The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Jalisco, Mexico, from 5 to 9 December 2016. 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.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'm not starting the session yet. It's 3:00, if you wait till we are online and I'll give the sign to get started. Just to remind you that this is main session that has interpretation in all six UN languages. If you want to be sure you understand, there are interpretation tools, radios, outside in the foyer, and all sessions are being live‑streamed and interpreted, so you can also watch it on the IGF web site, and YouTube Channel, to watch and share.
So we're waiting for the signal to get started. I have the signal so we can get started.
Once again, good afternoon. My name is Markus Kummer. I was the co‑facilitator of the DC, the Dynamic Coalition, main session, together with Avri Doria, who's sitting down there in the second row. And Avri, who is also a MAG member, has taken it on her to observe the Twittersphere and will report back what she sees on Tweets going on about the session.
Let me say a few words on the history of Dynamic Coalition, and on these sessions. The Dynamic Coalitions started with the very first IGF meeting in 2006. It was then a kind of compromise between those who didn't want any intersessional activity and those who wanted to set up Working Groups that would continue their work throughout the year.
So Dynamic Coalitions are essentially self‑formed, self‑appointed, and very much in a bottom‑up way.
Now, the first nine years or so, they all had their own life in the margins of the IGF, and last year, for the first time, we got together and said it would be time to give them center stage, and to show the broader community what they had done and achieved, and also to get feedback from the broader community. And immediately after Joao Pessoa, we continued with regular calls, and also preparing some common principles. All the Dynamic Coalitions were invited to be open, to have open archives, open lists, be open to membership and also to agree to make dissenting opinions public.
This session, we thought it would be tedious if we allow each Dynamic Coalition to read out the report. They have all prepared a report, and all the reports are available on the web site, of the IGF web site and I encourage you all to look at them and to read them. There is a lot of substantive work that have gone on. But we thought in order to make it a little more dynamic we would ask and moderate to be a kind of provocateur, to engage in dialogue with Dynamic Coalitions and we also hope to have a dialogue with interactive session with all participants but before going into the session, I would like to invite our Host Country Chair, Victor Lagunes, to say a few words. Please, Victor.
>> VICTOR LEGUNES: Thank you, Markus and thank you to everyone. Thank you. On behalf of the Mexican government and the co‑presidency, thank you for the presence. I thank you for the debate we're still building on during these few days of work. We are in day number 3 of the IGF, 4 if we count Day 0, and we are achieving our goals when it comes to feedback and the different comments we have been listening to during these days. Everybody here is very happy. We are truly touching on different subjects in a deep way, and we are generating an enriching conversation for all of us. I hope for you, as well.
I would like to thank Markus Kummer for inviting me to be Chair of this panel, integrate representatives of the MAG. They have also co‑facilitators of this session. Dynamic Coalitions for us are extremely important. They truly demonstrate the richness of the Internet, as well as the different themes that are brought up along the way, and that are common goods. It was positioned quite well last year in Joao Pessoa and as Mr. Kummer said, this was a vocal point.
The scope of interest is very large and enriching and interesting from the role of the Internet in Climate Change, the work of Dynamic Coalitions is a demonstration of this richness that brings about many things to the Internet Community.
I also thank our Moderator, and I formally declare this session as open. I hope it will be a productive one, thank you very much.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: I would like to invite Jeremy Malcolm from the Electronic Frontier Foundation to say a few words on the Dynamic Coalition survey he has organized.
>> JEREMY MALCOLM: Thank you very much, Markus, so the issue survey is a way to connect the Dynamic Coalitions to the broader IGF community as Markus has explained that we've decided to do. They're a simplified version of the output documents that each Dynamic Coalition has produced this year, or at least 12 of the 16 Dynamic Coalitions have produced this year, and they've extracted 5 points for your feedback and you can submit your feedback using paper versions of these feedback sheets, which are available in the Dynamic Coalition booth in the IGF Village, or you can use the version that's online on the IGF web site.
So by means of exposing 5 key points from their documents to the broader community, the Dynamic Coalitions are able to refine and improve their outputs. The idea is that you all will complete these surveys after you've had some ‑‑ you've informed yourselves of the content of the Dynamic Coalitions work either by reading their documents or participating in this session or we also had a webinar which some people participated in and you may have attended some of the Dynamic Coalition meetings during the week.
So now that you have done that, you'll be informed enough to complete these surveys, and you can express agreement, disagreement, or somewhere in between on each of the 5 points that the Dynamic Coalitions have put to you.
So if it turns out that there's very strong agreement on a particular point, the Dynamic Coalition can take that as a kind of informal validation of their work by the respondents to the survey, or if there's strong disagreement, then they may realize that they haven't quite hit the mark, and maybe there needs to be some more discussion and knowledge exchange, or maybe this is just a proposition that they can't find support for.
So we hope that you will take the time to either visit the IGF booth, or to complete the feedback forms online. We'll be keeping them open for one month after the IGF closes, and after that, we'll be collecting the responses and returning them to the Dynamic Coalitions, so we very much hope that you'll participate. Thank you.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Jeremy, for the explanation and thank you very much for the hard work you put into this. With that I can hand over to Tatiana Tropina. Please ‑‑ you have to rush up on the stage. Make sure you're not out of breath when you reach us. Please, Tatiana.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much, Markus. Can you all hear me well? I would like to explain a bit the flow of the session. We are going to ask Dynamic Coalition to present their work, but they will be presenting it with the questions from me. So they don't really know what kind of questions I'm going to ask, because I'm an agent provocateur and after 45 minutes of them answering the questions we're going to open the floor for you, for your questions. Please be as controversial as you can and also even if you have a pressing need to ask the question, please wait. These 45 minutes will expire because we're going to listen to Dynamic Coalitions first.
A bit of administrative: If you're going to ask a question please raise your hand and there will be people with microphones around. They will come to you. And the last thing: We are going to use the Twitter world but not project it on the screen. There is Avri Doria, who is sitting over there, who is monitoring the Tweets, so please Tweet any questions you want to ask. The hashtags are #IGF2016 and #DC so you have to use two hashtags to ask the questions and it was quite hard to choose which Dynamic Coalition I will start with, because there is alphabetical order. You can cluster the issue.
And I decided to start with the oldest Dynamic Coalition. I think the oldest existing, and it's Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability. And I would like to ask Andrea the following question. I read your paper and it really struck me in the sense that you have been fighting for such a long time for accessibility, for old people, for people with disabilities, and there are still unresolved issues. But at the same time we have all these new technologies developing: Internet of Things, self‑driving cars, and so on.
So what is your Dynamic Coalition doing? What has been done so far? And how you're going to address existing issues and include new issues, as well? Thanks.
>> ANDREA SAKS: Thank you, Tatiana. Well, I have two hats. I'm also the Joint Coordination Activity on accessibility and human factors Chairman for the ITU, and the ITU supports the ‑‑ by giving it a web site and the Secretariat the Dynamic Coalition, and Malcolm Johnson was the one who thought who is now the Deputy Secretary‑General of the ITU, and gave us that amount of support. Standardization is on one level, and a lot of problems in actually making IGF accessible.
