IGF MEETINGS
VILNIUS, LITHUANIA
15 SEPTEMBER 2010
1415
ROOM 3
SESSION 174
INTERNET GOVERNANCE VIEWED THROUGH DIFFERENT LENSES, WITH EMPHASIS UPON THE LENS OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
***
Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during Fifth Meeting of the IGF, in Vilnius. 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 session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> GEORGE SIDOWSKI: Ladies and gentlemen, I apologize for the delay. We're having some technical problems. This does not reflect on the qualifications of the panel, I hope. Okay. You know, I've had trouble 2,000 years ago that people would give prayers to their Gods. 2,000 years later, we now curse our technology.
[Laughter]
Okay. All right. So welcome, ladies and gentlemen. You are in room 3 and you are at workshop number 2 number 174. The title of which is internet governance you through different lense with emphasis on economic and social development. You have a panel you have a panel of people who have been involved with the IGF for some time and with the internet Eco system for much longer period ever time. We'll talk internet governance from a different point of view in this particular session. If you remember oh, sorry. I should say my name is George Sidowski during the panel. We'll talk about internet governance in a different kind of a way and I would like to start if you had been in the session today, you would hear Emily Tailor give a summary of the crinkle in the resources discussion. And at the end, she said something that I thought was very true. She said in the history of IGF if you had been in Athens 2006, critical internet resources were not in the program. And the reason was that there was an enormous debate about what they and were there was a mistrust among various members in the community about how the discussion would go. And it turned out that the subject did appear in Rio in 2007 and there was an enormous amount of agronomy and passion during that period of time. In 2008, the debate became somewhat more civilized. In 2009, it was much more civilized and in 2010, this year, I will say I found it for the most part with the exception of a few minutes, relatively boring. Now, what does that mean? Does it mean that we have come together and resolved our differences? Probably not. Does it mean that we have, um, that we have come to an understanding of differences and we're resulting to be polite and try to understand each other? Well, maybe so. What's interesting is if you look back on the Athens program 5 years ago, the subjects for the main sessions were openness of security, diversity and access. In some runs, these are what you call motherhood subjects who can be against openness. Who can be against security. Who can be against diversity access. These are things where the discussion was very much a normative discussion about the way in which society should be, a way in which the internet Eco system should be in terms. This year in looking at the program, what I observed is that the subjects for the workshops that I have been to and those that I hope to go to look much like a computer conference or internet conference than an internet conference. We have gone away from a sharp focus on governance. In some respects, that's a very good thing because it means that these issues are now understood in a broader context and it's the broader context represents the problems with which we are faced beyond the motherhood subjects.
In another respect, it's not a good thing because the governance issues tend to get obscured and sometimes they shouldn't be obscured. Now, five years ago when the first IGF was held, there was two cross coming things. One was the human capacity building and the second was development. That's the way it was decided and yet, this is the first year in which the concept of development has made it to the central theme of the program. I think that's really a very useful and will very important and given the fact that we have this focus on development, it's worth going back to some of those original points of view, those points of view which were a lot sharper and much more. They were observed how these things relate to development. Internet governance means different things to different people and so does this development. So, what I would like to do is just take a moment and clarify those themes. I'm going back now to the working group on internet governance, the report that was given as an input to list this too. I would like to read just point 11 point 10. Sorry. Internet governance is the development and application by governments the private sector and their respective rules, decision making procedures and programs that change the evolution and use of the internet. It's a very broad definition. It obviously includes elements of critical internet infrastructure, but it also includes all a lot of organisations at the technical level, at policy levels that make up what people are now referring to as the internet Eco system. There was a fair amount of debate about this in the working group on the internet governance and the debate was between this broad view and a much nearer view that concentrated much more on infrastructure elements and in particular on the rule of organisation such as ITAM. That view was not adopted and the brought view what brought us where we are today. The other thing I would like to mention is in terms of development. We're talking economic social development we're talking about education, health, congress, trade, et cetera. We're not talking about the development of something like the domain name industry in developing countries. I think these sometimes concepts sometimes become inflated in discussion. So it's a broad view of development and it's a broad view of of internet governance. So, let's see. So, one of the things that I observed in the way in which the IGF has gone is ah, let's see. How do I say this best? The, ah, um I'm having trouble with this. The way in which the the early concepts, the pure concepts, the open and security diversity and excess becomes into larger themes and I think what this means is that, ah, the people who had the views who said well, it's really important that we have openness and security and so on. Those voices are amusing and it would be in some sense, this session is a throwback to times when people had strong views and express the more strongly within the context of IGF. So what we tried to do here is to form a panel which I've asked the panel members to stress one particular view about what is important from that view. We all look at world through different lenses and multiple lenses by the way. And that lense affects what our view of the world is and what we think is important. Now, in 1966, all of these things were considered important which was important information and infrastructure. We should have privacy of information, et cetera. I would submit to you that when everything b important, priorities tend to disappear and nothing is important. Nothing is more important than anything else. And so if you're concerned about about what you should do, if you're an organisation involved in this Eco system, the question is: What's important to you? In fact, if you decide that certain things are important, you really have to decide that other things are unimportant. So from one point of view, some things may be critical. Other things may be non critical you and are to pick the three most important things to concentrate O. that means you probably have to not concentrate on a dozen others that other people might think is more important, but, ah, but they don't. But you know. Sorry. So I made up a slide to illustrate this. Don't look don't take the content of the slide too seriously, but I started to make slide say for another presentation wondering who was important for development and I realized that one of the things, one of the ways to show that certain things were more important than others is to use typeouts. And so, ah, I put I ordered the components of bit of things that were important and I decided to put them in smaller, bigger and smaller types. So, if you can't read the bottom of the slide, that's because you don't need to read the bottom of the slide. If that's not important, now I suppose as an exercise if we if I gave my fellow panelists the same lists and said make your own slide, you'd have some very different some very different ordering and some very different sizes of the items here. So, what we're gonna do, I'm gonna turn this over to the panel in just a moment. We will have presentations by people who are going to represent the different sectors and they're going to talk about what is really important in that sector if you look through the lense, for example, of international organisation. What's really important about internet governance. It probably there are probably several things that are critical that they think are critical that they will argue for and other things that really doesn't matter. I suspect content in local languages wouldn't be at the top of their list or is it might be at the top of their list for people who are concerned about development. So I'm asking the panelists to look through those lenses to reflect on what's really important and what's not important. We'll go through the list of panelists and each have them present. And then we will open the floor for discussion. And so the first person I'd like to have present is Everton Sara. He's from the Embassy of Brazil in Washington and he's the council for science technology and environment among many things he's done. The fact that he's been on the most stake holder advisory group of the of the forum and he was instrumental in arranging and managing the IGF in Rio de Janeiro in 2007. He's going to look for the important things that international organisations value even though he doesn't represent an international organisation. You never know.
