC has two elected Co-Chairs and an elected Steering Committee. The list serve currently has 344 members.
In its main session we would like to present the IRPC as an IGF output. I have it here so that the camera can pick up under the subtitling, the Charter of Human Rights and Principles. This were drafted and released in 2010/11. The 21 Articles of the Charter articulate the interconnections between international Human Rights laws and norms, design, access, use, and the Internet Governance processes. The objectives of the Charter are to provide, first of all, a shared reference point for dialogue and cooperation between different stakeholder priorities in the Internet Governance domain; secondly, to provide an authoritative document for framing policy decisions and emerging rights‑based norms for the online environment; thirdly, to provide a policy making and advocacy tool for governments, businesses, Civil Society groups.
So how does this work? You can take a look, but just to run it down briefly, it articulates fundamental rights and freedoms under international law for the online environment, first as rights that we know as hard law and also as soft law. For instance, existing rights such as Article 8, the right to privacy, and aspirational forms of rights, so‑called soft law for instance, our first Article right to access to the Internet.
This Charter has been gaining in statue and recognition since the launch in 2011 in the European dialogue on Internet Governance in Belgrade. Our 10 Internet rights and principles in 25 languages were derived from the full Charter and is a way to reach out in grassroots and global levels.
>> HANANE BOUJEMI: So the full charter is made available in several world languages through the efforts of committed legal experts and lawyers from all around the world.
At the moment, the Charter booklet is containing a full Charter and 10 principles. It is currently available in eight languages, initiated and achieved by the dedicated teams on the ground. We have the English version, the original and others. So the English edition is in the 4th copy, the 4th edition. We launched the Brazilian copy today.
We would like to thank all of the translators that contributed in this work, which is reaching millions of people all around the world.
Why these efforts are so important, it is because the cooperative efforts to translate the Charter and also the booklet to engage and mobilize language communities for outreach and implementation at the local level.
>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN: We have endorsers and 1,443 signatures in support of the work.
We would like to highlight milestones ‑‑ we have 3 minutes and we'll cut those and move to the last bit if we need to.
Points we would like to underscore is the way that the Charter is recognized in official reports, for instance, the European Agency for Fundamental Rights, the 2013 Chilean Internet report, a close partner initiative, an important one, the Council of Europe's Guide to Human Rights for Internet Users, which is just adopted in 2014. We have seen it adopted in the national level, for instance, in the New Zealand Green Party's Internet Rights and Freedom Bill and the Italian Declaration of the Internet Rights which we talked about today, it has been inspired by the Charter, the Marco da Civil and other outcome documents. There are more details online on these initiatives.
What we would like to stress, this is a living document. This underscores the value as a framework and advocacy tool at the same time.
We would like to note that we have undergraduate students participating in the IGF consultation process, and they have been providing substantive feedback on all of the DC or many of the outputs. We welcome you all, invite you all to take a look at the very interesting comments.
We would like to thank Facebook for their constructive comments. I hope we have responded appropriately. Yeah. So, yeah, keep the comments coming. We're enjoying them.
>> HANANE BOUJEMI: Right.
Why should this meeting adopt this Charter as an output of the Internet Governance forum? We have six reasons for you:
It has been the source for national political processes, for example in Asia‑Pacific, New Zealand as a case study through the Internet Rights and Freedom Bill in New Zealand which was led by the Green Party.
The second reason in its use for outreach and education on the ground all around the world. For example, it has been used in the Middle East and North African region at the universities, in classrooms, Latin America, Europe, the U.S., Asia‑Pacific. The comprehensiveness and authority is based in existing Human Rights law, it has had a recognized impact on multilateral and multistakeholder undertakings for Human Rights‑based Internet Governance. For example, the UN Human Rights Council and NETMundial which took place in 2014. The Charter has been implemented as a coherent and authority framework for national initiatives in Italy, adopted by the Italian parliament in July, 2015.
Finally, the 21 Articles played a role for Internet Governance processes, for example, as a source of reports from working groups on ICANN, social responsibility on respecting Human Rights and was presented there in June of 2015
>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN: We have 10 seconds.
We have observer status in the Council of Europe's Steering Committee on Media and Information Society.
So just to sum up, we believe we have an effective and working document, and we invite you to support us in this continuing work.
Thank you for listening.
>> HANANE BOUJEMI: Thank you very much.
>> RACHEL POLLACK: Thank you.