So our work is actually two‑fold. We produce something, and it's taken a few years to write, and many years to implement, is we call ourself DCAD, the guidelines, accessibility guidelines, which actually are being used to some extent here, but not completely, and it tells us how to make an accessible meeting. We didn't have captioning in front of me or ‑‑ I can see my face ‑‑ anything to see in the beginning. We now have that. That was a suggestion made by DCAD.
There were other issues about accessible hotels, and all that kind of logistics stuff that we need to have. On the other hand, we deal with areas that are important to persons with disabilities, like procurement, will enable us to have accessible tools and services. And we need to have a push behind that, and every single person who has given a presentation, save one, was a person with disabilities, including myself, so there we are. So we all have issues, but we work with persons with disabilities all the time. We do not do anything without them.
So the problem is two‑fold: Standardization is the key to getting globalization, and we can't have unilateral accept answer or use of the Internet un ‑‑ acceptance or use of the Internet, unless we all work from the same hymn note. The problem is we have proprietary companies who have to make a living who perhaps won't implement certain techniques that need to be done either in making their websites accessible, they don't have the expertise, or they don't implement the accessibility features that are in standards. There are other issues of training people on how to deal with persons with disabilities, and they need to listen to them, because when we've come here, we always ‑‑ in any IGF meeting there are always difficulties but when we actually work with the individual, it's a piece of cake. They get it. They understand, they correct it. Why can't we get that done? Advance?
So now we've come up with another great idea: Training. IGF training for persons ‑‑ for persons who are going to be assisting persons with disabilities, so they know what to expect, they know what they have to do for both the venue and the human being.
I really want to stress that the Dynamic Coalition is a part of the IGF, contributing to the IGF, so that not only do we have accessibility, but awareness, and also to encourage standardization including the Internet of Things, which is going to make life really better for persons with disabilities. That's what the Dynamic Coalition does. Thank you.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you so much, Andrea, for this wonderful intervention and also with keeping up with time. And from Accessibility and Disability I would like to go to the online Coalition on Gender and Internet Governance, and my question would be, both terms are broad. Both of them encompass so many things, so when you talk about gender and Internet Governance, are you talking about gender at the venues? Are you talking about gender equalities and the Internet? Are you talking about pressing the issue of harassment? And from which perspective, male, female? Both can be harassed, so if you can just explain what this Coalition is focusing on and maybe briefly what has been done.
>> BISHAKHA DATTA: Sure. Thanks a lot. When we talk about gender and Internet Governance, I think we talk about a range of things. To begin with, we start with the premise that all genders must shape, define, and participate in Internet Governance, and so it's very important that men, women, as well as people who define themselves as trans, or throughout the gender identities, are able to participate in panels, in processes, whether it's the Internet Governance Forum, whether it's the bodies that are responsible for Internet Governance, whether it's online processes or physical meetings. Related to that I think is also the question that when we think of the Internet user, we tend to think of a neutral Internet user who doesn't have a gender.
And we would like to change that conversation to thinking of users as embodied, which means some users are men, some are women, some are of different genders, and we believe that that will help us actually come to a better understanding of some of the fundamental issues that affect, say, privacy or free expression, just to give you one example.
If we think of free expression through the lens of gender and we think of online harassment, we are seeing more and more that online harassment which occurs through speech or through expression is restricting the free expression of women, right? So the whole free expression concept has to then account for gender, has to account for women's experiences in a sense. So that's one piece of it.
I think the other issue is really, like, if we look at an issue like access, for instance, right? We have to look at all the concerns related to that, and how we can bring on women, as well as trans people, online as equal participants, so it's a number of things, and I think the kind of work that we've done, we're also looking this year actually at, we have just presented at the gender Dynamic Coalition a draft sexual harassment policy and desexual harassment policy to be sure there are no incidents in the processes or in the physical meeting of the Internet Governance Forum because there have been in other Internet Governance bodies a couple of incidents and we would feel this kind of thing needs to be addressed in advance so that people of all genders feel comfortable in this space.
And we've also used the technique of what are called gender report cards, where, for the last, from 2012 onwards, we've monitored the participation of women and men in the IGF meetings as participants, as panelists, and as Moderators, and we are very happy to say that the numbers are actually going up, and there's definitely greater gender balance within the IGF.
I think in the year ahead we'll just change focus slightly and an unrealized aspiration from last year was to actually work with some of the other DCs to see how a gender perspective can actually be infused into all our work together. That's pretty much it.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much. I'm really grateful to our panelists that they really stick to time.
The next Coalition I would like to inquire to take the floor is Coalition on protecting vulnerable targets and online safety Coalition. We know how much you have already done in protecting children online. My question to you might sound a bit controversial but that's what I'm here for. There are many problems in the field of child online protection, and it can be viewed from different angles, from educating children to behavior online, from protecting them from being exploited, child grooming, anything you can imagine. Why does your Coalition concentrate on age verification systems? Why did you pick up this topic? Why do you think this is of uppermost importance or more importance among all other topics your Coalition could have dealt with?
>> JOHN CARR: Well, first of all, it's not the only topic we've been dealing with, but we're in a space of the Internet that's famous for innovation, famous for trying to use technology in new and different ways, and so ‑‑ and certainly in the country I'm from, the United Kingdom, we are attempting to use available technology to protect children from one particular aspect of I. confronting them on the interpret space. It's not an alternative to good sex education. It's certainly not meant to supplant parental supervision, or anything of that kind.
And actually to be quite specific about it, within the United Kingdom, for example but I'm sure it will be true in many other countries, we have laws which say: If you are a pornography publisher operating out of the U.K. jurisdiction you're required by law to have age verification, so as to ensure that persons under the age of 18 will not normally be able to access your content.
And that works very well. We have systems of fines and so on, so the companies comply, the British based companies comply. The problem, of course, is that the great majority of pornography sites, there's a problem with the word pornography because it doesn't quite describe some of the horrible stuff we're actually speaking about ‑‑ most of those are outside of the United Kingdom, so you can't bring them to court, and force compliance with our laws.
So we've devised a system which in the end depends upon each site having to age‑verify people coming to them, to demonstrate that they're over the age of 18 before they can gain access to the material. By the way, this is specifically aimed at commercial pornography sites. It's not all pornography sites. It's commercial ones, it's businesses. But that includes the so‑called free sites because they are actually highly commercial ventures.
And it's not about censorship. It's not about getting stuff removed. It's simply about trying to ensure that our laws are complied with, and that children are not exposed to this material ‑‑ can't find it easily accessible and not exposed to it by accident. Most of the big porn companies, I'm thinking particular of mind geek which owns porn hub for example, have indicated they're happy to comply, they will comply with the new law. It's still in Parliament. It's completed its passage through the House of Commons. It's now in our Upper Chamber. It will be on the statute book in February and probably operational within 18 months of that date. There will be a running period.