>> Know thank you. Thank you very much, George. Thank you for continuing this discussion about priorities is a constant in life of government agents and international organisations as well. I am not in a position to speak for any national organisation being a person of the Brazilian government, but I decided to take the challenge and bring to you in reflection about how we should consider, how we should frame the issue based on your introduction. So what is important? I would say that if you ask for any intergovernmental organisation, they would reply, well, it is important for us, it's in our mandate. We have a mandate that we have received from members and so in case you address, what you will get is oh, what is most important in internet governance is how you regularly establish IT rules. If you ask ITU, ITU someone from ITU will probably be replying that connectivity or infrastructure is the most important thing or security. If you ask UNESCO would not be interested in security rules. But UNESCO would say perhaps an international organisation would not be interested as a Hyperabad and they said yes. We are interested in multi lingualists because it is part of the cultural heritage of mankind, something that's really important to that organisation. But we have to take into account that as each intergovernmental organisation has its own mandate, this mandate is actually originated from governments from states that are members of that organisation that subscribed to their statutory arrangements and agreements. In this case, the international organisations are a set of class at an international level being the first class in the world nations base themselves. They will act according to the manage. So I thought it would be interesting and go deeper in this question and guess to the level of the members. Here I don't think you don't manage that it would be easier for a single person from one single government come here and see that one is really important and one is not. I would try just to frame. First of all, we need to make distinction and what are the priorities at an internal level and international level. So I will first address internal level of any country. The rule of the government and the rules of the state the way we are structured today, what are the main rules of these structure of government that we have? I will say there are two basically. On the one half is the Avenue of security to provide security to citizens. The states have the money and power and in return, what they do is they will insure their citizens are secure, are safe. On the other hand, states are normally engaged in promoting the social well being of their citizens. So we have clearly two Avenues. Government is fond of many agents. Here we come to the question depending on the agents, on the agent representative. From the agency, he will have perhaps a different answer to this question. That's a start here with the first branch that I mentioned, which is to provide security, justice and the rule of the law which seems to be the common goal of any any modern state that is based on the rule of law and on democracy. So, if we transfer this kind of obligation to the area ever internet governance and trying to identify which priorities are, we will get in case of security well, human security and safety comes first. So the question of human rights, the question of freedom of speech, to those governments that are based on the rule of law and that are have endorsed the international las of human rights. Of course, this is a first priority. The question of infrastructure and network infrastructure will also come here with the security of the infrastructure will also come in the context of internet governance because without security and infrastructure, there is no possibility of using the internet for whatever means the government wants to and also to promote the security transactions that happened on the internet. It is related to applying the law and the rule of law. Well, law enforcement and congress to the news and crimes and several crimes are evident priority. It is difficult to think of a government that wouldn't be interested in commenting and applying the law and commenting on crimes. If we move to the second bridge, which is promoting social well being is for the developing and software aspects of governance which is the reason behind the whole this whole workshop. We will see that first thing that comes to list is answers. If you do not promote access and your citizens do not have access, they are out of the net and you are not, ah, your country it is not one of the it is not able to insure that the citizens are connected to the internet. Of course, this is also related to the inclusion which is a whole separate set of issues and it is also related to the united nations development rules. And therefore, you can see the definite international level at the united nations. The development rules, ah, provide already some indication of where the states together as a global community is should look at and in terms of internet governance, the main contribution has to be provided from any institutional framework that relates to the internet. It's access ask connectivity. But not only access in terms of connectivity because also, there's a lot of important aspect that is sometimes neglected, which is access to knowledge. Access to knowledge is as important because you don't need you don't need a whole structure of connectivity if it is not for a purpose and the purpose is to bring knowledge and to allow your people to express and contribute which brings closer to policy and education and culture, et cetera.
So you will see, of course, that this is not a short list and it is very difficulty to make hierarchy of what is important and what is not. I wouldn't risk saying that one of those things that I mentioned is more or less important than the other because someone might be hearing me and I hope someone is hearing me. But anyway, ah, different in case of development in particular, countries are at different development levels and depending on the development level that country is, the government will establish the priorities. It is really difficult to get to a general conclusion on that. Prioritization is a difficult choice. Within countries, they have respect for the for the democratic rule and for the regular elections and for the will of the people. What happens is that this political choice will be made in the end by those officers, those officials that were elected to represent people that is either a congress or executive branch and and on the other side, the other branch they mentioned is ready for security, justice or the rule of law is for the judiciary branch. However, they are independent, separate and they will have a complimentary role in terms of achieving the goals that the country as a whole in society was to achieve. So that's the internal part. The first branch that I wanted, I would like to also refer to international aspects because being a diplomat, that's where I am more focused on. First I have to the way the international scenery has been structured is in fact based on the equality of states and on that principal of energy. States are sovereign in their own territories, but no one is in a better position than the other to define the rules that will apply to their societies. So, there is rule for interdependency and corporation, but sovereignty and they must be respected in any case. In this sense, we must also take into account that this system of anarchy among states is also drawn to be on there promoting some acts of hostility among states which may lead to war here and there as our records show. One of the basic functions of the nation state in the international scenario is to provide the fence to existence. That is again related to one of the topics that is being discussed here which is protection against fallen regressions using the cyber space, the cyber war, cyber attacks and so on. And ethical level being the internet global if the government is really concerned with the use of internet to empower the citizens to develop their full potential, ah, they will literally be interested in preserving the integrity, continuity and the security of the internet and they would be interested in assuring that at international level in a way that it does not depend on the wheel of one or only or a logistic group of other states. And here this is where the question of the internet critical resources comes into the picture. It is very easy for those who are U.S. citizens to believe that their structure of the U.S. government, the department of commerce and ITIA and any other branch of government is completely trustworthy and able to make sure that the internet will have this integrity, continuity and security. But from an international part of you how can other states that are not subject to the same jurisdiction to not have the same channels of expression and decision making inside the U.S.? How can they their population that the internet will get because one among them, the one state among them is equal according to the system that we live in at the international level. The state only will be able to provide that integrity, continuity and security. And that comes to the issue of some things in the point of view of many governments including my own, Brazil, need to addressed at the international level, at the global level in particular related to the critical internet resources. Now, just to finalize this first part, I don't know how much time I've got. Okay. I'd like to I'd like to refer to the question of the fusion of power that has presented anyway Susan Strange when she wrote the retreat of the state and she wrote about the global economy and how different actors the emergence of new actors at global stage were. The power that once was reserved only to states. Each one is on its own and you know the international thing is not that easy to represent that way anymore. Actually, ah, the emergence of the new actors, transactional companies or angios with global school in their presence and also tend to limit somehow the sovereignty of nation states. And the internet is a tool that allows this to fully infer and I'm not taking a position of whether this is bad or good yet because this is actually something that each state will do. What I would like to call to your attention is states continue and this is strange. Nation states continue to be the main actors of international arena because of three essential processes that are still reserved to them which is they use a force taxation and a decision of what is a crime and what is not a crime. So, ah, the states are there, governments are there and the international governments and development of the states are there and they are there to promote this sort of issues that I raised. I know that it was somehow difficult to establish clear priorities as I hoped. I know you would like me to do, but perhaps in the development of the debate, we could specify something more clearly about it.