It is great to hear about the achievements of the Charter.
The final speaker, we have one left, it will be Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability with Andrea Saks.
>> ANDREA SAKS: I work as a volunteer for the ITU and work with my colleague, Francesca Cesa Bianchi, from G3ICT for Global Inclusive ‑‑ I never say it right. She's my scribe.
I'm a Person with Disabilities. I'm dyslexic and I have age‑related disabilities. You have seen me dancing with my cane.
We decided to do something practical: There is a saying called nothing about us without us.
Now, if you are a person with a disability, you can't get here. When you get here, you can't get in. If you can't understand what's going on how in the heck can you participate? Though we deal with Internet Governance, though we deal with getting online, all of that kind of stuff, we realized that we really needed to deal with accessible meetings. So we created, and we kind of crystalized it last year, a guideline. We hoped to get it accepted as an output document last year.
I'll hold it up. You can't really see it well.
It does say DCAD Accessibility Guidelines, last year, it was 2014, this is now updated and it is 2015. We include in our group Persons with Disabilities and we do it with captioned telephone calls because we all live all over the globe in different time zones.
Now, in the introduction of this, the Internet ‑‑ I'm going to read this to you. I think that I want to quote this properly:
The Internet Governance Forum's Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability, we call ourselves DCAD, would like to provide the following guidelines to the IGF Secretariat on how to improve accessibility at IGF meetings to eliminate barriers. The intention is to help the IGF Secretariat to improve accessibility for Persons with Disabilities and to include Persons with Disabilities with age‑related disabilities in IGF meetings ‑‑ this is where we're really dangerous since we're a Dynamic Coalitions who wants to influence the IGF. This requires the staff of the IGF to understand certain procedures and include those requirements as mandatory in all host agreements. That's going out on a limb, but this is very necessary.
We made this with a simple ‑‑ it is not very long. We have references to make it more complicated if you need to find out specific information.
It is ‑‑ it is already posted on the IGF website. We did update it. We took in all of the comments that were put on and added them. We had our Dynamic Coalitions meeting and added what we thought we were missing.
This document really should become a living document. It is online. We'll add to it as we find out more, as people add to it saying we forgot this or we didn't do this that we did last year.
Sometimes we forget what we learned. If there is staff changes, consistency, education, it is sometimes lost. Although we did something really well one year, we forgot to do it this year. Throughout we have to have something written down that everybody can use.
Now, it is not a perfect document. It is a small document that could be used by many, many people. You haven't lived ‑‑ and one of my colleagues is sitting there ‑‑ we used to meet in the kitchen elevators with the tomatoes to try to get somewhere, and it is not funny if you're in with stinky tomatoes and it is also funny in a way if you can laugh at it. But stairs, they're obstacles,
You're all familiar with captioning now. IGF really was fabulous and Markus got behind it. They were the early group to really use the captioning on a full‑time basis. We couldn't live without it. There is more. Sign language interpretation, there is one here, but the young lady was in the dark. Who could see her? It was only one sign language, which is okay. We have other ‑‑ every sign language, for instance, in every country is different. There is something called International Sign, but there is no international sign language.
The big problem is getting people here. We need to have a greater population of Persons with Disabilities and we haven't really dealt with that, and we are working on that idea of getting funding, fellowships, but we thought we can't have them come here if they can't access. What we wanted to do is to kind of make something that was tangible, that was usable, that would be accepted by the entire IGF as a bible, if you like, or whatever book is your book to help the host. The host may have people ‑‑ by the way, Brazil is great! The volunteer kids who came here to help us, I have had my bag carried from Timbuctoo to China. People are wonderful, trying to make things accessible, but there are issues with remote participation, but many can't come and they have to use tools and when the tools themselves for remote participation are not accessible, and there isn't one tool in the world that's accessible to my satisfaction.
There's a lot of work to do. One of the things that I also want to point out is in the back of this document we have references ‑‑ you see that ‑‑ of other guidelines that are more specific, and also this inspired the question 26 of Study Group 16 of the ITU to actually write and it has been past and it is at the UN now on accessible remote participation, on guidelines for that, also remote meetings. There are two technical documents that you can download.
This needs to become a living part of the IGF creed so we can have a live, updated guideline on how to get an accessible meeting so we can include Persons with Disabilities because nothing about us without us must be the plan.
Thank you very much.
>> RACHEL POLLACK: Thank you very much.