So just to stress this is not the only thing we think about. But this is new. It's happening now. It's about innovation, it's about countries seeking better child protection in relation to the Internet space. So we thought we'd bring it to your attention.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very ‑‑ I somehow keep holding microphone in the wrong way. So coming from one angle of innovation to another angle of innovation, I would like to ask Dynamic Coalition for ‑‑ on community connectivity. I think community connectivity made it very, itself very visible as a concept at this IGF. Luca, what is your Coalition dealing with? How do you understand community connectivity and how you're actually moving this agenda forward?
>> LUCA BELLI: Thank you, Tatiana, for the question. So first of all, let me say this Dynamic Coalition community connectivity is the newest one. We have only established this year, we started working in January. It was actually a natural consequence of the workshop organized last year in Joao Pessoa on community networks so that workshop, a lot of very passionate people came, and we understood we could merge our efforts to try to have more visibility on an issue that deserves to have visibility, particularly when we speak about connecting the next billion.
And actually, the ‑‑ I think we have managed to have a lot of visibility, and I think what we are going to do over the past years, and what we have been doing this year, is to try to let the policy‑makers and all Internet users, let them understand that there is not ‑‑ there is also another paradigm, an alternative paradigm, that could be utilized to connect the other people ‑‑ the next billion, which is actually not to connect them, but to let them build their own connectivity. And we have ‑‑ actually, we have both a Declaration on community connectivity where we define what is connectivity, what are community networks, what are the community network users and we also have produced a report that is the first report we have produced and we will produce more, where we analyzed not only the technical features of community networks, but also the governance of community networks.
And it is very interesting to note, analyzing all these different examples, that it is not only a way to provide Internet access. It's a true way of providing sustainable connectivity and to engage local communities. The local communities build their own infrastructure. They design them. They manage them. They maintain it. And being involved in the infrastructure, they also ‑‑ the positive externality of this is that, at least one of the positive externality is that they also acquire digital literacy. They organize themselves socially.
People that otherwise will be completely disconnected start to be local entrepreneurs, and to be able to communicate with others, to sell their product, to produce new product, and another very important element that emerged from the report, and that is also reflected in the Declaration, is that it is not only a paradigm that one can apply to rural populations, to low‑income populations, it is actually something that works very well also in developed countries, in high‑income country. There is one very prominent example of the network that covers the entire region of Catalonia in Spain and is already generating more than 100 direct works, jobs, of people that are working to maintain the network. So it is not something ‑‑ there is no dichotomy between community network and private initiatives. On the contrary. A lot of community networks are organized not only by local NGOs, by local communities, but also by local entrepreneurs.
So we have tried to describe this in the report, and to set some basic principles on which we can all agree in the Declaration. I invite you all to use the survey to provide us feedback so that we can refine it and have a finalized Document by the end of the year, or the beginning of next year. Thank you.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much. And from your Dynamic Coalition on community connectivity, I would like to go to another Coalition which relates to connectivity, but on innovative approaches to connect the unconnected. And it's also I gathered a very new Coalition which started just recently, and I want to ask you, Christopher: What is about your Coalition? Does it overlap with what Luca and his guys are doing? And how are you actually encompassing these challenges and what are you focusing on?
>> CHRISTOPHER YOO: So thank you very much. I should say before we do anything, I should say thank you to the Government of Mexico for being so welcoming. We're overwhelmed by your hospitality, the generosity of your volunteers has been astounding and we're deeply grateful for your hosting us here. I think we actually may be the youngest Dynamic Coalition, having been approved just in May. I think we're certainly the most energetic. You may have seen us wearing the orange. Partly in support of the trust to end violence against women. We're the ones with the coffee in the village.
I must make a public announcement: Today is the last day for coffee so I will apologize in advance. Please don't shoot the messenger.
So our work not only, it doesn't overlap with the one on community networking. We actually depend on them to provide us the information we need to do our work. In fact, what we are doing is we are aware that there are ‑‑ the multitude of attempts are innovative ways people are using to connect people to the Internet. Much of it being done by community networks.
But also done by Governments, done by nonprofit organizations, done by corporations and different experiments. And what I've talked about when I talk to Ministers, they're almost baffled by the variety they hear people convinced that some technology is the future. And we decided that what we needed is a solid empirical foundation to make those assessments. And so we made a commitment to look at every single implementation we can find of an innovative way to connect people to the Internet. Demand side and supply side, we have a list of over 200 and we're going to make a good faith effort to do data validation on every single one. We're going to write a narrative case study describing it to share the benefits of this information and we're going to attempt in the next year to develop common metrics to allow comparisons across projects.
Now, what I've learned in this process is those comparisons are very risky and hard to draw, because as Luca noted, this tremendous variety just within community networking. Part of it is to complexity of the problem, to understand not only what are best practices, but what are the key differences to make a context specific or context sensitive assessment of how this platform goes forward. I'll give you one example of a case study very briefly. There's an organization called econet wireless in Zimbabwe. They're in an area with no electric tower. They're setting up 3G cell towers powered by diesel generators that use not only that power to provide Internet service but use the excess capacity to provide the first electric power to homes in these areas that they've ever had.
We've also been unable to distribute vaccines because vaccines must be kept refrigerated. Through another initiative, called Energize the Chain, we're putting ‑‑ they are putting refrigerators in all the base stations and using it to distribute vaccines that have vaccinated 250,000 children and they're preparing to expand this into India and Ghana so that's just one example of the stories we've learned and they're attempting to develop solar solutions because diesel is not environmentally sustainable. That's a learning that we can identify and help share with everyone else because there are many other initiatives that are attempting to find solar solutions to these problems, as well.
What we need from the IGF community is already you're welcoming, we appreciate that. We need your help identifying additional case studies. I'm humbled by the fact that so many people here have done this. In fact, the woman from Vanuatu remotely participated. She found participating in this to be deeply validating. She was losing energy. I told her she inspires us not the other way around. We need your help to make this work and publicize and bring stories in and for that we thank you very much and we hope to work with you in the future.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much, Christopher. Actually, thank you very much for coffee. It made all my mornings here. It's a wonderful coffee booth. But I'm moving from coffee to Stuart, who is representing Dynamic Coalition on public access in libraries. How do you contribute to connectivity? I believe that your Coalition is connected to connectivity issue, as well so maybe you can provide your perspective.
>> STUART HAMILTON: Certainly, thank you. How do we contribute to connectivity? The libraries we're talking about mostly in our Dynamic Coalition, we'll start with public libraries. 320,000 public libraries worldwide, 230,000 of those are located in developing countries. And the Public Library in many places is the first place that the unconnected go to get online.
So as libraries have moved with the times and begun to provide access to Internet connected computers, we play an extremely strong role in bringing the connectivity to the community. I noted Luca mentioned the community network in Spain, and just as an example, the library's a part of that community network. We're very, very strong at bringing the Internet right the way down to the grassroots level but of course we do a little bit more than that, and in the Dynamic Coalition we discuss a number of other things because I think there's general agreement now in the IGF and within these discussions that access is not enough.
So we bring a lot of other things to the table, including skills training, digital skills training, beginning to understand the computers for the first time, but going a bit deeper into media and information literacy training. We're the sort of institution that because of the values that libraries have, we're accessible to everybody, so everybody is going to be able to walk through the doors in a Public Library, and utilize the computers to get online.
