Welcome to the United Nations | Department of Economic and Social Affairs


OCTOBER 24, 2013

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.

          >> Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

My name is George Sedowski.

I'm associated with ICAN and I'm the moderator for this session.

It's number 55, dynamic coalition on core Internet values.

Dynamic coalitions were initiated by the IGF in the beginning pretty much of its existence. The idea of special interest groups of course occurs in many organizations.

Here they were called dynamic coalitions and there were a number of them set up to address various topics.

The dynamic coalition on Internet values has been spearheaded by Alejandro pisanti, joining us remotely from Mexico city, and has a number of members and also a website in which its activities are tracked.

The purpose of this workshop is to talk about core Internet values, in particular to look at policy changes in the Internet space in the recent past and what they have done with respect to either enhancing or detracting from core Internet values.

Now, I'm not a member of the coalition, so when I was asked to do this task, I started thinking what are core Internet values, to start with.

Turns out the coalition has a fairly well defined way of looking at this.


All right, we have a second microphone.

     I thought well, the Internet itself is a network. And as such, it really has no values as a network.

The values are what can be done with it.

But then I thought well, the people who built the Internet in the early, late '69, 1970s and '80s, they had a sense of what the Internet could do.

Just a moment.

We have a problem with people who are participating remotely.

Could they hear me with the first microphone I had?

Oh, that's not good.

     >> George, we are having a remote observation.

     >> GEORGE: Can they see the text, Ian asks, remotely.

     >> I can see the text.

     >> GEORGE: That's good, thank you, Alejandro.

Let's see, where was it.

The people who conceived of the Internet and designed it clearly did have values, which they felt that existing networks were, in particular the PSTN, public switch telephone network, were not providing.

Those basic values affected the architecture of the network of the Internet of the TCPIP protocol family and established a culture of the Internet which early on was focused on research and education, and the values, the human values that went with research and education were ones of collaboration and sharing, in fact very aggressive sharing of information at that time.

And that is the Internet culture which still exists but has clearly made accommodation for other kinds of uses of the Internet.

By embodied potential in the implementation of the Internet, the Internet now supports the kinds of things that help us to exercise our human values.

For example, the Internet has no central point of control.

That is extraordinarily helpful for issues such as privacy. And everyone a publisher.

And the kinds of functionality that the architecture allows then allows us to make use of the Internet for our human values, freedom of expression, et cetera, that are based ultimately on that first set of choices for implementation of the net.

The coalition has chosen three particular values which are what they consider to be the core Internet values, and they are on the screen now if you can see the screen.

This is more than just those three, but it's a list of what we think has happened to those values by virtue of various actives in the last year.

The values chosen are end‑to‑end connectivity, interoperabilitirs and openness.

What we will be doing is first having Alejandro walk us through his work and what he has done and why he has done it.

Then we will have our comment taters on the panel talk about specific issues in this space.

Then we'll have them argue with each other, because I hope they are not likely to agree on everything.

Then we'll open it up for audience participation.

So Alejandro, the investor at the national autonomous University of Mexico, and who is on line, will now take over.

Can you put Alejandro on.

(Buzz on line).


     >> Alejandro, we are waiting for you to speak.

It may be that the link is not working.

     I think that hypothesis is being confirmed.


Any technical moderator, do you have anything to say? Probability of reestablishing the link?

All right, in order to make good use of time, while technical staff is trying to reestablish the link with Alejandro, we'll go to our panelists.

What I'm going to do is to tell you their names, and I'm going to ask them to introduce themselves in terms of background, but limit the introduction to 140 characters.


     >> (Chuckles).

     >> GEORGE: Then in the spirit of tweeting verbally.

And I'd like to ask each of the panelists to make whatever comments they wish on this space, five minutes or so plus or minus.

Let's go through the panel.

I'll ask the technical moderator to signal me when we have Alejandro back on line.


     >> Thank you very much.

I'm Jeremy Malcolm. I work at very project officer for customers international which is the global confederation of consumer groups.

     I think that is my 140 characters.

