You are here




OCTOBER 24, 2013
9:00 AM

This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.

>> MODERATOR: Good morning to everybody. We start this workshop session here we have several participants making the presentation about the effective applications of multistakeholder in different areas. I will participate as the moderator and as a speaker and we will talk about our Brazil.

First I will ask Alexandre to do the opening. The floor is yours.

>> ALEXANDRE FONTENELLE: Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here with you. I believe this workshop gives us a very good opportunity to speak about the principles, in the context of the WSIS review process for which Brazil attributes great, more are developed following the principles established in the Geneva declaration in the first phase of the work summit on Information Society.

As you know ‑‑ well, first of all, I forgot to present myself. I'm Alexandre Fontenelle, I'm from the ministry of external relations of Brazil. As you know, Brazil has been participating very actively in the follow‑up of the WSIS, not only in the government level, but all multistakeholders are involved that we are discussing, the implementation of the recommendations of the WSIS. Internally, we have developed, as most of you are already familiar, the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, It is a multistakeholder entity comprising of private sector, Civil Society, academia, and technical communities.

And for the past year this model has been attracting a lot of attention from many countries and different stakeholders, for its transparent and democratic approach which coincides with what was established at the WSIS summit.

The CGI aims at coordinating and integrating all Internet service initiatives in Brazil, promoting innovation, quality dissemination of services, and, of course, also managing the It's financial sources were not only destined to that, but also to foster research and different initiatives as later on we will see how important these initiatives are. It was also in the in the government use of Internet, which we already presented in previous decisions of IGF, which had an important role in the development of the Brazilian Internet, which was in discussion in the Brazilian Congress.

As mentioned by Minister Paul Bernardo in the opening session will be a legislation that will establish a set of principles for the usage of Internet in Brazil by also defining rights and duties of Internet users. And these same principles also guided President Dumas in the speech at the United Nations General Assembly this year. In that occasion she mentioned freedom of expression, privacy of the individual and respect for human rights, open democratic governance carried out with transparency by stimulating collective creativity and participation of society, governments, private sector and multistakeholder as we heard in her speech later on, universality in the known discriminatory societies, without imposition of beliefs, customs and values, net neutrality, rendering it inadmissible restricted for political, commercial, religious, or any other purpose.

Of course, as you know, these principles were presented by our president in the context of the Brazilian response to the surveillance programs that affected the communication of Brazilian citizens, companies, and high‑level authorities.

While mentioning again our Minister Paul Bernard and the president, these principles we believe should guide us in the direction of a more democratic transparent Internet Governance. To enrich ethics also play a very important role. It's not my intention here to divert the focus of our discussion from the multistakeholder initiatives in the follow‑up of the WSIS declaration of principles. However, being from the Brazilian government, I could not abstain myself from commenting on this very important aspect of our policy to Internet Governance nowadays.

As you know, our president announced our intention to host a summit next ‑‑ in the first semester of next year, probably at the end of April, early May, to which, of course, we counsel on all stakeholders.

We believe will also help us in the follow‑up of the WSIS summit in many aspects of the WSIS outcomes that today we feel still have not been adequately implemented. So this is also one initiative that will feed our already existing processes.

So with these comments, I think I will give the floor to the other panelists which will present more concrete initiatives on the implementation of WSIS principles. Thank you.

>> MODERATOR: Next speaker would be Nnenna Ndakanma. I ask you to present yourself.

>> NNENNA NDAKANMA: Good morning. My name is Nnenna Ndakanma. I'm wearing the African Society badge, and I'm speaking on my personal behalf. I'm not speaking on behalf of the Worldwide Web Foundation. I cannot even pretend to speak on behalf of the whole of Africa. So I would just be speaking as someone who has been through WSIS on the self‑society side before the WSIS declaration and after the WSIS.

The first thing I would like to do is to remind us, I see some veterans here. Raul is here. Raul has been there from day minus one. And I see some of the people here around. I salute you all. Some people have grown gray hair since then, is grown fatter, they've aged in ten years. Someone who was born during prep now has a Smartphone. Someone who is born at that time now owns a Smartphone. That's how far we've come.

I want to point out particular issues. WSIS was one that came to bring in Civil Society. Before then I used to be a human rights activist. I used to be outside of U.N. conferences then. WSIS was the one that said you guys come in and let's hear you. So that was a break in tradition in the UN tradition for Civil Society and human rights activists. So that was the first initiative in itself.