We're particularly good at providing access in remote and rural places, where often the library is the only community institution that's connected, and we become hubs for people who, for example, might have family members that are working in big cities or even other countries to stay in contact with their families.
The same places, libraries act as safe spaces for some of the other groups that the Dynamic Coalitions we've heard from before. We're safe spaces for women and girls. We have plenty of research that shows that women and girls are far more likely to want to get online in a library than in a telecenter or in a cafe space. And as I mentioned we're open for people with disabilities, all sorts of access issues.
The thing I think which is really important in the conversations we're now having about bringing the next 1.5 billion people online is that we're a scalable solution. In the countries of the world these Public Library networks already exist. If they're not connected to the Internet, then we would be strongly encouraging Governments to do so, because we've taken a look at the sorts of goals and targets that the SDGs want to hit and as far as we can work out, there really is no way we're going to bring those big numbers online without a public access component so some of the work we're doing within the Dynamic Coalition, we produced a set of principles on public access in libraries. And as a result of that, we've now begun to work with people from for example the IEEE, Microsoft, at looking about how we can sort of bring other partners in, and we've started to talk with the DC on community connectivity to run a number of pilot projects and to see what we can do to really ramp up Internet access in the community through libraries.
There's a couple of other things which I'd point out which we discuss here at the IGF which we can also bring to the table. We produce and we preserve and provide access to local content, often developed by people in the community and an issue we discussed here at length. We also act as deliverers of Government services and we've often talked about electronic and online services needing to get right down to the community, and we do that. And we act as the digital memory very often of the community whether that community is nation sized or even just down, right at the local community level.
So we really feel that we cover a lot of bases of the issues discussed here at the IGF, and I think over the next year we're looking forward to working with more DCs.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much, and from principles on public access in libraries, I would like to move to Internet Rights and Principles. Hanane, I read the Charter on Human Rights and principles for the Internet. We all know working in this space how many charters, how many documents, how many principles we have, and how many of them just stay on paper.
I would like to ask you what your Dynamic Coalition is doing to actually promote this to actually reach your audience. This is 2 first question. And the second question: What would success mean for you in promoting this Document? Just awareness raising, all people signing up, organization endorsement, so, yes, what is your definition of success for your Coalition?
>> HANANE BOUJEMI: Thank you. First I would like to thank our host in Mexico for the great organization and the great help that we get. Thank you for all the help that we get from the Secretariat to be able to do our work. Under the leadership of Markus Kummer. This is a very good question, and all the Dynamic Coalitions we heard before cover different issues, and the Internet now without defining the common framework of principles which respects Human Rights, I don't think we can function. So the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles is one of the oldest Coalitions of the IGF. It was established in 2009. I think the achievement of the Dynamic Coalition, if I may say, that it has been a base document for many policy‑making processes in different countries around the world, mainly in New Zealand and in Italy, so I think that's a success, and maybe I'm jumping to your second question.
So the Charter and the principles was used as a base Document in these two countries. On the top of that, it was also used to build the capacity of communities which are not very familiar with Human Rights, namely in the Middle East, so a campaign was led by a program that I happen to manage, it's on Internet Governance for the Middle East and North Africa and it was pitched also to Government institutions, hoping that these principles would be coded in the legislation at the local level.
But the point is, the Charter is the primary, let's say, customer of this Charter, is people who would like to understand a little bit more about the principles which govern the Internet from a Human Rights perspective. So we obviously target regions where there is less knowledge about Human Rights. We try also to outreach to policymakers all around the world without any exceptions.
The Charter is available in 25 ‑‑ sorry, the principles are available in 25 languages and the Charter itself is available in 7 languages, which means we're putting huge efforts in trying to achieve the global Internet Community.
What else? We're doing a lot of work, from building capacity to providing a platform for a discussion on Internet Rights and Principles. Anybody ‑‑ it's not easy to work on a Charter. I know that you mentioned there are so many principles around, but the quality of our work is recognized because we are actually ‑‑ we're advising on Internet principles to the Council of Europe, so we are recognized with our work and the effort that we put into promoting the work of the IGF, as well. So it's a win‑win situation. Also pleased to have a group of students from a Law School in Syracuse University who are connected to us remotely now and they worked on a resource guide to explain the Charter and make it more digestible for the overall community so I'd like to thank them for all the work they did this year. And I hope we can find ways to promote the work that we do here in the IGF, and we're definitely willing to define the cross‑cutting issues that we heard here in the panel to improve our work and be an outstanding Dynamic Coalition for the rest of the life of the IGF.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much. And hello to Syracuse students. I hope they are connected from Public Library.
But my next question goes to Olivier who is representing the Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values. I would like to know how they actually differ from Rights and Principles. Is there a ‑‑ I have not finished my question yet. How they differ from ‑‑ .
>> OLIVIER CRÉPIN-LEBLOND: You scare me, you're right behind me.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: No, you have to memorize my questions. How do they differ from Rights and Principles? And also, maybe you can tell what does it mean core value? Because on the one hand in your paper you say they're really core values. On the other hand you say that we might change them at something, so could you please elaborate a bit on this within the short time and explain your rationale? Thanks?
>> OLIVIER CRÉPIN-LEBLOND: Thank you very much, Tatiana. They differ from the Rights and Principles. They're not based on Human Rights. They're technical values that were I guess adopted when the makers of the Internet, the fathers and mothers of the Internet back 20, 30, 40 years ago, put this whole network of networks together so they're all technical in nature and we have seen over the years that some have remained cast in stone, and others appear to have somehow withered in one direction or another.
I'll give you a list of the few that this year we've been looking at, and that we've been tracking and finding out whether they have been changed, or whether there's been an improvement or a worsening of the situation regarding the value. We looked at the global fact of the Internet, the interoperability, the openness, the decentralization of the Internet, the fact that it should be end to end, user‑centric, robust and reliable.
But the reason that we're here is actually to really start asking ourselves whether these are just cast in stone or whether the Internet is actually evolving? And if the Internet is evolving with perhaps new threats or new challenges, do we need new values? Do we need to amend the values that we were on before? That's the reason why I'm actually here to listen to you, people in the audience, rather than actually ramble and speak about our paper.
Our paper is online and I'd be interested that you can probably take the next 20 minutes or 5, 10 minutes to read through it. One of the questions that we've addressed here this time is, with the new threats such as for example the use of the Internet of Things for denial of service attacks, malware, et cetera, should we have new values implemented, such as value to protect people from harm, from technical harm, on the Internet? And we've actually had the chance to start collaborating with the Internet ‑‑ Dynamic Coalition on Internet of Things, who you're going to hear about in a few moments.
And we have, and I think we will, continue collaborating with the Internet Rights and Principles because as I said, it's a subset of the Rights and Principles. Thank you.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you, Olivier. It is very interesting because maybe I wasn't going to move to the Dynamic Coalition of the Internet of Things but you basically forced me to do so.