>> Thank you. The next speaker is known to all of us. He's truly a trans Atlantic man being a processor in Sturgess University. And he's going to talk from point of view of freedom of expression and civil liberty.
>> Yes. You can hear me okay? The microphone isn't going. So, my special lense as George puts it is, ah, individual freedom and civil liberties. I'm talking about the right of users not to be controlled, not to be subject to surveillance, not to be blocked, not to be regulated to have the capacity to act to be free on the internet in so far as I respect equal rights of others to do the same. From my point of view, the biggest problem with internet governance is that many special interests congregate around internet government institutions asking for some specific benefit or sometimes legitimately to attack or move against some specific part to expand or cyber security or cyber cry.
all too often, the interests that involve in making a cyber decisions are to bargain away the rights of the individual because the rights are not adequately represented in the processes. Now, what is unique about this lense or the perspective is that it is very general abstract. It doesn't you didn't well agree with you when you had these things in the abstract and they normally disagree with. We already recognize that freedomness have contributed to the development and value of the internet and yet every time we're confronted with a problem, I seen it as though the first knee jerk reaction to throw it out the window or to carve away at it little by little, little by little. Little here, little there and before you know it, maybe it's completely gone. So, this is no mystery why this happened. Political scientists and I'm sure Bill is familiar with this literature will talk about this collective action problem and the conservation of interests. For the words, if there's a high stakes battle, say trademark owners versus domain registrants. There were 150 million individuals region stirred around the world, but only a few thousand major grand owners. For the grand owners, trademarks are very high stakes battle. For individual domain name registers it's a $20 a year registration. So they have very little incentive to organise, to mobilize and have little capacity to protect their interests in the debates. Whereas a special interests have very strong incentives and benefits to be reached from participating. Let me give to you drive this home. How many are you familiar with the regime of morality and public order? Raise your hand.
[Laughter]
they're ahead of the working groups. So he knows what I'm talking about. The governments or many governments, not all of them, but to many governments are going to be uncomfortable with the kinds of names that might be registered. They will say, ah, oh, in our, um, in our country, it's illegal to say bad things about ethnic groups. Certain kinds of bad words that you can think about. What are some Yahoo, but I better not say that. I might get into a trademark war. What if some fool wants to get with that. But what is an ethnic slur in one country may not be in another. And it's a funny story about a guy who registered pizza.TM. TM meaning Turk Menastan and on the unpleasant term for the female genitalia and he was kicked out as the head of the registry there. So anyway, the government wants no kind of veto power over little domains based on what they call public policy concerns. The domain name businesses, what do they want? They want to enter the market and make money. The public order business is an obstacle on the road to wealth and success in the domain name industry. So what do they want to do? They want to get on with it. They want to give the government what they want so they can get on with the new gTLD process. What does ICANN want? ICANN wants to stay out of the trouble. It doesn't want to be pressured the way it was in the triple X affair. It doesn't want governments threatening it. It doesn't want people asking it why are you legitimizing a domain that says this or that. They are also willing to give away freedoms to register names the result of this is that the benefits of freedom to register names, ah, are easily bargained away in such a process unless you have a right to perspective. Unless you say wait a minute. People have rights. People have freedoms. They aught to be able to exercise them unless they're really harming somebody else in the process. So that's an example. I have another example that I don't want to use it. I don't think we have time. So, conforming to George's agenda, what is important? How do I prioritize the issues here? Well, from an individual rights similarities perspective, the top priority would have to be, I guess, out right censorship. One of the things that sometimes frustrates me about the civil liberties oriented rights groups is they are so busy proclaiming and announcing and expanding concepts of rights that they can forget about the fact that we still have some very fundamental basic violations of these individual rights going on such as massive blocking of the internet content. The neutrality is important. The neutrality I have to clarify. I seem to meet something very different from what most people mean, but I do not mean that internet service providers cannot rationalize the bad with what's on their network. I mean by that neutrality that the internet service provider is a neutral intermediary for moving things and they do not make choices for you about where you go, where you can go and where you can't go and they're also not spying on you and trying to serve as the police force for various interests on the internet. They are basically a network and pack of mover. Another third big issue and it may indeed, be the top priority one is a securitization of the internet or the national security angle. And I probably have a very different perspective from Everton, although not from a value point of view. From this point of view, one of the biggest problems with the national security is that it Trumps everything. You can say if it's a threat, if it's a national security involved, all the other rights go out the window. We saw this in the United States with the post 9/11 area. It still remains a mystery to some of us why after a very powerful and very well funded and very surveillance happy CIA, FBI and various police forces fail to catch people enters the country intending to blow up the country were funded with more money and powers. You can make a case that maybe these extraordinary powers succeeded in preventing further damage or that it did not, but the point is when there's a threat involves security, rights tend to go out the window. Whenever that's justified or not is not the point I want to get into, but from the lense perspective, we need to be careful of what gets prioritized and what doesn't. We'll be very concerned about the securitization of the internet. The view of the internet is a weapon. It's a military space for conflict. We will want to avoid that at all costs. Therefore, we will support a strategy of denationalization. Not internationalization. Get the government out completely so that the United States wants to internationalize the function. What about denationalizing it? What about getting the heck out and [INAUDIBLE] back in 2000. So, I'm pretty much on time here. What I want to do to wrap up is talk about development.