During the prep, there was still government, but still open governments that said no, let's come to the table. So question a lot of drafting. The first thing we did was to have the Internet Governance Caucus. There were a lot of caucuses going around, but the Civil Society established itself as a stakeholder. And there were caucuses along the actual lines, education, human rights, Civil Society, governance. I still recall we had a finance caucus in those days, child rights. There were lots of these caucuses. And we did fit in into the general documents Prep‑Com1, Prep‑Com2, Geneva, second round, and finally Tunis to what we call a Tunis Agenda.

To be honest, the Tunis Agenda did not capture all our desires as Civil Society. Of course, did not capture all my desires as Nnenna, but we did realize this was a watered down consensus document. So now, moving from a watered‑down consensus document, how do we go about implementing it? And what I can say in multistakeholder initiatives is that in itself has been a victory. At least it has been what the French people call a key. It's been a solid result that at every point in time all the action line holders ‑‑ all the action line legacy holders, if I can call them ITU, and every other person, have met an e‑foot to be open. I recognize that an e‑foot has been made, Mr. Chair. I'm not saying that is effective.

And when I was doing the opening speech, I'm asking myself, should we be measuring multistakeholderism now? Because it is not enough to say all stakeholders are welcome. We must make sure that the participation of all stakeholders is equally valued.

The issue, as we've been ten years, can we say that the participation of all stakeholders have equal value? That's number one question. The second question is have we consciously engaged in making sure that the presence, the participation, the contribution, the desires of all stakeholders have equal footing? Finally, now that WSIS is getting to ten years old, where next are we going?

It's a good thing that this session is being organized by Brazil. Let me say that way. Now Brazil had stood up. Now everyone's looking at Brazil. So my last question will be what will be the rule that madam, thank you God, she's a lady ‑‑ thank you that she is a lady. So this great nation, led by a great woman, that is making efforts into looking at what could be a more participative approach. So my last question will be what will be the role of Brazil in multistakeholder initiatives around the policy areas of Internet Governance in particular and WSIS plus 10 in general. So I don't have answers to give you. Maybe you will regret that you have ever invited me, but I have questions for everyone here.

Thank you for now.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Nnenna. Our next speaker, everyone knows you.

>>RAUL ECHEBERIA: My name is Raul Echeberia. I'm from the Latino and the Caribbean group. I'm happy to be here. Thank you for the invitation to organize this workshop.

I think the topic of this workshop is really very interesting. The first thing that happened to me after I was invited to be part of this workshop was that I started to think about what happened in 2003. And I had not done that for a long time. And it is interesting when we realize that everything has changed since 2003. And just as one example, remember those of you that were around those topics at that time, remember that no government organizations were not permitted to participate in most of the debates in Geneva in 2003. In fact, we were not permitted to go into the rooms, as we were outside of the rooms trying to lobby the governmental representatives that were more friendly to us. We were trying to talk to them to explain our points.

When we come back to the present time, we realized that at this moment it's almost impossible to justify that something would be discussed in a normal stakeholder way. Sometimes when you are in a conference and you are writing or participating in the wording of our resolution, you don't understand the importance of what is happening. In many times of the things that are right you have no importance at all. But the impact of this declaration of principles in 2003 was really huge.

And I have to confess now when I look at 2003 again that the solution that was provided by the UN Attorney General at the time to save the summit that was really close of failure, the solution that he proposed to create the working group on Internet Governance was really a brilliant solution. And the working group on Internet Governance was a multistakeholder experience itself. And I say the professor was a colleague in that adventure in that working group. And so I remember the first time that I walk in the Geneva, we realize that there was not Internet access there. There was not enough plugs for connecting our computers.

So most of us say, okay, if this is the situation, we cannot work here. We will not come back because we cannot come to stay two or three days working in a working group in a closed room without connectivity.

So the next time when we come back to Geneva, everything had changed. We had Internet access. And the format of the desk had changed that we had enough plugs for connect the computers. And I realized how we were impacting in those small things the way in which the work was done in United Nations at the time.

It was a point that everything changed since that. And so we had opportunity to arrive to the second part of the summit in 2005 with a more clear understanding of all stakeholders that permitted to consolidate the principles of the Internet Governance.