So my next set of questions goes to Maarten. Maarten, can you please tell me: What kind of contribution your Dynamic Coalition can make? I work in the cybersecurity area, and Internet of Things is discussed everywhere. It's on the top of the agenda of technical community, International Organizations. How are you going to contribute? How are you actually contributing now?
And the second part of the question relates to what Olivier was talking about: How are you going to contribute to the safety against digital attacks? Is there any way your Coalition can actually contribute? Thanks.
>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: Thank you for the questions. IoT is on the top of the agenda already for some time and increasingly also for other policymakers, et cetera. What you see however is all these discussions are local or in specific silo, I would say and what we do is to really have all stakeholders meet at equal level, at equal fatting, to talk about global good practice issues. With that, I think the focus is different than in all the other networks, and we do hope and via the networks of people and information, that our thinking on global good practice will be taken into account and help the world to find its place in that, in that way forward.
Now, you're right on the security issues. I mean, like anything, really the triggers are for a change that something hurts in society. Sometimes the Titanic has to sink. I'm not sure the Titanic has sunk already but for sure the attack of a month ago that took down some websites had a clear reference to the Internet of Things as being one of the causes, because many things on the Internet today are in a way many computers that have capacity to collaborate to start an attack but they've not been secured fully or they have passwords that are very standard, or even sometimes indicated in the manuals that are available online, too, on those tools. It's created a situation where we need to move away from. Security is important for some things more important than for others. This morning I was also in the session on child online safety, where those are nowadays also sometimes connected. It's created a level of sensitivity there. It's different than for instance from your Fitbit that you may have on your arm where you share your information from.
So these levels of sensitivity, for privacy, for security and also for safety need to be understood. Security's also a very good example to say it's not one player who can do it. This is multistakeholder. The businesses that make these tools that go online, these things, they may need to take into account that these things are not all protected in the same way, and that good security is possible.
Network providers, where all this data will be exchanged, they may need to step up to their roles as well to ensuring communications and preventing attacks or use of tools for things that shouldn't be used for. But in the end, it's also the user itself that should play its role, and it requires them to be aware, and to know how to do it, and to be enabled to do so by the technologies offered.
So all that together requires more attention, it's become more urgent and I dare say people have become more aware of this as well. So let's go on improving this. We need the Internet of Things. We need that to manage our increasingly dense societies, but we also need to be aware of the dangers that comes with, so I think we're right on target with that, and there's much to do to make sure we're not going to end up in a world we don't want.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much. I think that if we make a pool of boards which make it a booth Board last year, along with Internet of Things, there would be zero rating and I would like to ask Luca to put on his hat of Dynamic Coalition on net neutrality and elaborate a bit on zero rate and being in the heart of this debate and on this tension between access and connection, and maybe connecting the unconnected, and equality of access. Thanks.
>> LUCA BELLI: Thanks, Tatiana. So first of all, let me say that the Dynamic Coalition on Net Neutrality, we have been working over the past four years producing already a lot of outcomes for reports, a modern framework, Policy Statement, and so this year, we have produced another report, yet another one, with exploring a farther level of complexity, so we already have some sort of agreement on net neutrality within the Coalition on what could be defined, how could be defined, sorry, and what could be the rationale of net neutrality which is indeed to keep the Internet as an open platform for free communication, free participation, and free cooperation and also free innovation.
And here this year, we have explored particularly zero rating, but not only zero rating, there are seven Chapters of the book on zero rating and three on net neutrality implementation and exceptions. It's very useful this report to have an informed debate on zero rating and that is something that is lacking in a lot of countries, where zero rating policy have been elaborated or are going to be elaborated. And what is very useful also in the report is that there is ‑‑ it is not some sort of propaganda pro or against zero rating. It's actually quite balanced and you have some Chapters that are highly in favor and others that are highly against, and some others discuss the policy that has been elaborated so far. It's a true multistakeholder effort. There is a Chapter from one ‑‑ from actually the person that was Chairing the group that elaborated the European Union guidelines. There are three Chapters from the private sector, four from academics and a couple from Civil Society.
So coming back to the question and trying to reply to it, the big issue of zero rating is that it has been portrayed as a domain technique to connect the unconnected and actually if you have in mind my speech of the previous Coalition, you will understand it is not the only way. There are also other ways that could be taking in conversation and there are other ways that look more sustainable particularly if our goal is to preserve the Internet as it was designed, a general network purpose, where the users are not only users of pre‑defined applications. That was the telephone network. In the Internet, the consumers are producers. They can produce and consume. So the analysis you find here can provide you some element to understand whether zero rating could be a useful policy or not, what are the costs and benefits, what are the risks? And in my view, and I've authored one of the Chapters, the risk that we are taking with zero rating is to transform the Internet from a generic, general purpose network to a pre‑defined purpose network that is much easier to control, and that is also I think a reason why some Governments are very much in favor of zero rating, because actually if you only have to police 5 applications or 6 for communication, it's much easier than policing the entire Internet.
So I think that there are some very good elements here that you could analyze, and there is, in the survey, I apologize because in the survey, there are not only five questions, but 10, because there are 10 different Chapters here, with 10 completely different arguments that are analyzed. So if you want to take the survey and provide us your feedback, it would be very welcome. Thank you. Sorry, just one last thing: Both reports will be on the IGF web site, and you can already find them on Internet Governance.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much. It's apparently very interesting and I hope there would be more questions. We have only two Dynamic Coalitions left and certainly another booth Board blockchain technologies and Coalition on blockchain technologies. I really enjoyed reading your paper, the Coalition paper and there was one thing that really struck me if I look at my notes, is this tension that you highlight between technically building decentralization and knowing what the aim on your decentralization is, like decentralization as a mean? Or decentralization as a goal?
And I would like to ask you: Why do you think the paradigm shift from technically building this decentralization to knowing your aim is needed? Thank you.
>> CARLOS REYES: So part of it is the significant hype that surrounds blockchain technologies. Anybody and everybody wants to incorporate blockchain technology into whatever it is they're doing, whether it makes a lot of sense or not. And from our perspective, in order to know whether blockchain technology is useful for your aim or not, you have to ask first what aims you hope to achieve by decentralization. Are we decentralizing just for decentralizing's sake? We hope not. That's not something the Dynamic Coalition would recommend.
In that case, the question becomes: What aspects of social, economic, cultural or political life, or whatever task you have at hand, what aspect of shared facts that you need immutable record of? What is it that you are doing that could benefit from decentralized organization? In which areas could folks be given a stronger voice in claiming their own rights, in asserting their values? If they had a more decentralized way of organizing at their fingertips and if they could use that to build more flatter, more transparent governance tools, they could build their values and their culture into the operating governance structures of the technology that they're using to organize online itself.
This is the work of the Dynamic Coalition on blockchain technologies. We try to identify areas ripe for change through decentralized architecture. We try to identify the purpose of that change. And to consider how and to what extent blockchain technologies could be used to achieve that change.