Do I make my remarks now?


     I of course agree with all of the core Internet principles so far as they go.

     I was in a panel yesterday organized by the OECD, and ISOC on the value of openness.

So I went into that session, and I said well, it's difficult to know how to approach this panel because there's nothing really to disagree with.

So I decided to say how much I hate openness just to make it a bit more interesting.

I'm going do the same thing today, and I'm going to try and gently critique the idea that advancing the core values of the Internet is an end in itself.

Particularly the underlying assumption that these core values have a necessary relationship with broader social values such as human rights.

The reason why I'm doing that is because the approach of nominating these core Internet values seems to imbue them with some sort of transcendent moral value of their own where in fact they are basically technical choices that the engineers made in the beginning which don't in themselves have any legitimacy that we can justify.

These were a bunch of engineers. We admire them, they were brilliant, they had, no doubt, had a good moral sense. But you know, they weren't, they were just human beings, and they didn't have necessarily the broad exposure to all of the social conditions that now apply to Internet uses around the world.

So often our support for these values comes down to unspoke sentiments like we like hacker culture because the particular choices the hackers made sended to support policies we favor such as freedom of expression and so on.

It was a fairly narrow culture, you know. Mainly people from the west, mainly people educated white men, and so why should anyone from outside that culture, that sub culture, agree with the decisions they made.

It's not justifiable as the outcome of any democratic stilless globally democratic process.

The engineers were good people, but they weren't elected, weren't an inclusive group in terms of geography or gender balance and so on.

So mostly the choices that they did make are favorable for our underlying values, such as freedom of expression, and less often privacy, but sometimes they are not.

Sometimes they don't favor those underlying values.

Sometimes they are a real pain.

For example, how these values facilitate spam and other antisocial things that the technical community as much as anyone has subsequently had to fight against.

So governments when the Internet technical community is talking to governments and saying look, we know what to do, the governments have some justification in saying well, why? Why are you elevating these key characteristics to such privileged position, when maybe if different technical choices had been made in the beginning, we might have had a slightly different set of core values of the Internet, and those might not have caused some of the same problems like spam and cyber crime and so on.

My conclusion, I want to suggest, and I'm deliberately being a little bit provocative, I want to suggest we don't want to reify the core values of the Internet so much. For advancing particular policies these values may be good or bad or indifferent, but they certainly weren't handed down to us by god, and governments have no reason to treat them as such.

Just a little bit of food for thought to begin.

     >> GEORGE: Thank you, Jeremy.

Next, Suzanne Wolfe.

     >> My tweet, yeah, what I have here is 20 years experience as a policy friendly Internet technologist, white, not a man.


There you go.

Yeah, not much I can do about being either white or not a man.

     I was sitting here listening, I'm actually really happy with what Jeremy said because I was sort of heading for being a little bit provocative in the other direction, which is to say first of all, not familiar with the dynamic coalition, I had the opportunity to come in very much fresh, not exposed previously to this picture of what the core values were.

And from my experience, speaking only for myself, but I have worked in the field, I have worked in the policy bodies for I can't, and for the IARs, I have been a working technologist, and from that perspective, these values actually make a great deal of sense to me.

Not because they are always the friendliest to a particular set of social policies or social priorities, but because of over all they seem like the best way of maximizing the chance of evolving the infrastructure as the social needs change.

My alternate view in fact of the underlying core values in the sense that we're talking about them here, I would almost reduce to two, that the infrastructure must be flexible, which is close to what we have been talking about as interoperability, but goes even further as a general principle, that we need to be able to keep the infrastructure friendly to whatever we need to build on top of it, even things we can't foresee yet.

The other fundamental value is scalability, which I think sub assumes what we talking about here as openness as well, where the other thing we have to preserve is whatever we are doing with the infrastructure that enables more users to do more good and useful things, that that continue to work as we have billions more users and millions more applications and trillions more bits.