So let's see. Let me not ‑‑ I would beg you permit me to not be very humble. And I think there is a good example of openness and participation. We are very open in our culture. Probably if we would not have that discussion in 2003 and 2005, we would not have changed the way that we use it to work. But we understand in that process to involve all the stakeholders. It became part of our culture. We cannot conceive our work without that openness.

We are not only open to the input coming from other stakeholder groups, but we are practically engaging and looking for engagement of all stakeholders. So we don't wait for people to come to ask to work with us. We go there trying to engage the people.

We have usually meetings with governments and Civil Society trying to understand what we can do in order to satisfy the expectations. In fact, tomorrow we have a meeting with the Internet Society. We're trying to understand what do you expect from us and anticipating a claim from any of those groups.

There is a level of maturity among the stakeholders in the Caribbean is really impressive. One example is ALAC is the Information Society in the region. It's a process that is led by Economic Commission of the Latin and Caribbean. In the first meeting that was held in 2005, it happened the same that I mentioned with regard to WSIS. The nongovernmental organizations were not allowed to participate in the discussions.

Now, since 2008, we not only are allowed to go into the rooms and participate in the debates, but also we are part of the following mechanism. There is a mechanism that is formed by governments and representatives from Civil Society and private sector and the community. We are following up in between the meetings, the mechanism of following up with what's happening in the region with regard to the Information Society.

The tradition that intergovernmental forums are increasing in the region, we are not only allowed to participate, but invited to participate. So now I can say that this is nongovernmental stakeholders are more open to the participation of governments and to the other stakeholders, too. Also, the tradition of governments is open to the participation of other groups. I think this happens just because the ‑‑ what we did ten years ago in 2003 in Geneva when the WSIS first part of the WSIS summit adopted those principles.

Now I think the next challenge is to go one step forward to increase the number of ‑‑ to step up the multistakeholder at the national level. There are some good examples mentioned here like the Brazilian 1, and other examples around the world. But the most common is that same governments or same people that promote multistakeholder government mechanisms in the level, don't implement governments at the national level. What we need now in order to have more involvement in all stakeholders in public policies that are mainly at the national level.

Thank you.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you. So now Cristine will present the case of using technical management. Cristine, explain the situation and technical background. Later will you present how you will implement the solution in Brazil.

>> CHRISTINE HOEPERS: Thank you. Good morning, everyone. My name is Cristine. I am from the technical community, the technical side. So I'm going to dive a little bit more in the technical area. Specifically, this effort that we did in Brazil, I think it's one of the examples of how multistakeholder model takes people from different countries or different sectors, but also from different backgrounds. This was an effort that actually brought together people from the legal area, from policy making areas, the technical people, all to understand the same problem and try to see how cooperating in doing everyone its part would actually make a difference for the situation in Brazil. I will talk about what it is that we are trying to solve, so we ask people that were in the main session. Spam was a major issue being discussed there and I think it was pretty clear that we have several different areas to combat spam. Even the definition of spam is not actually clear. There's criminal activities involving spam. There are botnet being used to send spam. There are also enterprising sending advertisement and it's really a broad problem. And then we'll talk more about the challenges and how are the multistakeholder challenges that we discussed in all the meetings and negotiations.

Basically what was the part of the spam problem that we were talking and trying to resolve. Was not really all spam. There is no solution that would be able to solve everything. And back in 2009, especially Brazil was being called like the king of spam, the country that had most spam in the world. And we were already doing some studies at that time that we expanded with the support from the Brazilian Internet committee and doing studies. We were able to show more than 90% of our spam leaving Brazil was actually coming from other countries. So Brazil was not a source of spam. As most countries, we were just the middle man. We were just someone being abused, abused our infrastructure to send spam.

This was having a negative effect in the country and problems for our networks. We had networks being blacklists, people having difficulty to send spam.

The common goal for everybody was really how to reduce abuse of the Brazilian infrastructure by spammers and by criminal. I think this is the major point. From a technical point of view, the name is very complicated, like what it is. It's really that e‑mail started the very beginning if we were talking where everybody would just connect to a Unix machine. That was the early days. No one would have Smartphones or PC's at home. So basically we would use the same protocol and the same technical users and technical means to sending e‑mails and transport and everything.