Sometimes we find we conclude that blockchain technologies isn't what should be used for that change. We think that's a good thing. We don't want to be the group that says blockchain, blockchain! To everything. That's not what we hope to achieve. Instead, we think that to identify the appropriate areas for use of blockchain technologies that we need this: We need a multistakeholder discussion, a multistakeholder sort of brainstorming of what areas could benefit from the unique aspects of decentralization and decentralized organization that blockchain technologies can provide.
Yeah, does that answer your question?
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Yes, thank you. It answers it perfectly. Thank you, Carla and from blockchain we're moving to the very last Dynamic Coalition represented at this session. I think there are more of them, but they're the only Coalitions which submitted the papers. And this is Dynamic Coalition on Internet and Climate Change. I really had difficulties to come up with a question to this Coalition because I really would like to understand whether it overlaps with ICT and Climate Change. What are you actually doing as a Coalition? What is in the agenda of your work? And what has been done already? Thanks.
>> PREETAM MALOOR: Thank you, Tatiana. And before I start, let me start with a caveat that this is not my area of expertise at all, and I'm doing it on behalf, I'm presenting this on behalf of my colleagues who are dealing with problems and I was the last man standing so with that caveat, let me start.
So my answer would be, I would encourage people here and those participating remotely to read the report of the Dynamic Coalition. So just quickly, a few sentences on what the report has. So there's a Section which highlights the role of ICTs in dealing with Climate Change and ICTs do play a very pivotal role in raising awareness and creating dialogue channels obviously on the effects of Climate Change and helping providing channels, communication means for advocacy. Obviously also there are very, very innovative ICT‑driven innovations available on energy efficiency, smart metering, smart grids, for energy management. Many of these are in our report.
And obviously the close link to the Sustainable Development Goals especially as DG13 has stressed that. There's also this interesting paradox that ICTs are obviously a catalyst in mitigating the effects of Climate Change but they also contributed to Climate Change so for those of you who may not be aware of the stats, ICTs actually account for 2% of the global greenhouse gas emissions. On the other hand, it's been projected to aid the reduction of ‑‑ by 16% by 2020. You can say overall we come out well and that's why we should continue viewing the ICTs at a catalyst for achieving Climate Change goals as stipulated in the SDGs and also the targets outlined by 21.
In the report we list a number of areas of action of our Members, including the ITU, the organization that I belong to, the EBU, and many others on awareness raising, on capacity‑building, developing standards, recommendations, developing tools, and we continue to encourage all stakeholders to participate. There are a few take‑aways from the work of the group, and one is within the IG community. We need to do more to highlight the issue of climate change. Also while discussing issues like Sustainable Growth, Sustainable Development, climate change should be taken into greater consideration and incorporate and discussed.
I've been involved in the IGF since Hyderabad 2008, and I think I've seen the Dynamic Coalition on climate change meet in every session of IGF. This probably is the first time the group isn't meeting. And they've also organized workshops, side events on this topic, but the group Members have noticed, and I'm paraphrasing them, they've noticed that there's a limited audience for this topic at the IGF, as the focus of the Forum is on core Internet Governance matters.
The Dynamic Coalition Members have agreed to meet annually also at the WSIS Forum in Geneva where there has been continued active engagement and to report back to IGF on the progress made and here let me just remained people here that next WSIS Forum will be held in June, I think 12th to the 14th of June in Geneva and we'll host the next meeting of the Dynamic Coalition. Again the discussion will aim to talk about the targets reached by the Paris agreement and SDGs 12, 13 and 15. The report also raises a few questions from the Dynamic Coalition to the IGF Members, and I would encourage you to go through them and come back to the group with your insights so that we can improve the work of the group. Thank you.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much. Thank you very much to all the wonderful Dynamic Coalition representatives, because you really, really followed the time guidance. And now I would like to open this floor to all of you participants in this session. Please grill the Dynamic Coalitions. Please ask your questions. I see already one hand over there.
There will be a roaming microphone around here and please stand up because we're filming and please speak close to the microphone. Thank you so much.
>> Thank you very much. I would like to read this so it's shorter. I am Nicolas Echániz. I'm Co‑Chair of the DC3. So I wanted to point out a couple of things. One is community networks are not about technology. They are about community. And about recovering the spirit of a human centered Internet.
I believe we are an example of how we can reverse the trend for concentration and centralized control the Internet has been moving into for the past years. We are worried that Governments have not been able to separate corporate lobbying interests from what the real need of the people to fully realize their rights is.
Recommendation 19 from ITU‑D is many years old, but very little has been done. Hopefully, resolution 268 from the Inter‑American Commission on Telecommunications, CITEL, which is very specific about the need for Governments to support the development of local nonprofit Internet operators in rural and disadvantaged areas will help create a new balance in the regulatory and policy discussion from 2017 onwards, at least in this Continent.
I wanted to share these thoughts. Thank you.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much. So it was rather a comment than a question. We have a question from remote participant, and I don't remember, Arsène, you were introduced, if not thank you very much. This is Arsène our Remote Moderator.
>> ARSENE TUNGALI: Thank you so much, Tatiana. We have a few participants from remotes and while we're still waiting from confirmation from the Syracuse University remote hub we have up to five students who are willing to be ‑‑ who are connected to this session. But I'll go ahead and read. We have a question from Mr. McCann from the African IGF Secretariat, and he says: I would like to know if the Dynamic Coalitions dealing with community connectivity issues have dealt with use of TV white spaces to take care of underserved areas, when we know there are a lot of unused frequencies in countries, while these could be used to serve the remote areas. In this context these tools could be deployed in libraries and documentation centers as these are widely available as access points in many developing countries, and even rural or remote areas of developed countries.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much. I would like to hand it to Luca, and then to Christopher. Luca, you go first.
>> LUCA BELLI: Well, first of all, that is a very prominent issue, and actually if you consider the Declaration on community connectivity that we have been producing, the fourth point is about policy that can facilitate or hinder the deployment of community networks, and the really specific one that I'm going to read, which specifically refers to spectrum, and particularly, we say that a National as well as international policy should allow the exploitation of existing unlicensed spectrum bands, or dynamically assigned secondary use of spectrum for public interest purposes, or consider the growth of analyzing spectrum bands and spectrum licenses for the needs of connectivity. So basically the fact is there are already a lot of regulation on spectrum, every country has one, but few of them or basically none, or very few examples, let's say, allow not‑for‑profit to utilize spectrum for the public good basically and also actually there is also a chapter in the report that analyzes how to identify to make sense of spectrum white spaces and understand how can they be used and who can use them and Maureen Hernandez there is the author of this excellent chapter that unfortunately is only in Spanish in this book, but it will be translated soon.
So, yes, spectrum is indeed a very prominent issue. We have tried to tackle it at the very first and more general level this year, but we are planning to invest a lot of time next year in the next report to analyze policy and regulation that can affect and facilitate the use of community networks action and to put forward some concrete proposals. Thank you.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much, Luca, over to Christopher.