What I would argue, again to be, to happily be a little bit provocative, is that we actually have some examples, not only privacy, but the easy one to pick on in this context right now is the surveillance concerns, where these are extremely important concerns and important social principles involved, but there's also a caution that there's always a temptation to modify these underlying core principles to deal with a particular challenge, a particular issue, a particular set of concerns.

We have been there before.

There will be other challenges in the future.

And even as serious as today's challenges are, we have to proceed with the assumption that there will be other challenges in the future, an we don't want to compromise our ability to deal with those in order to deal with today's.

I'm kind of staking out the opposite territory there, but I think that really is a discussion worth having.

     I very much appreciate the opportunity to be here for it.

     >> GEORGE: Thank you very much.

Do we have progress on the technical linkage?



Probably not.

     >> ALEJANDRO: I am here.

     >> GEORGE: Can he speak now?

     >> ALEJANDRO: I am here.

     >> GEORGE: Let me introduce Alejandro.

     >> ALEJANDRO: I only get noises from the room.

Can you understand me?

     >> GEORGE: We hear you at a low level of volume.

We'll try to increase that.

Can we?

Alex, talk loudly.

Let's try it.

     >> ALEJANDRO: I will talk loudly.

Let's see if it works.


     >> GEORGE: Yes.

     >> ALEJANDRO: I will do this very briefly.

     I agree with Suzanne particularly.

That is exactly what we started, the reason we started this dynamic coalition.

We see that there are rights, issues like privacy, other people are more concerned about child protection and other kinds of conducts.

And each of them can lead to some apparently small adjustment of the way the network operates where you would want to change it to make it better.

You may suddenly not have the effort.

Our concern is to monitor how the basic issues with the Internet, like openness of the network, interoperability, scalability, a few others are being affected or at risk of being affected, either negatively or in a chance of being improved by other things that are happening.

To make it very brief, that is why we decided this year to look at a couple of (breaking up), let me say first, when I'm speaking of values, we're always speaking of design principles.

And we only speak of values insofar as the design principles also translate.

But the core concern is on the (breaking up) of the Internet being all encompassing communication for all.

For this year we chose to analyze what has been the effect, let's say improvements or challenges on end‑to‑end, on openness, and as you can see on the table, we went to actually these values with a goal sent out to a number of experts.

That was a small provocative conversation.

Seems everybody is being provocative today.

     That was bouncing around a few weeks.

We (breaking up) very knowledgeable about this from very different angles, not only the technical one.

And we got, you have the summary in the room of what we see are some of the opinions and the evaluations that we get on improvement, challenges, things that are neutral or unclear.

To mention one and come back to what Sam mentioned.

On one hand, the openness seems to have offered a challenge with revelations about the extensive surveillance in many countries.

Because there is a chilling effect and users are reviewing what technologies they are will use, they will probably use technologies that are less open like encryption, which will not always be an open standard encryption, so that will make openness suffer.

On the other hand, the sole fact that we know so much more publicly about the extensive surveillance that has been taking place, that many more people that are away, and there's pressure on the technical and the commercial and the political levels to deal with this surveillance.

That is actually going to be beneficial for openness.

And also for interoperability and for the end‑to‑end principle.

Because people are actually going to make sure that they have these principles applied in better protected communications and with better threat model.

     I will close for now just commenting on one point Jeremy said, which is indeed that we are not custom Mcing this, but we certainly have identified principles that guide especially a technical community in their operations, planning and organization, and (breaking up).

Certainly the only thing, besides, the permanent (inaudible) principle of innovation, the interim principle is being changed as we speak, interpreted and revealed, and so for the other ones, and the main point is they keep the Internet open to all innovations and that they continue to be as George said, decentralized so you don't have a central point of control, where you can build your own private new Internet that may restore what we really have globally.

So thank you.

     >> GEORGE: Alex, thank you very much.

Don't go away because there will be questions and discussion for you after the speakers give their first impressions.

Next we have Carol Ricini, your tweet, please, and your views.

     >> Thing, and thank you for the invitation to join the table.

     I am a Brazilian lawyer and currently live in the U.S. directing the Latin America program with the new America foundation.