In my view, there's a strong correlation between freedom and development. I think that institutionalized liberties and rights will in fact help economic and social development and the countries that succeed even if they don't take the pure, purest form of individual rights and liberties. But if they do institutionalize individuals where they have freedoms and rights, they will develop more successfully than countries that don't. From the 1970s on involves countries that open up the economies, liberalize them and secure individual rights to the rule of law with China and India being the most glaring examples and I know less about the history economic history of Brazil. I have Everton sitting next to me, but I think they did go through a liberalization process and they did produce growth. One warning about this as I wrap up is don't apply the institutional regimes of developed countries developing them. So, for example, American analysts of telecommunications policies trying to apply very top heavy regulatory designs to developing countries and they just didn't work, but that's a very complicated story and not a very clear one. So I'll leave it there. So I'll say from this lense, you know, freedom is what's important. We have to stand up for rights because of the collective action problem and there is a correlation between freedom and development. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. Our next speaker is Patrick Foster who is going to be looking through a lense of the professional technical management issues regarding the internet. He's well call need to do it. He's a distinguished consulting engineer with Sisco. He's been involved in the mutt stake holder advisory group. He's the advisor to the Swedish I team for the last 7 years and he's very involved in IGF activities.
>> Patrick Foster: Thank you very much. I agree and disagree with the past two speakers in the discussion here. We'll see how short I can make this so we can also get some discussion later. So, let's go through this presentation more from a very, very technical ITF standard who wants it from that perspective.
So, I was asked to look at the developmental which is the evolution through the lense of the community. Elevate say from the beginning that you start with that evolutional pack itself. That's the absolutely not the one or the goals for the technical community. That's why sort of I claim we in the community develop to start w it's very important to understand that we actually want changes. We want to continue to developing what we have. We're going to make sure that we can form a network and more companies and more service providers and more Web Sites and more applications, add more pirate bay, add more whatever. Just add whatever you want to do. So, having it open that they were talking about are fundamental ideas. We want you to be able to play around and do whatever you want. So, because of that, we want development. That is fundamental, but on the other hand, it's also very important that the services that already point, the notes that are put out there, the businesses never try to make money on it and uses it. It's very important for us at the same time, but they can't continue to use it. There is things to break and it is low enough. If you continue to use whatever they're using. People that like the use of Facebook and whatever else they're doing, of course they should be able to use it because it's I tool they're using. The internet today is needed for people to having their tax returns every year specifically where you have the highest percentage of use in back of the fighting taxes online. What would happen with Lithuania society or many other countries if that was taken away? It would have a pretty big impact. We want the internet to work while it's still being supported. Some things are controversial and we have internal discussions if something is needed for how much risk and a new thing that's producing and know it helps. That can be pretty important just in discussion in the technical community itself. We'll organize that and I heard it earlier. So, what has been hurt though, I think from the community or maybe I'm taking the words out that the technical community has discussions and they're conservative people that don't want to have any changes whatever. We're saying no to everything. So which might be absolutely true because one of those two ordinants from us is that it continues to work. But the other one is they want to add names. We want to add DNS. We want to add our VPI which is the signatures and we want to have DNS that you can use several years ago. This is from the technical community perspective. We are too late already. So at the same time as we're frustrated and conservative, for example, additional top level domains. They're nervous about. We want to do some of the changes that we feel that we are not allowed to do because other people say no. So, we are only conservative. I promise you that. So if we look at from our perspective, if I try to explain the reason why they might be conservative is that when we came up with certain protocols and certain applications, they were assigned for specific things. And we know how those protocols were in those specific environments. We know how HTTP worked for the web browser. Once people started using HTTP as a right cool will that used as a carrier for file transfer in the protocol and for voiceover IP. That's kind of interesting evolution and interesting innovation that changes the years that was not decided from the beginning. Those kinds of situations where technical people and the community end up being concerned because we don't know whether it would work. We Dean know whether we can promise the technology forever. And we don't know whether that is carrying a horrible use of that the protocol. In our case, we say stop. Take it easy. Be careful. Here check on a couple phone calls. Or various things. Continue is in our discussions and many others. You take another example. You have new fop level domains. We have taken the community to some degree. That's not our problem. That has more to do from our perspective. For example, organisation and conflict between the sovereign of different tables that can't decide that words are not legal to use in certain restrictions and that you have the other interest and you should be able to pick whatever you want to use. That's where you have a conflict. The other thing is that the domain system itself that decide to be with many levels and few notes on each level in the database structure with unlimited owning of mutual domains. That might change the structure of the domain name trade with changes the way we use the DNS protocol. That makes us nervous. Okay. And I think that is why I think I accepted and we all on this panel because we were looking at different levels and say yes or no to different things. There's many reasons why. For example, I was a very strong supporter of this kind of process where all of us have the ability to explain about we look through our list. So, um, I think I just remind people that for development, we found a technical community with absolutely more innovation and more far things, but we're also bloody conservative. Excuse the language. I want to make sure we continue to be used. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much, Patrick. Next on our list is the executive director of global internet policy for Verizon communications. Teresa has been in and around internet things for the past 15 years. She worked for MCI. She was the manager of global partnerships of ICANN for a number of years. I sometimes see my friends fly a lot by average altitude and Teresa's average altitude is higher than anyone else's.
>> Teresa: I've been asked to talk about in terms of the business lines. I will give this a shot. The first thing I want to point out is not a new topic for business. It's not a new topic for anybody at the table or anybody that's done this a long time.