>> ANDREA SAKS: It's a wonderful question and Luca speaks generally about spectrum which is important. The question about TV white spaces is even more specific. There are, I said we have 200 case studies identified. We've completed 20 of them. Two of them involved TV white spaces. I'd like to share them briefly. In Nepal, there is a gentleman who's actually here at the IGF has pioneered a community network in the TV white spaces, has provided the first Internet connectivity to 200 Nepalese villages, in a situation where there was no prior service and it's a spectacular achievement on his part.
The Mihingo Project is also another TV white spaces project in Kenya. It has connected 10,000 customers through wi‑fi portals and 300,000 people through libraries and schools and the most amazing thing using TV white spaces so they're wonderful success stories in Kenya in particular, there's a principal from a school connected to the TV white spaces based community network. She reports that the students' scores on the Kenyan National Exam improved in every single subject after being connected to the Internet. So it's another wonderful story that we are learning about how the Internet promotes the kinds of Sustainable Development Goals that lay at the center of our current agenda.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much, Stuart. I heard and saw the magic word libraries. Can you add something?
>> STUART HAMILTON: Yes, when someone mentions libraries, I have to say something. We're already using it in some places, particularly in remote and rural U.S., the Gigabit Libraries Network is something they should look into. The best thing about the potential for this technology is using libraries, schools, hospitals as anchor institutions and then being able to give another definition to public access to the Internet. You won't actually have to even come into the library in some respects to benefit from its services and that can really go some distance at some point so I think it's a technology we'll see more of with the libraries.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much. And I think we have comment from remote participation.
>> ARSENE TUNGALI: Yes, we have a comment from forgive the name, with Subramanian from India and he says this: Internet's rights are an important aspect of Internet Governance. Core Internet values are at the heart of the Internet. These values are the Foundation that makes the Internet what it is.
The question of conflicts needs not to arise between the portrait of the two coalitions. It's difficult to understand why this question is persistent.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Well, maybe it is my bad that I ask this question, but I think there are enough of newcomers to the IGF or to the Internet Governance itself, and it's a very legitimate question to ask but maybe, Olivier you want to say something.
>> OLIVIER CRÉPIN-LEBLOND: I wanted to comment on the comment made by the gentleman earlier on the changing nature of the Internet because of various legislation or actions by Governments or private sector. In fact, some of the points you've made I think would fit very well in Internet Rights and Principles Coalition and some of them would fit very well into the Core Internet Values, for the very reason that they are affecting both of these and ultimately for the worse as we're seeing at the moment and I'd be really interested in speaking to you afterwards because we're tracking those changes that are taking place when it comes down over to the technical side of things, and ultimately we might end up with a worse Internet or less usable Internet than we have today.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Do you have anything to add here?
>> HANANE BOUJEMI: Yes, I think it has been very challenging to quantify Human Rights especially in oppressive regimes. You find the language we use in the Internet Rights and Principles Charter, all the principles is quite diluted, to be more comprehensive and simplified in a way that Governments would be able to incorporate the language that we have in their local legislation.
This happened, but unfortunately it happened only in progressive countries like New Zealand and Italy. I think there is a lot of work that needs to be done in the underrepresented countries like in the Middle East and Africa and so on. So I do relate to that, and we try to reach out to Governments from these regions.
The thing is, most of these Governments, they don't speak Human Rights language so we need to find different modalities to be able to make sense to this very important stakeholder.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Sorry. Thank you very much. I was told that our Twitter wall is surprisingly empty. This is sad. I urge you all who can Tweet that you still have, like, 15 to 20 minutes to grill our Dynamic Coalition participants.
Are there any questions from you? I see the hand over there. Please stand up, because we are filming and keep close to the microphone. Thank you very much.
>> Hello. My name is George. I work in the Cybercrime unit in the local police in Jalisco. I have a question for all the experts.
Every day around the world, children and teenagers are creating videos of themselves naked or allowing videos of sex in the Internet, into the Internet. Maybe in America it's for extortion, for maybe predators in the Internet, so what can I do to promote international protocol to prevent these cybercrimes, is my question. Thank you.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: I think that this might relate to gender Coalition, so I will give the floor first to you and then to anyone who can contribute. John Carr, thank you.
>> BISHAKHA DATTA: Yes, to answer your question about intimate images that are being circulated online, I think at the gender Coalition, we divide what are called sex or naked images into two categories: Those that are consensually produced, and exchanged among individuals, and those that are consensually produced but non‑consensually distributed. And our position is that sexting or the exchange of intimate images is the digital equivalent of what used to be called the love letter in an ancient sort of time and space, and research has actually shown, there's a researcher in Canada who's studied this and found that with each age, there's been a new sort of way to express romance, intimacy, sex, love, et cetera. This in the digital age is one of the main mechanisms.
So what we would like policymakers to actually do is have legislation that protects consensual exchange, but to take very strict action against non‑consensual exchange that causes harm to people.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much. John?
>> JOHN CARR: Hugely important issue, and thank you very much for raising it. Two numbers first. In a study done by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in the United States of America, 15% of all of the images which were technically child pornography, as they call it in America, child abuse images as we call it in the U.K., had been self‑generated in the sense that it didn't appear to have been any malevolent third party involved in bullying or coercing the child into creating the image. Why do we know this? Because in each case, the police were able to locate the actual child who had made the image themselves and talked to them. And this goes to the point that you were making there.
We don't think children should be criminalized or prosecuted for doing things of that nature. They're experimenting and they're learning. They may be making mistakes, but they shouldn't be dragged into the criminal system because of that.
Second number, this came from the study done by the Internet Watch Foundation in the United Kingdom: About 80% of the ‑‑ of images that they found on pedophile websites, sorry, 80% of the images which had been self‑generated by children were subsequently found on websites used by pedophiles and people who are collecting child abuse images. So it's very important that young people understand that even though they think they are sending this to the great love of their life and God knows, when I was 13, 14, I thought that was it for me, as well ‑‑ these things happen. They need to know that even though it might be consensual at the point where they make the exchange, there's a very strong risk, even if it's done by accident. That that image will escape into a much different environment.
Another quick point I would like to make, because we've mentioned the Internet fundamental rights and so on and I wonder what image of the Internet people have in their heads. What is the Internet like today? It's not like it was 20 years ago. One in 3 of every single Internet user on the planet is a child below the age of 18. In parts of the developing world, it rises to nearly one in 2. In my own country and much of Europe, it's one in 5. So whatever else you think the Internet is or might be, or might become, it is a medium that is overwhelmingly being used by families and by children and by young people.
And yet if you look at the NETmundial statement for example, children, young people, are not even mentioned once. And the fact is, they're too often marginalized and overlooked, even though they are one in 3 of every Internet user on the planet.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much, John, for this intervention. We have one question from the participant ‑‑ two questions. Okay, identify ‑‑ sorry, identify you, the gentleman in the white shirt, so you can just stand up and grab the microphone, thank you.
>> Thank you. My name is Jerry Ellis. I'm from Dublin in Ireland, and firstly I'd like to thank Andrea for her contribution around accessibility for people with disabilities. I'm blind myself, and Andrea might want to chip in on this, but my question really is for everyone else on the panel: Disability doesn't stand alone for just people with disabilities. Every person on the planet will either grow old and acquire disabilities as they grow old, or they will die, so the preference is that all of our technologies will accommodate the needs of every single person on the planet. Okay.