What this is really is an evolution to separate from my Smartphone sending an e‑mail to my provider and delivering. And what this is is really to separate. If there's an image here just to see that, you know, legitimate users, what do you do? You have Hotmail, Gmail, or whatever account. You just send an e‑mail. That goes to your provider. That is the first loop. The second one, that provider delivers to the other one.

The thing is that the spammers, they subvert that. They really, as the protocol is the same, they just go and deliver themselves. And that's what's really the problem we're trying to see is that people were not using the fair use of the Internet, were not using the right protocols. We were having a lot of problems.

To implement that, technically it's basically easy. You have like that gray area. There is the end user. So if we can stop the red area, the spammers to really send spam to people, that would solve the problem. Technically that was easy, but there are some other problems. We were discussing net neutrality. We were discussing all the users who have to change their configurations, what would that be. So something that technically was kind of obtuse became a little bit more complicated because you were changing a lot of things on the Internet.

But when we're talking to especially the consumer rights protections organizations, the minister of justice, the prosecutors and the legal part, it was very clear that this is the scene after we adopted the change. Nothing changes from the first one. It's really I am sending an e‑mail, someone is receiving that e‑mail, and basically I'm talking to my provider and the other is talking, so what's changed? Conceptually not much. What really changed is that they have to use a small configuration. But the dramatic change is that the spammers cannot abuse the network anymore. Basically we were able to stop spammers to abuse most of Brazilian networks, most of the botnets in Brazil. This was an effort that involved a lot of people to make sure we were not doing anything that would harm anyone. And from the perspective of the technical people, that was pretty much clear, but we had to involve everyone to understand how that worked.

What would be the real benefits of that? So these are just some of the major ones that we are already feeling since the beginning of this year. That was when we finished the implementation. The first one is that this is not something that did acts on content. There was no content inspection. There was nothing actually saying that a message is the spam because someone thinks it's a spam. It is just a technical way to stop spammers before the spam actually enters the network, so it's really just stopping people from abuser networks.

We have dramatic decrease in the number of Brazilian IP's listed in blacklists. So most of the operators, they don't have to deal with black lists any more. There's still some machines, yes. We still have some small enterprises, but it's not that big of a problem.

Bottom line, it takes harder for people to abuse the machines. Maybe they can steal credentials, try to do something else. But in the end that increases the cost of sending spam. That really reduces the value of the affected machines. We probably still have machines infected in Brazil, there are botnets in there doing other things, but they cannot send spam any more. That reduces a lot of that effect.

One of the things that you can see on the technical slides here, a major challenge from our slide in the technical area is really to explain how it really worked, why it was good, why it was not inspecting content, why it was different than saying something was spam based on someone thinking that this is appropriate or it's not. It's just really one of the methods to separate what is abuse of networks from what is real use and fair use of networks from the users.

But to implement that, we had to really bring all the sectors of the society together to understand, to see what would be the best way to implement and to actually make this effort to work very well. So I'm going to pass and he can go to the most important this panel that is the stakeholders part of this initiative.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Cristine. So we believe in Brazil is a good case for the multistakeholder initiative, as an example of multistakeholder. When we discuss this inside CGI, we discuss several aspects of this problem. Since the legislation that there's a lack of legislation in Brazil about the spam, the question about the marketing, and also this idea of providing a technical solution to block the spam before it's submitted. We study and most of the spam that was sent from Brazilian network comes from machines that were compromised. So we put this project on this task force as a priority. So now I show you that after five or six years we succeed, because after implementation that's finished this year, we are as of the first or second place country that's and now we are in the 25th position. We have for some months a very stable situation on the statistic after we implemented these ideas.

First, I would make a short presentation of our Internet committee. Most of you know our organization ‑‑ in fact we are here since '95, since the introduction of commercial Internet in Brazil. We are since the beginning a stakeholder group comprised of government, people from the government, from the Civil Society, meaning ONG from the private sector, myself and I was elect from the community. There are three others bot members that come from the private sector. We also have representative from the academia.

Our mandate comprised the things that I show in the slide, so the proposed policy and standards established strategies and directives on the use of the Internet. We are, in fact ‑‑ the name of CGI. But in fact we are the government and involved ‑‑ on the governance of the Internet, but. We have the allocation of the IP's and also for the domain name under .br. So we provide the service for the registration under the .br suffix.