I think you can all recall the project many years ago that was really business coming together trying to address frameworks that we're starting to affect business and opportunities as the internet was evolving. There's business dialogue that involved initiatives that were being undertaken. There was global policy initiatives which George was active in and it was looking at efforts in countries in regulatory framework. Even the internet society in meetings were to create awareness about internet issues and practices in that space. Now you have ICC and basis involved in the internet governance debate that's tracking and what's happening on different issues and getting them to come forward. I think what you can really identify in all of these things is they're looking at frameworks at how the internet and feature areas are affecting business. There's an underlying thing over there. So from a business perspective, what does actually really matter and I think what has to take a look at is business that serves customers. They have the operating jurisdictions. They deal with intergovernmental organisations and they deal with the technical communities. So they need to balance all of those things. But it's really balancing the legislation or regulation and creativity and allow that for creativity. And policies that enable all the opportunities in part because this is my fastest growing mediums that we have seen. We have no idea where things are going to go. Maybe Patrick does. Otherwise, I think unless one is really engaged in the technical area, it is really hard to predict what areas exist. We need to look at frameworks, legislative regulatory to operating environments that allow for innovation, creativity and wanting to grow. We take into consideration that the medium doesn't recognize national boundaries and there's repeat evidence that it does recognize national boundaries and, you know, that's just a functional reality of it as it goes forward. So challenges of where we were in testing the fact that you can't take traditional legislation or traditional regulation put it online. I think we can say the treaty in 1996 where they tried to address national protection online. It became a discussion on how the technology functions and how the application of any treaties or legislation could be applied to that. I'm sure others could recall sitting down next to administers for others who are in negotiations and explaining how those work and how that actually functions. And in a context of how things actually function on a technical level then trying to address a policy that was going to work for business, for governments, for users. And so you really need to strike a balance in all of that. Now we're dealing with much more complex issues. We're dealing with eBanking, e money, special networking and all of these things have been involved because there are frameworks involved for the innovation to occur. It is allowing opportunities to be built on technical areas. They allowed for technical areas to take into account about issues that were raised by the other panelists on the table. And history has taught us that if we look at legislation or regulation, there are some examples of things that don't work well. They don't scale. There's efforts a lot of times in legislation a lot of times that drives business offshore. We need to look at the impact of things from that standpoint. We have case legislation that bring content. It doesn't work or it doesn't scale. So the question is really what does work which goes back to my point of what's important for business. You trust this in models and you have stake holder industry that approaches to find solutions to issues and allowing opportunities and innovation that continue to exist. The approaches have to involve all the parties affected by an issue. It's the only way you get the long term insurance for the future on a solution. Governments and regulators and what the rules are on that. We need to make sure they work. We will identify who interdependencies can have an impact on the market to work. Give an example of what makes the country, but it was many years ago where the amount of people who were online were realizing the communications was limited and it was surprising. But if you looked at, um, a connection between various factors, you can understand what was happening. Access to get online went down at 11 o'clock at night and accessed to get it at 8 o'clock in the morning. There had been a new tax on computer related computer especially for people using that equipment at home. They all had impact on the ability for industry and for market or for access to be occurring. So taking a look at different actors in the economy figuring out what has had an impact in development, um, the other thing I think where government plays a lighter role is that business may not care about content and perhaps some do and some don't depends upon the business. But I think when you look at certain initiatives such as in India, the government having encouraged having content in all languages. Those kinds of initiatives are frameworks that are very positive and they actually help industry and help business and help users a long time. Look at world bank report for 2009 where 10% increasing in economic growth. That's not bad. But I think what also has to look at what's allowed that to happen and the current frameworks that are evolved are ones that really use creative mechanisms to find solutions and trying to avoid regulatory or legislative frameworks allow innovation to occur and technical communities and others enable to find solutions to problems that others have identified. I know that George wanted me to talk about what's less important.
>> George: We insist. Our last speaker is Bill Drake who is also well known in this community. He's senior associate for the centre of the governance of the graduate institute of international development studies in je95a. He has a PMD in political science and has published extensively in this area. He's going to pick up the development lense and look through it and tell us what he sees.
>> WILLIAM J. DRAKE: Is there a list to pick up?
[Laughter]
Ah thanks, George. When George and I started talking about this panel some time ago, um, I think part of what this was shaping his thinking is people in the internet government say things against each other. How do we bring less together. You thought about that. I think it's recently accurate imagery to use because when I think about internet governance, to me it's kind of a multi dimensional space. It's a multi dimensional process, social steering. And you can visualize it in a way as a sort of 3 dimensional prism. You take that off and you can look at it from different angles and which angle you look at it from and backgrounds. If you start, well, the technical is one of the works and maybe societal constraints are more of a background view. If you pick up it from a, perspective, maybe some of the past concerns that society might raise about business regulations are seeing less. So I think you can view that. I think that development is an annual that generally is speaking we have not looked at governance from very much, at least not at the global. At the national level, I think if you go to a world back meeting, if you go to an IGF meeting, if you go to capacity, you hear people talking all the time about what types of national policies best promote the roleout and development of the internet government, but on the other hand, how often do you hear the discussion about global institutions? Are global policies and frameworks cast in the same way. So this is why George and I have very different perspectives on this. We both care a lot about development. He had done all this work for years. He had a policy community initiative going around and developing transitional countries trying to help them get their local licensing and other policy frameworks to grow the internet. So he looks and thinks about global internet conferences. Why is everybody talking about that all the time? So when he draws, he puts up that chart. He's got in big letters local licensing, ISPs and control of the telecom environment. Then he's got the national policy would be a reason. On the other hand, if you think about it from the ops perspective, being an international policy issue, well, they will be the biggest constraints at the national level in most cases, but that is not to say we shouldn't talk about the international level and try to figure out if there are real issues there and if they are working on a space to work that through. That's why for this is now the fourth year. We have a panel in this room on the notion of development agenda and, ah, looking at the particular case for managements and internet needs for congress. I have been raising this issue apart because I think if we don't and they create the space to raise those issues and explore to get it through, from the perspective of a particular country and governance who express that the IGF isn't doing what they hoped to do is creating a space for the discussion they want to have. I think we missed an opportunity to reach out, to engage, to move towards greater mutual understanding, et cetera. I think it's important to try and think about the global internet governance regions from this perspective even if they're in the process of doing that and this issue doesn't have that strong involvement. Maybe you will find out that she does. And that's point. They go through the process and you have to ask questions. Before I get to development in particular, let me back up to the general matter because I think this is the general instinct that George had is really irrelevant notion of how people view things. I always thought of it is as a rush. It's a psychological test where they have to eat, watch and you ask people what do you see and you get five different people saying eat watch and saying completely different things. We have real progress through the IGF processees and moving through mutual understanding. There