     I work with issues and by U.S. law I am a known person, which means I can be surveilled without any warrant. Even living in the U.S.

So I actually want to react to some points. But one of my focus, I would like to go a little vertical and talk a little bit about one option done by the IWC, which actually is against the core values they have been advocating for so many years. Right?

I want to talk a little bit about the EMN, the encrypted media extension, which is DRM, which is a technology which allows DR M and the core technology of the Internet.

So in terms of some of the reactions, I am really worried. With one word Suzanne you use it, actually, that is the word friendly.

As a lawyer we look at these words, and they do have many means.

And I do think that we are in a moment that we really have tried to advocate for the implementation of the core principles as they mean. And friendly, for example, means choices.

But also means choices for the good and for the bad.

So should we be developing just good choices on what open actually means.

     I do think we have to be very careful with some words that open for bad design under what we imagine.

Just a quick note on that. I'm really concerned now, a us know, Brazil besides of all the surveillance issues we have been discussing now, we are implementing one of the first laws to regulate the Internet which is the Marco review.

We are in a very difficult moment to carefully regulate what the principles mean. Right? And what neutrality means in practice.

So I met actually with a lot of help from this community concerned with the core principles to help on that drafting.

Hopefully the Marcos review is going to be approved we think this year, so then we will be past the regulation stage.

Let's move forward to the DRM.

As many of you may know, (inaudible) announced that the working group on one of the working groups of the W 3 C will incorporate what they call playback of protected content.

And this does mean this working group may have in its work products technology that enables to be embedded on browsers and many of the technologies we use on the day by day.

Many organizations protested.

He visited and we had mass protested, however that was approved in October.

     I do believe that is a dangerous step for an organization seen by many as the guardian of the open web.

That is when I come back to Jeremy, right?

We trust this organization many times should take decisions for us. But should we keep trusting or should we have more accountability issues regarding what the W 3 C does.

     I think it's a question of representativeness of how the core issues means.

And accepting, I could let various stakeholders, various rights holders, the big accounting companies, demand the same privilege in terms of web or images and pages cannot be saved or searched, ads cannot be blocked, and a know new browsers cannot compete without permission from the big companies.

This really worries me if you cross what is going on at the technical level with the content layer.

Right? At the content layer we are negotiating in multilateral forums like the Working Collective Proprietary Organization, a series of treaties for the blind, libraries, education, and those, they say these communities can have access, can copy content.

There's a lot of exceptions.

And how much DRM gets entrenched in the technology, harder and harder it will be to exercise those rights at the content layer.

So this worsies me a lot.

We are again compromising towards something that is practical, a practical decision, against something that we should take as a core value.

     I won't go much further because another colleague will also discuss this issue.

But I do think we have a problem going forward, HTML 5 discussion.

Again I post this question for you on the panel, practicalability override core values again and again.

This is an important solution without considering implications for major stakeholders.

Thank you very much.

     >> GEORGE: Thank you Carol.

     I should warn you she is the first of three intellectual property lawyers to talk.

This question is probably going to be beaten to death by the time we're done.

The next speaker is Hong Swa.

     >> Thank you, George.

I'm law professor from Beijing normal University, director of institute for Internet policy and law, also the codirector of United Nations commission on the international trade law and Beijing normal University joint certificate program.

Yesterday I had a short discussion with George and Suzanne, very helpful in trying to set up a framework to understand this very comprehensive document presented by Alejandro.

We try highlight as a technical value being designed into the Internet configurations.

As Suzanne has beautifully and gracefully presented.

And the social values we want to promote. And these values may or may not be consistent with these core values that have been enshrined in the technology core of the Internet.

Such as privacy. It is not working very well with the Internet very open structure, but it's value we need to promote in the society with the development of Internet.

As our colleague has mentioned the DRM I can't agree with more, the organization introduced a legal protection for technology core measures protection in 1996, but these are digital rights management, what has been very much developed and expanded widely implemented.

Of course copyright is not required to implement any technology measures, it's to protect the cover, but as far as the pressure to protect the works, these measures must be protected by the law.