We ‑‑ since 2005 we have an approximate CGI, in fact, the .br, the organization that has the staff that provides a statistic about the Internet in Brazil. The department is a source of information about Internet and users of Internet and the and definitely shot with the organization. We have here on the left side the representation from the government has nine persons representing. The CGI itself is coordinated by a person from the government. At IGF, it comes from the minister of science of technology. He is the coordinator from the. We have the president of the organization that makes the organization and personalized what CGI .br, and the other side you have the other persons that were elected in the process of three years.

I show you have far from third sector and three from academia. This effort was very complex. In fact, when we start, few people could believe that the problem could be attacked. It involves a lot of things. It involves problems like marketing. So legislation maybe. So the way that you choose to attack the problem was to avoid the abuse of the network and it should be coordinated between different players, different stakeholders. Internet in Brazil is very complex, because we have DSL service and mobile operators that provide connectivity to the 3G and the cellphones and Smartphones and also the cable operators. This part of the entry was very important, because the process of blocking part must be done at the ISP level because the users should be instructed to change their configuration from port 25 to a new port, port 587. But it's not enough to change the configuration through the ISP.

If it doesn't block on the network, the traffic through port 25, the situation you begin the same. So this kind of coordination between those kinds of companies, 2- or 3,000 ISP companies, and also all the institutions that involved on that, mainly the Brazilian ‑‑ since the beginning we should involve because the tel operators told us they are under contracts with the agents and they should do nothing without formal agreement with the agents. So the steps aren't falling. The CGI make a resolution saying that port 25 shouldn't be blocked because it should be good for the come back to the spam. Based on that, we convince the agents to make also a resolution that was that was an enforcement to tel operators to make this also. At the moment we have ISP's with several meetings with all the stakeholders during three years. The ISPs are working on converting their base from port 25 to port 587. But the ISP's did their work. Big ISP's convert and they help us to make the allocation of the customers about this effort. But we didn't start yet effective blocking by the operators.

Finally, after we have the agreement of the tel agency to do that, the telco companies that maybe it's not enough because the customers could go to justice asking for their rights because it was not that the port 25 should be blocked. So again we went to the government that introduced us, especially to the department of consumer protection, together with the association of consumer protection to explain how is important to block this port to make the Brazil network better? And we've ‑‑ from some months after we have a technical paper provided by the minister of justice saying it's good for the customer to block this port. Finally, we sign an agreement between all parties, the ISP's, the cable TV operators, and that everybody putting the framework ‑‑ time frame to implement the measure.

So we start this in March. So the end of last year, so one year the telco companies region by region they block port 25 and their networks appeared. In fact, how this effort was directed to real users, people who use computers as using any technology, but a dynamic IP. We don't change anything to the companies that have IP ‑‑ direct IP's. But it was a huge ‑‑ it was a huge effort because we talk about over 50 million Internet users in Brazil. We are working on that on the location through a website that we develop called We are not sure how much noise will be happening when, in fact, we change the key. There was a good thing on that project because the people who use web mail was not affected on this change because they already use other ports to send e‑mails.


But a portion of people that use, say, problems like e‑mail like Thunderbird or Outlook, should change this port. So we make a group to oversight the noise that can happen when the key was for our surprise, because of the hours that has more than three years before we change the key, the noise was very low, very low. In fact, sometimes we adopt the telco as far as closing port 25.

I show the results to see how the thing evolve on that.

That's one of the one of the campaigns that we made. We made campaigns through the ISP's and through press release and press conferences. In fact, much time before we close port 25, our committee knows about the benefits and we are advocating for us companies like that.

We also make some flyers when we show what Christine showed before, how we implement the use of e‑mail through e‑mail provider, not allowing direct remaining from the users of home computers. That's the results. This graph shows complaints that people make to .br. So you can see clearly after 2011 that the claims are getting lower.

But the important thing is we measure through the blacklist, through how the blocking of IP's in Brazil grow exponentially low after we implemented the measure. In November last year we have 600,000 IP's listed in blacklist. And we add in second position as the country who, after the blocking, you are going down in the number of IP's, IP's listed on the blacklist and we now are in the ‑‑ we are between in third position. Maybe 25 for as soon as we finish this transition.