I think you made a great case for the need for an accessibility and disability bible, and also to thank the Brazilian host for all of their help.
We have actually ‑‑ we actually have a bit of time that we weren't expecting, about 15 minutes. We thought we could use this to take information‑related questions from the floor. The main discussion and question and debate will be tomorrow morning after everyone's had a chance to sleep on it, fill out the idea rating sheets. Now if there are any initial questions for clarification we can take them. There are microphones on both sides of the room.
We also encourage you to start completing the idea rating sheets either online or in the back where they're in paper‑based form.
>> Can the technical people put on light back there I wonder? It is hard to see the sheets otherwise. We'll see if they can.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: Are there questions regarding the presentations that we have heard?
>> BISHAKHA DATTA: Can I make a suggestion? Which is if we have time, you know, would it be possible for us to actually give time for people to go to the idea rating sheets and pick them up, sort of things. I'm honestly skeptical that after four long days of the IGF that anybody is going to work at night or sort of go online. Honestly, most of us have put in a lot of work and would like the feedback.
>> AVRI DORIA: If there is no questions for clarification, that's a perfect thing for people to do. I would endorse that particular suggestion since I see there is one question for clarification.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you.
Actually, it is not a question for clarification, just a couple of suggestion, first of all, congratulate to you all very much on the work of the Dynamic Coalitions which I think are the living part and the beating heart of the IGF. A lot of ideas of workshops that we see throughout the day, they come from people involved in the Dynamic Coalitions. I think that we cannot say how important they are in words. Thank you very much for the hard work that you have been doing all over the years, and also thank you to the amazing team that's worked and kind of fused their brains to come up with a solution, a methodology to look at the work of the Dynamic Coalitions.
A couple of suggestions to make, I think this is a straightforward exercise, and I think that we understand how it works, but in order for the IGF community to be sufficiently informed, about how to participate in the importance of the session. I would like to suggest for the next year that leaflets are produced explaining the methodology of the session and maybe handed to the participants, not only inside of the beautiful backpacks we receive with a lot of information on other things, but also during coffee breaks. Maybe even the Dynamic Coalitions could have a stand in which the leaflet and the recommendations that you have made, for us sitting here, listening to you, sometimes the time is short and for us to kind of digest what you're talking while you're reading the recommendations, it is not very easy. If the recommendations were kind of put together in a summary and handed in to participants beforehand that would also be a very valuable thing for participants to think about the recommendations and to be more prepared in the session and to filling the sheets.
Another idea is to record the videos. Many of you have made excellent presentations that do not only talk about the recommendations for this particular meeting, but also talk about the work of the Dynamic Coalitions and give us a broad overview of the importance of the Dynamic Coalitions and a bit of their history. If the videos are recorded and made available, maybe a couple of weeks before the IGF, they could also be used to do outreach so the that people know that this exercise is going to take place and that they have an idea of what to expect in terms of methodology and the recommendations of the Dynamic Coalitions.
Again, thank you very much and congratulations. This is an amazing pilot experience. I hope that we can repeat it again next year and improve it always.
Thank you.
[Applause].
>> RACHEL POLLACK: Thank you so much.
We have had a request from the Chair who would like to make a quick response.
>> CARLOS ALBERTO AFONSO: Quickly, what's been proposed, very interesting, important, it seems to be the coalition of coalitions, a sort of forum or procedures for us to act together to disseminate the work, so on, which I think is very, very interesting.
>> RACHEL POLLACK: Maybe just to add quickly, this is the first year that we have had a main session for Dynamic Coalitions, and also the first time using the idea of the rating sheets. It is a pilot. All of the suggestions are definitely well appreciated and I think will be taken into consideration in the future.
I see we have another question ‑‑ also, if we could please limit it to 90 seconds, timers ‑‑
>> AUDIENCE: Give us the heads‑up when the time comes.
>> RACHEL POLLACK: Can you step closer to the microphone?
>> AUDIENCE: The question I have, it is as you look at the coffee break and your ability to get to the coffee much more quickly it is clear that a lot of people have left already by this point and by tomorrow significantly more will have left. We seem to have a head long rush to do a tabulation. I would argue that by tomorrow numbers are not what's important. What's important is feedback on whether people were able to use the form. Numbers are not a representative of anything at this point because you don't have people. If this tool is meant to be an input tool to the Dynamic Coalitions, it can't be much beyond that, why not leave it open o so that after people get home they can provide input and you can do a running tabulation, because tomorrow's tabulation is a meaningless number that's a futile exercise. What should be is a debrief concept of hey, was this useful? Did you have something ‑‑ I'm guessing I'm at the 90 seconds
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: An intersessional idea rating sheet?