What we can see now is that it has been built into the free trade agreement and pluri lateral trade agreement like TPPs, and is very much more than the original legal protection design for WCT and WPPT is pretty dangerous.

But not to talk about the legal issue and going back to the technical issue and its relevant to the core value.

     I have used one specific example as a colleague mentioned the WC 3 core standards.

I want to mention the takedown measure.

     I think this is very dangerous, the technology measure used as law enforcement.

Previously a couple of law enforcement measures on the Internet but primarily content level.

We know the famous measure introduced by the NCH in 1998 but now it seems the takedown is going down into the critical Internet resource level with the copyright industry discovered a short cut to take down a domain name. Of course it permanently and quickly takes down the contents contained in the bap size, but really many many problems and directly go against a corp value of end to end.

Think about a dough name name registry and registrar, they don't distinguish the infringing or noninfringing traffic. How can they differentiate which is infringing the other's copyright.

This is really against all the technical design value that has always been respected in Internet community.

Of course the lawyers may be applauding for the swiftness of this enforcement, but think about the legitimacy of this measure.

     I know there have been two bills in Congress but it was not really work out, but people are still working on that.

     I do call your attention to these new initiatives that is really not consistent with Internet core value, and we should think about how and to what extent these law enforcement measures should be consistent with the core value of the Internet if it's going to be implemented.

     >> GEORGE: Thank you.

Our last speaker, Alice Munia.

     >> Thank you, it's great to be here.

A lot has been said, so I'm going to be very brief.

I'm a Kenyan working with the African union commission.

From a policy making perspective and somebody who lives and works in Africa, there's a general agreement that really principles do play a very fundamental role especially in regulatory regimes and policy processes. Implementation especially of regulation.

But from where I'm sitting, the African union commission, we tend to think most of us actually suffer from ambiguity and also contradiction.

Sometimes I personally tend to think they set up as rhetoric for various stakeholder groups. When you come down to really defining them in a way that makes sense, a way that can be implemented, becomes a little difficult.

And also just simply balancing the needs and concerns of the different constituencies also becomes a problem.

For example, our government, the African Union has a very specific concern, cyber security.

We saw it played out during the weekend.

So I think that the issue is balancing that, balancing the need to have principles and norms, the need to have legislation or regulatory framework that addresses issues of spam, cyber security, data protection, versus the issue of free flow of information and privacy.

So most policy makers will be attempting to define rules and regulations before really, you know, before thinking about principles and norms, as a reaction to what they believe. Because most of them would believe, and also they believe most of us are on the Internet and really we are not, and so that we need protection.

There's also that issue, the lack of looking at perhaps access practically before implementing regulation and norms.

Then for me, one principle that is very important, and I see played out in a lot of Internet governance spaces including i con, is the issue of diversity and participation.

When I look around the room, I think I'm the only one from the African content, and this is a problem in that we keep talking about diversity, but how do you practically implement it. How do you ensure.

We all have to come back to ensuring we have enough of us to have access to the Internet to be able to actually have impact on some of these processes. Or are we going to spend a lot of money and resources trying to bring many of us to these spaces but it's not really meaningful participation because it's not yet for us accessing the Internet is still not a real life issue.

It is from a policy perspective and from a development perspective, but I think if you ask amongst the needs, it's really still not as important.

So I think those are the challenges, the challenges of ensuring that as many of us from the developing countries are able to participate meaningfully, and diversity, not just linguistic and cultural, but diversity in literally playing a role in determining how the Internet is governed.

     I think I'll stop there, thank you.

     >> GEORGE: Thank you, that is the end of round one.

There have been a number of provocative things said.

     I have a number of questions.

     I suspect others do too.

Who would like to challenge what has been said or add to what has been said, complement what has been said by another speaker? Anyone on the panel?

Good, I guess we will.

Fine, let's see what participants in the room have to say about anything that has been presented or any other aspect of the core principles that have been espoused here.

Okay, I see Ian, then the woman in front of Ian, and the man in the back.

     >> Thank you.