So it was successful. It was successful. The Internet ‑‑ the use of bandwidth of the Internet through a group of spammers that use our network decrease. The sensation from the users that abused sending that he doesn't know was going through their machines, the quality of those connections getting better. We have very few noise on the ‑‑ from the users about the things that should be made.

In fact, when someone make a claim on the Internet saying, "I can't send more e‑mail. I don't know what's happening." Tens of people respond, oh, change the port 587 because Brazil make this change since November.

So it was successful. Here also I show you how the biggest ISN in Brazil, the big operators, come out from the blacklists. We have one here that has a long 105,000 IP's and goes to near zero. So everybody was positively affected. So here is the reference, our unspun website, unspun project, and some documents that we have prepared and are available on our website.

So that's our project ‑‑ I believe now you can open for discussion for the ‑‑ for all the talk that we have in this section.


>> I have a question. First, I'd like to thank all panelists who have come along to discuss such an important matter. It's interesting to see and to hear so many different and interesting views coming from developing countries. I'm really glad to the result of this workshop.

The advancements of the Internet in the last ten years are great. And I believe WSIS process has contributed with many of the achievements by the international community. Still there are many challenges to be overcome, many related to the inclusion, security, and many related to a democratic Internet, human rights, freedom of expression and privacy are effectually guaranteed. Only 30 percent of the population have access to the Internet. There are struggles like network neutrality. The results of port 25 presented by Cristine are just an example of the power that one stakeholder initiatives have to implement the principles debated at WSIS, process and principles debated in the country levels like the principles developed by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, which is a stockholder organism created to discuss the challenge of the Internet in Brazil.

The Internet Governance regime at international level has been shaped in the last four decades according to the interest of actors that in a contest of a global technological competition have acquired ‑‑ have an explicit differential power. This is based on the knowledge they have acquired during the Internet historical development process. It enables the actors to understand better than others the political and economical effects, and globally applicable standards in accordance with their political and economic interests.

What I'd like to ask is in what degree the failures to implement WSIS principles, looking to the failures now, and are related to the failure to implement multistakeholder in a global level to overcome these inequality in a structured regime.

>> NNENNA NDAKANMA: I didn't realize I was going to get the mic quickly. I think that's a very important question. That's why I was speak earlier about measurement.

Now, I'm in a very bad situation to say this, because I am in a session, and it will look as if I'm throwing flowers on Brazil, which is not my nature. But I would have loved to be in another session, maybe in an African session and I'll be saying this: How many countries can openly declare their processes, its instances, their participant at the IGF? Apart from Brazil, how many other countries can do this? It's unfortunate, I would have loved to speak what I want to say to many other African countries. How many other countries actually organizing stuff in the IG session apart from Brazil? I would love to hear those numbers.

Anyway, that's my aside. But maybe I would like to say that multistakeholder participation is actually the other name for democracy. And because an Algerian, living in Cote d'Ivoire, partly in Ghana and moving around Africa, I would love to say that the failure in multistakeholder approach is not different from the failure in democracy, transparency, and accountability. Thank you.

>> RAUL ECHEBERIA: Thank you. Very good comments. Let me just add some comments myself. I do agree with you while there are many areas in the follow up to WSIS that we need to work harder, especially the inclusion of bigger part of the world population in the Internet having good Internet access. This is something Brazil's concerned as well. We have been implementing policies, the national broadband policy in order to expand access for Internet with quality to bigger part of our population and we believe that this is the reason our countries and our stakeholders need to dedicate themselves to the review process of the WSIS. It's just not only identified areas where we came short of implementing the results of WSIS, but in order to propose, how can we move forward and identify a way to resolve those issues?

Thank you.

>> I think there are different kind of countries. We have countries that are about the benefits of the multistakeholder model. When I say with regard that this is the new name of democracy. And I'm convinced that most of the developments of the democratic system that we'll see in the next few years go through the implementation in different areas. There are some countries that are convinced about the benefit and they are trying to implement or they have already implemented multistakeholder mechanism. Brazil is a notable example. And I guess I heard about Kenyan model this is one set of countries. There are other set of countries that that they have in the political ‑‑ the values of those countries are aligned with the those values that we are trying to promote through the multistakeholder model, but for some reason they have not moved to the implementation of the multistakeholder model. There are other countries that are countries that don't share those values, are not interested in them because our countries that are not in favor of freedom of expression, of participation of the citizens.