is still a fundamental, really different perspectives of what is the thing we're talking about. And they come from a lost different sources. One is material interest. Depending where you are in the business, for example, you give an issue. They talk about those issues. You can also be influential, political and orientations that shape this. He was talking about sovereignty. When I think about sovereignty, ah, you know, he's been reading this international work. It's really good. Because the nation has a batch communities. This particular form of territorial organisation determines the existence of territoriality, in particular national groupings is a contingent thing. It has some benefits, some utilities, but we have to recognize it can be abused. In the history of international telecopy, you look at the history of IT regulation and global telecom. Forever and ever, states are saying that we have it in control and we get to regulate everything. There is no competition. It doesn't necessarily have the interest and expanding global connectivity or at least the price for the sovereignty we use to justify all kinds of stuff including securitization and a lot of it is in the name of sovereignty use the citizens. That's why in the united nations, we had the development. They had the right to protect you and security and so on. So, again, my point is when you start as these guys have intellectual orientations too. To think about things, I don't identify so much with Americans because they're Americans. I identify with people who have a certain way of thinking. So I feel closer to the dutch a lot of times than I do to a lot of people in the United States. We're on the same page. So anyway, my point is we need to recognize there's a lost different basis which have these kinds of things. And the last problem is impact. If you go back to the early days for the business processees when you talk about internet government, it is not criticizing, but I was saying there is no such thing as internet governments. It is more managing, more government. Coordination is a form of governance, to me. And, ah, this kind of like denial of internet governance was from the perspective of some of us. On the other hand, you have the governance and ITU saying, ah, governance means you have government organisations. It wasn't until we worked through these things that the neutral definition and the governments form social steering that takes many institutional forms that start that. The key point is getting out the last thing. You have to talk these things through and one of the pieces where they talk past each other come from different angles. One of the cases where we have fundamental install disagreements. Now, we prepared the development then. Built in the same freedom and development go together. I certainly agree with that. I like the what's his name? The noble peace prize, he wrote the book freedom. And he developed for rules to use. Now, these people are a little choice, a little opportunity of exercising the recent agency. It promotes instrumental freedoms and developing opportunities and social facilities, transparency guarantees and security. That's what people don't understand with development. They are freeway and able to innovate and enter above is a nice term of innovation. That's when you get development. And my sense is that internet governments and development means turning the person around and putting them for the question of how do these global internet governments enter it? How do processees use in directions and the full range of internet governance arenas get that. The first instance I'm asking the question. And broadening the criteria in accessing governance. As I say, it may very well be that when you do that, ah, you will you'll say well I look at this particular case. GTLDs, for example, and maybe I look at it and I think ultimately, you know what, there's no really distinctive development. The mechanism we have in place for this policy arena is applicable whether it's industrialized or a developing country. You say fine. You put that aside and you look at other ones and you decide which once are being prioritized and which ones need to be addressed and may focus more intensive discussion. So it's a master separating the weak from the shaft and sorting out which issues are priorities and how could we then if we do identify pieces, where perhaps the policy outputs and the processees we have impacted development. Try to think it through. Are there reasonable tweaks and performs the process that we can make that make the process more optimal will to development or more development and costs are consideration or not. So I think that to me, it is important that we take this and we pick it up and look at it. I think this political reason we're doing that is another reason to do it and I think there's not racial reason. As we go forward, the internet both of the internets you feed have developing countries fully on board engaged in the governance processees and I don't think you need that kind of engagement if you don't signal very clearly that you are ready, willing and able to discuss whatever concerns they may have about how this might work with particular certainties.
>> Okay. Thank you, Bill. Everton you feel sufficiently abused or should we open it up? As you wish.
>> Everton: Very briefly. We have the audience engagement. Bill, I think that if we take the sovereignty, we may get that conclusion that you presented because in any other area of human activity, there's always the possibility of abuses and there is no difference because of the sovereignty and the notion of national security. The professor said. So, ah, this is one thing. Now sovereignty has to be considered and it is in fact since the creation of the international system after the piece of this. The centre and the essence part of the essence of the idea of the nation's state. Sovereignty enters and this is the way we decided we would organise ourselves as international community. International between nations, among nations and not global as we are seeing today. Perhaps the internet is bringing us to a new part to each thing current structure of our society, political structure are not responding anymore. I think that's a very fair issue, but I don't see an alternative either. I would also question anyone that would say that we are living a revolution because when you are inside a true revolution, you have an ideology behind that points toward a new way of structuring how you live in society, how you live how you start politically your society. We don't sea see alternative. We see technology. We see the code, but then we come to that debate, the running code versus the legal code. One should govern social relations in the internet. If it is a social relation, we mean relation among people. We believe according to the system that we live in that we should be based on and we should be governed bite rule of law. That's what we have. And not by the technical architecture or technical status base the technical community, the brightest they are and we should allow them for having promote the all technology that we have to use today. They do not have legitimacy enough to, ah, legislate, and to integrate rules. So we identify mechanisms. I think this is the reality. We'll discuss this and I think that's for the rest of the team.
>> We now have much in tomorrow on the table for at least a full year college course. The political economy of the internet economy. I would like to open up the floor. Please, when you speak, tell us who you and are where you come from so that we have a context.
>> We need a microphone.
>> There's two microphones on each side of the room. Thank you.
>> I am from the university of as you know, there is a part from the instrument of humanitarian intervention which is supposed to protect the Trump national sovereignty. And since we have this concept, there's been a lot of work. For instance, there's smart muscle work. They store it from the university talking about using the media to promote inspect hard to be concept. He does it on base upon research that proves the media is really encouraging and showing that there's apparently a global concept of morality and responsibility and that goes from the national boarders. My question because I also have a question is, um, he's talking they have been reading and talking about RTP using DNF digital network technology as an instrument. But is there a concept went internet and within the internet governance?
>> To protect without regards of the national 41 tear.
>> Yes. For instance, I have my revolution, the green revolution. There were people on Facebook just if there's attendance to just make politics make a policy out of it or criteria out of it is hard to beat offline.
>> I don't think there's it's institutionalized, recognized responsibility to protect national frontiers existing in any legal, political or other environment, but do you have, of course, NGOs that work very hard at it. I've been very, ah, very hardened by some of the work, for example, of people who, um, try to provide dissidence and authoritarian countries with meanings of hiding their identities so they can continue to blog and so on. It does bring things into this. Governments, you know, again here's a classic example of where things come into play. If you're a person if you're on the board if you look at it from the law perspective, you have complete and accurate and intellectual property and you have privacy or into things from people. Wait a minutes. This is problematic. We want to have a situation. We're citizens who live in situations where they can be danger. That means not be identified. So, um, what are the priorities? It's been a lot and I can't figure how to reach a balanced resolution that everybody can accept.
>> I would add that there's also a bit of tension over there. It guarantees protection, but there have been anonymizers and so it's a way of protecting people from expressing, from beg retaliated against after discussing different views.