>> AUDIENCE: Essentially this is two things. It is, one ‑‑ there are two issues I see with the rating sheet:
One, someone came up with an idea. I have no opportunity to input my ideas and maybe the idea is not representative of what a lot of people want to talk about. One, we have to figure out what's the workability of that.
The second thing we have to figure out, what's the utility? How is it going to be used? We have a tool without understanding what we're doing with it.
I think tomorrow let's maybe do this as an open discussion of could this be useful, people see what it is, and they can provide feedback on that. A concept of tabulation doesn't make sense. We're making a headlong rush, you have 15 minutes, it is dark back there, fill out a dot. That doesn't seem to be a good path forward.
>> RACHEL POLLACK: Very good points.
I think that you would like to make a comment?
>> OLIVIER CREPIN‑LEBOLD: Thank you.
>> Joe, just a question, would a blank rating sheet be a good idea?
>> AUDIENCE: I think that would give you then confusion because then you would not necessarily know how to map anything.
I think this is the concept of if a Dynamic Coalitions has a question saying is this useful, at least feedback, it is not conclusive feedback in any way but a feedback loop. I think you could have a write in version where people say perhaps this is something that we would like to discuss, and then that would be a way for Dynamic Coalitions to see perhaps what the future work is that we should do and that's an in the methodology
>> JEREMY MALCOLM: I could answer on the rating sheet idea.
Yeah ,it is normally done ‑‑ they're normally blank so people around the room with their own had ideas can add those and get immediate feedback on them. We're keeping it simple
As everybody has been saying, it as pilot. We haven't put really the resources into what it deserves this year and we haven't allocated the time. It is something we tried to do, we had to negotiate with the MAG to try and at least split this into two sessions so that we had some space in between for people to complete the sheets. Regrettably, the two sessions are the last one in the evening and first one in the morning.
Everyone's comments are very valuable, and we're hopefully look at the process again next year and we'll be able to do a lot better next time.
Thank you.
>> RACHEL POLLACK: Thank you.
I see we have two more questions. Maybe we could ‑‑ three more questions.
If you could keep them short, again, 90 seconds, even one minute would be better.
I think we should take them in a row, and then we'll answer all at once.
>> AUDIENCE: Hello, everyone.
I would like to know about the aspect about the book, is this at a virtual access, should we buy it? I would like to know how to acquire it? I'm working on forensic specialization for the local University.
>> [Applause].
>> AUDIENCE: I commend you for trying to get feedback. This is actually not my original question,
The comment on how the form is usually used, if you're to fill it in, usually the forms are designed for certain kinds of feedback, usually if it is blank it is open‑ended, that usually taking it from one context to another can be quite problematic. They're designed for certain purposes and not for others.
The other thing that's interesting to me, I found for the first time what the sheet looks like and how it will be used, and you'll use color coding to identify the different groups. I'm hoping ‑‑ the question is, are you taking into account in the spirit of the IGF which different groups register in different ways because the kind of consensus decision making only works if basically all of the different stakeholder groups buy into the proposals, and it is important that it work not just for a head counting exercise but works for all of the constituent multistakeholder groups of the IGF.
>> AUDIENCE: I'm Andre from the youth IGF and from the observatory of the youth in Latin America.
We, the youth, will see the possibility to express part of our claims here in the IGF, specifically the question about the participation of the youth, and we have been asking in other places about the question to open space for the participation of the youngers. That's the first point.
I was talking yesterday ‑‑ and the second point, is the possibility to open the IGF to start ‑‑ and start this in the Dynamic Coalitions, with a real reasonable dialogue looking at the room structure, with the youth thing, in the audience, we have in the room, because I know it is a hard wish but it is not a regional dialogue. We have a section ‑‑ a session in one of the workshops we had, we had a talk with the audience, and in the Dynamic Coalitions that is not a problem. I think here is a local one that we can start to think of real dialogue. It is a hard wish, but help us.
Thank you.
>> [Applause].
>> CARLOS ALBERTO AFONSO: With those comments, we close the session and hope that you all will be in the second part tomorrow morning.
Thank you very much.