But not only this is ‑‑ this is not only limited to the Internet. There are countries where the human rights are not respected at all. And so it is not respectable that they will implement mechanism for increase the participation and openness and participation in the internal governance. If they don't do that, the same things in rest of opportunities in the society. But I think that there is a large group of countries that is in the second group that I mentioned that this is the countries where we have to focus our action, because this is where we can get good results with reasonable work.

And I think there are many countries that are participating in this kind of forums and going around and looking at examples that are being presented in different workshops and they are paying attention. And in the sense that when we go through the process in next year, the review of WSIS and also those ‑‑ this process that is being launched for trying to look for an alternative multistakeholder model for the governance of the Internet in Brazil, I think when we go through this process we will get more governments and also more stakeholders claiming for implementation of multistakeholder models at the national level.

So I think it will be good. But I would not say necessarily that cop go back to your question that the failure is because the lack of multistakeholder model. There are things that are going together. The evolution of democracy in the democratic countries with the implementation of this with new ways of participation.

>> NNENNA NWAKANMA: This one is a story. You can analyze it any way you want. In December there was a world conference of information technology in Dubai where it was the telecommunication regulations and Internet Governance was a huge debate in that meeting. I had funding as Civil Society to attend. But that meeting was not open to Civil Society as such. You needed to come you need someone that had an ITU handle to register you. You needed to come under the delegation of the ITU members. I sent an e‑mail to three entities. One or two government organizations and one organization. One government reply to me and say this is not a meeting where for people like you. That's the official reply.

The other government organization say we don't have money to pay your per diem. And African organizer said we will refer it to our higher order and get a reply and get back to you. So these are the third responses. Basically saying no, we don't want you.

I sent a letter to technical organization, and they said no problem. The next 24 hours I was registered. That's technical community.

And so I get to Dubai. When they start the discussions, I had already said I'm a legally trained person; so I read the smaller pages, the more I want to read it. That's my nature. I read. When we start the discussions, the first government that said they didn't have per diem said, "oh, you know, you could join our delegation. There are about 64 of us here, but we don't really have experts in the field."

And I'm like, okay. The next day they registered me now as an official delegation of that country.

The other country that said it's not for people like you, it's high level, only people at ministerial level, only two of them came. And none of them could understand English. And they called me and said, "Could you help let us understand what is going on?"

The third organization that said we will refer it to higher authorities, came and said, "You know, we need someone to take notes in French and English. Could you come and help us with part of our secretariat?" Because now I'm in Dubai and they are seeing me, and the funny stories that we had in Africa meeting.

Someone who has known me through the WSIS days as Civil Society, and this is someone within the government has anti‑civil code, the third group I was talking about. So now that order of government has registered me as a government delegate, ITU will change the color of your badge. You know what I mean?

So my badge changes from this color to the government color. That means now I can speak on behalf of government A. So we have this African meeting. Because government A has recognized that I have expertise, now they say, "No, you go ahead and speak." And I now become second in the delegation.

And this person walks in and says, "What are Civil Society people doing in this room?" And he's looking at me. And screaming, basically screaming. And I'm like, keep cool, keep cool. And someone calls him and says in the way Africans talk, "My brother, we are not doing anything in here. We've always had these people work with us. So please, could you cool down and mind you we are being live cast. Some people on remote participation may hear you." And he was ashamed. So look at this scenario and analyze it for yourself.

>> CHRISTINE HOEPERS: I would like to add not multistakeholder, but you said a little bit about challenges in security. Security is very complex. It's very hard to understand. And as I am from the security community, what I'm seeing what worries me most is that we are using excuse and what exactly makes people more secure or what is making it easier to control or to control people or to control access or information.

On the other hand we have a lot of people that want more privacy and more security being against some key security measures, thinking that that would give more control. So this is one of the challenges in this community to really ‑‑ this is just one of the examples in the complex technical nature of some things that are not being understood are being used to exert control or agendas. In the end we are not improving security at all. Sometimes just debating what to do or not do. I think this is one of the challenges and you were talking about the past ten years. We could have done more to evolve. I think it means more technical people understanding the policy level challenges, the policy measures and understanding and the technical areas. Not really to understand how to implement things, but really to understand, not to have claims but ideas just because someone has had. This is something that worries me a lot.