>> I would like to thank you for bringing up the example of human intervention. In my perspective, that's the one that confers the rule in the sense that responsibility orders states and people when that state is not fulfilling its basic fundamental rule, which is security for citizens. And in this sense, it is a model parity. That government is in fact not complied with the reason why states exist in the first place. And there are a lot of examples. I have a violation of human rights according to the European chart of human rights and also the American states chart of human rights citizens may may sue their governments directly at the international court against something that they feel like they're being hindered fulfillment of their rights. There are exceptions and it is good there are exceptions across the system. But this is actually confirming the rule and working as a development.
>> Let's go on the other side. Go ahead. Go ahead.
>> The responsibility to protect is another concept. Humanitarians they're able to protect their own citizens, but responsibility to protect covers all the problems. They're not able to provide anymore. It's an additional concept that allows international action when states are able to provide many other things they have to do with security.
>> Shall we go to the next person?
>> Next.
>> Um, question one question is that I find it quite hard to understand to watch what type of development we're talking about and in the sense that I think social economic development does span. I think when it comes to the internet and the role of the internet in that society, we should look at it as sustainable development approached through development when we look at human development and social development and the environments. I know it's not always that easy, but I think it's helpful to do that as we try to forge that in IGF. And then a question. One of the ideas is that ABC is exploring is the national development impact assessments and I think I heard someone refer to that in the internet government. Do you think that is something that could be done where we introduce a process of accessing the impact on sustainable development of internet governance decision and the way the international policy and international rule and environmental impact has been very important instrument. So, is that something that's worth pursuing? And sovereignty, I always find kind of confusing that there is a lot. Why is it so complicated? We all know that we live in countries where it is a national government and makes life better or half worse. And when we want to hold accountable for even making things better or for not making it worse, we resort to our national governments and that's who we want to be able to hold accountable. So, of course the internet is very complex, but is it just a set of relationships and spaces when a discussion takes place, where decisions are made and making them in a different way and linking accountabilities to one another. I know it's probably much more complicated than what we have been trying to figure out for years now. Sometimes I think we over complicate it. I think when we see those are arguing for detrimental decision making. It is much said between governments as there is between governments and society. So, this so why not just be more open and recognize that beg at an international level or national level we make better policies if we do it in a more interesting way rather than having these demarcation of intergovernmental here society here, business here and never quite sure where. So, um, people who know about issues and identify they should be in policy maker irrespective of where they are from. But once you've gone through this whole process, of course it does race to who is accountable for for implementing and for protecting individuals and public interest in a particular space. That accountability can also be different. I sometimes think we make it more complicated.
>> I think we need clarification from a political standpoint, don't we.
>> not one.
[Laughter]
>> Taking a person and not studying the law or politics here. Isn't the case that this kind won't be having sovereignties that we might have two separate democratic processes with each one of them independently complicated for themselves. Because of that, it happens all the time as long as we have the concept or whatever where we make different decisions. When they meet, that is when you get friction with these two interests are conflicting with each other is very difficult to say which one is right or wrong because both of them are developed according to probably the same rules or similar enough. So we don't have to accuse one or the other two to have them get out of their own way. They travel with airplanes and we have more and more of these different separate general copy cats to start to meet each other. They have an effort topology and literally accepting zero, the whole thing explodes. It must be something people are talking about or thinking about.
>> I think your description of what you thought was not so complicated sound much more complicated than my own contention of it. I think you're still sort of stuck in the nation's status, the fundamentalists and at least in communication information, not in other things, but in communication information is what is at question. So it may not be the nation's stake that you look for internet government or accountability and you want to think of yourself as a citizen of Brazil then expect certain things to be done for you by your national government. That is indeed, the way that could be gone in a couple of decades at least with respect to the internet. And, ah, um, the problem with that, which I fully recognize even though I've been in the pioneering experience of advocating and moving in that direction. The problem is we worked out democracy and rights that mean at the nation's state level? We sort of know what that is. We don't know if that is at global transactional level with new institutions. So that's why I was and remained a supporter of the democratic elections within ICANN. They should go in that direction and they should embrace global democracy in this form in some way. Maybe there are problems with it, but they should have fixed the problems and gone back to this corporate model of stake holders and pointing secret committees and appoint people to something else. So, um, sorry, George.
[ Laughter ]
>> George: Tell me about the secret committees.
>> Not secret committee, but secret deliberation, but anyway, you get my point. We do have a concept of the nation and for democracy, but we have some real top problems to solve when we do that.
>> Because of defamation, child abuse, transaction fraud, whatever, to where are they running for some action. To the established political structure, the governments, the states and the judicial system. This has conflicts of interests and complexities. And the governments government alone should not be seen as a separate entity that there's to threaten some people and others abroad. It is to be the way of organizing ourselves. That's theoretically. Of course, in practice, the theory is what you think in some cases, but that's why we come back to the concept of sovereignty and the need to read it together with democracy, with participation, with representation and not to be in view with the idea of intergovernmental organisation be the solution to internet government. I believe that we have reached the later stage in which we are very clear that the solutions are in the multi state holder; however, if you are hurt in your bank account because of a fraud transaction, are you going to wait for the multi state holder commission to solve that problem for you or you going to go to the other and try to sue your bank or whoever or to the police and try to identify who is the culprit for that. Thank you.
>> Bill, closing comment on this and then I have two people that want to talk.
>> WILLIAM J. DRAKE: Briefly. That is very much what I had in mind and the development agenda kind of initiative was to sit down and try to look at these things. In many case, it will be very difficult to identify. You will say fine. If there are positive impacts, then you can hold it up. We ask that it be replicated and there are negative impacts and you think about things made. I have an e mail made here talking about our IT sessions of what we will do. He says he need to have some sort of development meter for different initiatives and their impact on development. We need a process that at least undergo that kind of assessment. You were talking about what happens when you have go different groups and they both have credits? This is where the challenge is. I remember sitting in WSIS on some developing country when the technical community has the name and talking about the community. Who has this community? I keep hearing about this community. Who are these people? I say well, you know, it's an international thing and they work in this wonderful, democratic way. Well, they don't represent us. They have a legitimacy through us and so on. It speaks of nation state as the ultimate repository much legitimacy accountability, but people who work in other environments, who work in the technical ability beyond that. If you look at our nation, it says the accountability is through the community. You know? There's a lot of very interesting questions here, I think.
>> Okay. 1, 2. Go to the mic.