     I really have appreciated this.

     >> GEORGE: Could you state your name and affiliation.


     >> GEORGE: That would help.

     >> My name is hose no from UNESCO.

An its a great pleasure to hear all your interesting presentation.

First of all I want to share many of your views, besides being provocative.

UNESCO is an intergovernment organization. From our point of view, we see Internet governance should be governed by sort of international agreed standards and principles based on the universal declaration of human rights which has been endorsed by all the member states of the United Nations in 1948.

In the context of Internet governance, we also perceive several other integral principles and core values to be equally preserved.

As you have also mentioned, openness, for example.

When we say openness, we say not only the technical standard, but also market, business, renovation openness.

And also the core values such as accessibility, including the mult lingualism, content diversity, and also the user literacy.

Also multilateralism definitely core value. Every session is talking about it.

My question, while I personally definitely think that these core values, human rights based, openness, accessibility, ail truism, should be respected by all stakeholders, but what do you think is the job particularly of technical community. And maybe also some Internet and intermediaries.

What is their role.

Should they have the same responsibility to respect those human rights standards? In terms if I am an engineer, imagine I was writing a code, should I think about what does it mean to the human rights, for example, privacy or free expression, does it have anything.

     I try to respect it from the level of technical, beginning with attitude of the technical choice. The member states and government policy advice, to respect the standards. And also are there any good practice or bad one, if you like to share, I'd like to hear.

Thank you.

     >> GEORGE: Thank you.

First of all, you have given me a wonderful segue into the next workshop, which is Friday morning a workshop, sorry, this afternoon at 2:30, the role of the technical community in Internet governance.

So number 210, we will explore that further.

Who on the panel would like to talk to this? Carol.


     >> I just want to address one of the points.

Two actually.

     I do think the core values are brood enough.

It's very interesting, right, when we think about principles. Even in Brazil when chairman spoke in UN, she used five principles.

But those two open ten principles that we have in Brazil.

Here I think is the same. We have four principles.

So it's end‑to‑end, openness, interoperability, and freedom of expression is actually part of the dynamic coalition of core principles.

     I do think some of the principles you mentioned are within the diversity, has furthered this coalition, neutral within openness.

Maybe that is a didactic division, maybe we need more time to discuss that.

The other point I would like to address is the ICP issue.

     I completely agree with you, but I do think that ISCP sometimes are put in very very difficult situations. Right?

We can complain about Google, about twitter, Facebook we can actually complain. Actually Google and twitter, and also there Brazil and U.S., they do fight back in many court orders regarding takedown and user identity. They request for that.

At least in U.S. they do have processes to do that by law, by the DMC 8, for example, and also the data personal.

In Brazil we fighting for that. We hope that with the data protection law, which many people forget, but we are discussing three very important, data protection, copy review, and (missed).

We do need to fight for those issues.

     I do believe sometimes they are put into corners, right?

In U.S. with the surveillance legislation, they do press a lot ISPs to review everything they have, otherwise they can have their door shut down.

So while that is a little exaggerated, that is one of the riskses.

Right? .

     I agree with you, but at the same time I think we also need to pressure the government should do good policy so technicians and the technical community and expert community can actually exercise their ideals, right, which is very strong in the technical community.

     >> I'm actually going to go out, this is Suzanne, I'm actually going to go off a little bit on a tangent inspired by what she said.

I'm hearing two different uses of the word core, and there's a certain tension between them that I think is interesting.

Because core can mean the most important, the most fundamental parts of what we're trying to do. And those are largely social values and requirements, but also core can be the central, the part everything else is built on.

     I think one of the things that is interesting, as a technologist who has worked within the core of the Internet in the technical sense, I hear this as an issue where we are talking largely about the values, all of the technology and the implementation of policy and social values is built on, and there's actually a distinction to be made that I think is important to make when we're talking about policy, between asking technologist to help implement certain policies and values, but also preserving the technical logical core, the thing that makes it possible to build new things.