So I'm wondering are the other people taking this into account and building it into their principles? So we say the core principles and rights. We say when you're building libraries are you making them accessible? Are you making the technology there accessible? And one you might not even have thought of is the question of communities using spare spectrum. You wouldn't even think if you use spare spectrum in the wrong way you could interfere very easily with assistive listening devices and other assistive technologies used by people with disabilities.
So we're saying: Please take this into account in all areas, not just one Dynamic Coalition, because it improves the lives of everyone as they grow older.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much. I think this comment could be addressed to several of our Dynamic Coalitions. Andrea, if you do have any particular comment to reply to this.
>> ANDREA SAKS: Thank you, Jerry. He is blind, and one of the things that makes it very difficult for him to watch television is there might not be any audio description. I had a question in my own mind directed to the gentleman who was talking about his compatriot who was able to link up rural areas with white spectrum, and ‑‑ white space, and the thing is: Was that thought of and is that accessible? Probably not.
There are other issues regarding spectrum, also, in highly populated countries like Germany, for example, where accessibility in television and broadcasting is not able to be done in a satisfactory fashion, because all the spectrum is used up, and there is a situation where there are conflicting television systems that impact the ability for accessibility to be provided.
I could list them, but I'm not going to take you into a technical area. There are severe problems of accessibility not only in the Internet, but also in broadcasting, and there are solutions that are possible through the Internet, and one of them, the ITU has been very instrumental in promoting and also has standardized regarding accessibility, is Internet Protocol TV, not the old one, but the new one. So there's lots of issues that are not being taken into consideration. Libraries can be accessible because you can get in with a wheelchair but are the websites accessible that people are using? So it's ‑‑ Jerry's right, there are so many other areas from each Dynamic Coalition that needs to be taken into account. Is the work that you're doing accessible to persons with disabilities? And I think everybody needs to look at their own back yard. Thank you.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much. Christopher, over to you.
>> CHRISTOPHER YOO: Thank you very much for the question. I think it's an important part that is becoming part that I'm gratified to see coming into our case studies. I've seen it already in a number of the 200 we've identified. There is one we've completed in India, Intel learn easy steps is providing digital literacy training with 28 nonprofit organizations. One of them is devoted to providing digital literacy training to physically challenged individuals and they're customizing the tools they're using for training people in digital literacy for a different range of physical capacities.
We're happy to try to identify these and to bring them to the attention of the entire community but it will be broader than that. It's not just disability. It will be gender, youth, seniors, and one of the most challenging things, people who are functionally illiterate. These are all challenges for us as a community and we're happy to try to find them as examples and share them.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: We really have time constraints now. We have not much time left. Olivier do you have anything to add?
>> OLIVIER CRÉPIN-LEBLOND: I was just going to add to the question that Jerry was saying. One of the Core Internet Values is it should be user centric which means that you should have the choice of what you want to run and what you want to connect on to the Internet and it shouldn't be a gateway that blocks applications or tells you what applications you need to have on your desktop or in whatever device that you're using to connect to it. So that's a real important Core Internet Values.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much, Olivier. I think we have something from Remote Moderator, and we have remote hub connected.
>> ARSENE TUNGALI: Yeah, thank you, Tatiana. We're trying to connect with the students at Syracuse University in New York State, so if they can hear us, please, you have the floor. We can have them only on audio because the video didn't work. Can you hear us?
>> ARSENE TUNGALI: We can ‑‑ give a second. We can even have you on video.
>> Remote participant: Can you hear me? Hello?
>> ARSENE TUNGALI: Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead. And we can even see you.
>> Remote Participant: We just wanted to thank you for giving us the shoutout. That was an awesome shoutout. As you know we did work on the educational resource guide, and we were just ‑‑ we had two comments.
Hello? Okay. There's a delay. I apologize. I'm on a delay, but I just wanted to have a few comments. So we believe that young audiences, so I'm sorry, I have a reflection, but we believe that there needs to be more promotion in colleges. Also we believe if possible that the IGF and especially the Internet Rights and Principles Coalition needs to work closely with ITM. We believe since they'll be the organization that will monitor the Internet, that they should monitor the Internet. And also finally I'm just giving comments. We were wondering what we can do to help to further our partnership with students, with everybody, around the world.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much, remote hub.
>> ARSENE TUNGALI: I have another comment.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: We have one more comment from remote participant, and then I unfortunately will have to close the queue.
>> ARSENE TUNGALI: Thank you. We have Kevin Risser, who is on the Coalition for Internet Rights and Principles Steering Committee, and he was the one helping coordinate the Syracuse University students. He's saying: The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles has had a very positive experience with engaging University students, and we would be happy to work with other Coalitions to help implement these methods of engagement and outreach for other Coalitions.
So probably they are just willing to be able to collaborate with the other Coalitions, if the Coalitions can share ways for students, university students, to collaborate with them, probably that can be helpful.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much, Arsène. Thank you very much. I would like ‑‑ we really have no time. I'm sorry for this. So I would like to wrap this up before I hand over to Markus. I would like to thank you, fantastic, fantastic, participants, representatives of Dynamic Coalitions. I would like to thank all of you who came here and participated in this session. And of course, I would like to thank Mexican Government for bringing us all here and, Markus, over to you for wrapping it up. Though if you're going to be quick maybe we can give some time to Luca, but it's really a hard stop soon.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: It's super quick actually directly ‑‑ .
>> LUCA BELLI: With community networks, people, the community that build them are students or they do this as part of their University studies and also I also wanted to say that we have been talking a lot with Stuart and other Fellow Dynamic Coalition friends from the Dynamic Coalition on public access to library to try to cooperate and build some sort of synergy amongst us, so that the work that we produce to teach people how to do a community network can also be shared through the networks of the Public Libraries so that students that usually go to Public Libraries, or at least they should go there, can learn how to do their own community network, how to expand connectivity themselves.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much, Luca, and now Markus, up to you to wrap up. Preferably in a Tweet, as short as a Tweet.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Tatiana and thank you Luca, you anticipated what I was going to say. This is not the end and also, thankful for the young people, the students, who joined in. And all the Dynamic Coalitions are open and inclusive, so feel free to join the Dynamic Coalitions.
We will immediately afterwards have a DC Coordination session. This is an open session. All participants are invited, if interested to join, and particularly Tatiana and Jeremy would certainly be most welcome to join us.
This may not be that interesting to other participants because it's more inward‑looking, but nevertheless, as we are open and inclusive, we are open.
With that, I would like to thank you. All this was an experimental session but my first assessment is: I think it was a good experiment, and thank you very much, Tatiana. You did an excellent job. And thank you, all the Dynamic Coalitions, and the participants to this meeting.
And I hope you will join me in giving a big hand to Tatiana and the representatives of the Dynamic Coalitions in closing this session. Thank you.
[ Applause ]
And the session of the Dynamic Coalitions is in workshop room 9 and it starts immediately afterwards. Thank you. I close this session.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much.
[ End of session ]