It's being a failure of communication between the different communities. Everybody needs to worry a lot because security isn't as popular, and people are talking without necessarily knowing what exactly are the repercussions and what could happen, depending on what's implemented or what's regulated or what is really proposed out there.

>> MODERATOR: I have a comment about the presentations. Multistakeholder model is not an easy task. Even at the local governance of the Internet, we can have tensions between different stakeholders between governments, private sector, different kinds of private sector community, academia, etc. But we believe that those tensions and those efforts to search for consensus between those groups are a rich process. But it's not easy, saying one country, Brazil, working on that model for over 15 years, it could be noticed that each country has different backgrounds.

These should appear also at the national level in other countries. But these difficulties are not a mistake in going in that direction, because we can see ‑‑ we can't see any model that would be better than this multistakeholder model, because it's the government taking the main role on the governance of the Internet as some agencies try to do. It's not the good solution for the Internet in the way that we believe it should be.

Anyway, we have five minutes. I believe the microphone is open for more questions. We should finish in five minutes more. Anyone else have a question?

>> I don't know if five minutes will be sufficient, but I'll ask the question anyway. I was wondering what's your opinion about the gap which I believe there exists a gap between the technical community and the community that defines the policies? Sometimes we can see that people define policies because they don't know about technical stuff. As Cristine mentioned before, they may define policies that are not aligned with the technical stuff that we have today. The other way around as well, we may have tools that are interesting to implement some things, but then because the technical people don't understand properly the policies, those implementations may not be adequate. Not because of the technical tools that we have, but because the tools themselves may hurt the policies that has been defined by someone else.

Do you believe that there is any mechanism to try to make those two different communities to talk to each other?

>> CHRISTINE HOEPERS: I'll make a comment about the experience that I had as someone technical in the seven years we were talking about port 25 management, and also I think there is a lot of preconceptions when we start talking to different connectors. There is a huge problem with vocabulary. So I think it's a major challenge. Not only that people don't understand what you're saying, but at the same words mean different things in different worlds. That makes a lot of people to overreact. There's a lot of overreaction, because there's just a word that it's not that powerful in technical areas. It's just like that word that is forbidden in the policy making levels. So maybe we should try to have, like, a vocabulary for technical and nontechnical people. We are discussing a lot about having, like, governance training and everything. And the thing that we are discussing the most with the team from the Internet Steering Committee, it's really how to convince the technical people that they need to attend the policy level sessions and to convince the policy level people that they need to understand about technical stuff.

One of the things that I think that I'm really worried, the technical community is just joking because it is leak in the media, someone has this brilliant idea about security and they say, okay, that's never going to work, but they need to react; sometimes overreact. I think sometimes there is no recipe.

All the talks we had, especially with the legal people, it was hard. But as both sides were really willing to understand what each other were doing and they were trying to have a common goal that was a reduce spam in Brazil, two, three, four meetings, a lot of different drawings. We were trying to breach this gap. Then at the end we actually came up with something that was very valuable because it was something that would be useful for the whole community.

So I don't know if there is a secret, but if both parties are willing to talk and exchange, I think that is the way to go. I don't know if Raul sees that.

>> RAUL ECHEBERIA: Yes, this is the short answer. This is our daily work trying to influence people that make decisions in order to allow them to take informed decisions. This is a permanent challenge because there is always this congressman, new senator, a new person in the government that is ‑‑ that have ideas, push for some new ideas. So it is almost impossible to talk to everybody. I don't think that despite the fact that I agree with what Cristine say about the overreaction, I think at least in Latin America, people are usually open to talk. But also I do be in touch with everybody. But when possible, usually people is open to know about what are the implications of the ideas that they are promising. So our experience is positive. This is the daily work that is a permanent challenge.

>> MODERATOR: More question for the audience? Okay. I'd like to thank you for your attendance, and I believe it was good ideas and the exchange of some experience that show that multistakeholder model is good to go along. Thank you.


This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.


Contact Information

United Nations
Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Villa Le Bocage
Palais des Nations,
CH-1211 Geneva 10

igf [at] un [dot] org
+41 (0) 229 173 411