>> (very low, faint sound)
>> Okay. I don't know whether to laugh and make sure these people are available for you and it sounds like a large conversation, but I would say that since we started about 10 or 15 minutes late and since the since the, ah, the focus of the next session in this room is very similar to this one, but I will ask for your forbearance and we'll go 10 or 15 minutes late. If you have to leave, you may.
>> I will speak first. I think one of them is that we tried to do the training and deployment of new technical gear in developing countries is different the same way that we do in the rest of the world when go reality, you have to do it differently. I talked a little bit about that this morning. From the training, there's a very different kind of training that you give to people any time the communication has all this work. You compare it when you try to educate to all the people which is what you're doing. We need to make mistakes there.
>> Okay. Any comments in response to the question?
>> Know I just need to point out that the standing behind it (Audio is fading in and out).
>> Know that didn't need a microphone. It was the thought that counts. Somewhere to stand. So, um, I'm not sure I'm answering your question, but there were so many of them I started losing track. We're talking about these sort of range in developing countries. One of the things I did in the new book and networks where I deal with issues is I sort of praise the ability of internet base communities to handle their own problems, which is something that you mentioned and it's clear there is an ability to reduce the cost of collective action and know to take care of many of the problems of internet governance through internet enabled collective action which may be serving as kind of a replacement; however, I had a conversation with Ben the other night how one of these mechanisms such as blocking SPAMers by ISPs which in general frame of things has an effective way of blocking SPAMers. It's usually what we call network governance. People are identifying Spammers through Spam lists and production process and they're disseminating this lists and it is voluntary. You have these lists. Your incentives are pretty incorrect in the sense that you don't want to block too much and you don't want to block too little. You're not going to block people willy nilly. There are restraints on that and people are demanding that you want a lot of the Spam because 95 and 80% of the e mails are going to be spam. However, sometimes people or entire countries like in the case of Nigerian spams, someone will take a very crude approach and accept any IP addresses from Nigeria. And this is a non transparent process and so on. Property used, you can see the list. You can see who's on it. But they're not governmental mechanisms for saying you have to take them off. They have some interesting legal cases about this. It's really kind of a flux, very undeveloped form of governance. That's a good example. I'm not saying that internet base network government is Utopia. That's stupid. But, um, I do think that it does provide a very effective remedy to the problems and we can handle some of the institutions right at the level, we can improve some of those problems.
>> I just would like to thank you for your questions, but I don't think I really understood it. You referred to something to paradise. I don't think I'm renting paradise. I'm at the IGF staff. I would be glad to discuss with you that later.
>> I will be very brief on the economic governance is a specialty. There are two dimensions. The kind of development for this side has seen enormous new ideas. Can I give different examples of, you know, small bees or various set of things and impact that it's had on social areas. Registries and other initiatives happening in other parts of the world. There's that angle. I may not be answering the question. There is new innovations and they have cause development that have anticipated. There is opportunities that cause our new businesses doing merchant businesses and cause development areas that probably take trends that exist in a non online world, but apply to the online world in another way. That may not have answered your question specifically, but there are some parallels. Am.
>> Thank you first of all. This is very interesting. And I would like at risk of the time, I would like to suggest another lense. I would like to suggest another lense. My name is my name is Walda Rose. I would like to suggest as we forward here with the IGF, but also international levels and that is the lense of what may be a typical recipient potential recipient of internet governments and, um, and development. Let's postulate that we look through the lense of a woman living in a developing country in a rural area. She is illiterate. She does not speak or read English. She does not read her local language. She's raising children alone. She's the local farmer and she may not have much stature in her community because she's a woman. Now, this is, I believe, probably the most typical potential recipient. So, if we were to go down the line here or up the line here of the different stake holder groups, question we might postulate in the future is what the community do to make accessible to this particular person who is not going to be able to access it through keyboard and literacy skills. What can the government community do to get the internal fashions for example of the educational mystery and as the ICT ministry. The banking for the defense ministry working together collaborating to try to find a policy and programmes that are going to support her education, the education of her children both using the internet and getting access to what it can offer. With the agricultural community, what would they do to get information to better growth of her prize where the markets are and so on. What kind of business community do to insure that the user terminals that are actually functionally useful to that particular person. And then we look at the content side of it. What can the contact people be doing not just to insure that the content that is reaching people is useful, but that it can actually they can actually develop the skills to originate that content themselves. My point is that I think if we're really serious and I know we are about applying to marrying a higher net governance development effectively. And there are different levels of discussion is that we could usefully be having a future IGS and another form about facilitating a new policies, new perspectives, discussions among other kinds of stake holders, the educators learning to communicate with the communications people that we're not doing right now. And on a global level if we could bring some of these other people, these other stake holders into an IGF, we could bring focus exchange that practices begin to identify in the levels and issues and so on. That could be a question. Anybody have any comments?
>> That's interesting. The lense of the user and the lense with one of the more difficult users in which the internet has not impacted significantly yet. Anybody be have any answers to those questions?
>> In answer to the question, I think it is important to know what to call it. But I think it's really important because it identifies what to make the value of the media, benefits of the media to allow for special development and all sorts of things around the world. In economic and business. One maybe one of the additional factors I would like to add in that is when the impact of initiatives that then empower something that is traditionally not been a power in a country often times have unintended results that also need to be looked at. And often times, they see this in other initiatives that there's a well hearted attended initiative going on, but there's often times results that have to be taken into account. What happens if if they're traditionally helping on property, but then education allows for opportunities to leave. How does one insure there's labor in order to help there. There's social and economic dynamics that come into consideration, which are important ones to factor in order to make the results are successful. So I would just highlight. I don't know what we will call this.
>> Just a comment. I the see if that's the law of consequences and transcends the boarders of nations states.
>> I think this is the most important question that I heard since I started attending any IGF meeting ever. And I think it is serious enough for us not to try to reply asking if we were in a position to know everything. I think we have to be have a little bit of humility here to recognize that we still have a way tool if we want to consider that our focus is more than what the so called global internet community. It's a focus on global people's community that we need to take care of. And in particular of those who are excluded from the matter. So I think I thank you for your comment and this would be a very good way to taking out this issue and enough for the main session tomorrow.
>> Thank you. It's 4:20 right now. We have gone over by 5 minutes. I think this has been a really interesting discussion and I think the panel has gotten much out of it as the audience. As we close, please join me in thanking the panel and thank yourselves for your comments and your questions.