Because it's easy and tempting to build particular social values and policies in a way that limits our abilities to implement others later or differently, or when different constituents and different stakeholders need different things from the infrastructure.

     I think that distinction is actually important to keep in mind.

     >> GEORGE: Thank you.


     >> Thanks, George.

     Ien Peter.

What I have to say flows on very well from what Suzanne just said.


     >> Alex.

     >> I was involved with the first meeting of this coalition, which was in Sharm el Sheik.

I want to thank you them publicly for keeping this together.

When we first met it was very much about having an open exchange of ideas on this.

You know, this distinction that you make now, which I think is an important one, wasn't there.

Now, I do think keeping clear these core technical values which enable other things is important, but I do think also it's very important that we consider things which are not necessarily entirely technical but which are core values.

So for instance, for nonproprietary nature of the back bell, it's not necessarily technical, it flows from it, but I think it's extremely important.

Universal availability is not a technical decision but it flows from the nature of the platform.

You know, things like the free flow of information definitely have political ramifications. I think they are core values, but then again they are not necessarily technical values.

     I certainly would hope as we go forward, we encompass both. You know, sort of defining the interrelationship I think is good.

And let's not forget this stuff that flows from it.

So thank you, I'm interested.

     >> GEORGE: I'd like to offer a short comment on that.

     I understand what you say, and I'm sympathetic to it.

However, there is, and there's reason why both can't be considered.

But I think sometimes what happens is that they con flate, the issue of values is talked about at the level of technical.


     >> GEORGE: Am I hearing my echo?

Oh, thank you.

It's true, the core technical values at the technical level influence the implementation, influence what we can do with the network, how we can use it to extend the values that we believe such as freedom of expression, et cetera.

     >> ALEJANDRO: .

     >> GEORGE: The problem is it's much easier to agree on these three technical values, although Jeremy did raise a point.

They didn't fall from the sky.

It's a lot harder to unpack at a detail level the values that are human values, as you suggest.


Can we get Alex?

     >> ALEJANDRO: Here I am.

     >> GEORGE: Okay.

     >> SHELLY: Yes.

So here I am.

George, I think that you and Suzanne have brought it particularlily clear.

The idea of this coalition is there are a number of defined principles for the governance of the dynamic coalition values, starting with this idea (breaking up).

Very good work of the Internet rights and coalition, fantastic work.

Many others.

As you can see in each of them, there are different values for those values.

So to speak.

Different conclusions.

As Carolyna explains, for example, the Marco, the civil framework in Brazil, has a number of governance principles.

They are very similar but not quite the same as some of the substance the IRB, both in Klein Becker and others making collections and sets of principles at the national, regional and global level.

And we have to keep the technical infrastructure as much as possible agnostic and advanced before those conclusions are reached.

So for example, if in a region hate speech is a major concern, and it is agreed that the governance basically will be to curtail or stop the transmission of hate speech, you will be directing national boundaries and asking for a very small intervention in the flow packets, to packet inspection, which may actually be violating the end‑to‑end principle.

Whereas there are technical principles for blocking and filtering which are now in their fourth edition being discussed in the IDTA, and they are well‑known outside.

So the idea of the coalition is to enter in dialogue, not in opposition, but to make sure when we hear people in the coalition conversations that we communicate, we hear that there's a proposal that will enshrine forever the human rights, let's say the right to be forgotten, a very vivid discussion, someone has technically reminded the people that it may not be possible to implement it without actually breaking something fundamental deeply, and those foster the dialogue between the technical and less technical communities.

At the same time many people within the dynamic coalition and in the technical associations, like Suzanne mentioned, also work in other related fields, social or legal, and again this is a very good way to build those bridges.

It's inclusive in this sense, it's not trying to fight anybody.

It's trying to enter into a dialogue that is not more necessary, as more similar organizations, people in developing countries and governments come on to the network, on to the Internet to try to develop their own agendas.

We have to make sure in fact how you want to govern and still have an Internet.

     >> GEORGE: Thank you, Alex.

Two gentlemen in the back with questions.

     I think the person on my left has priority here.

This guy.

Sorry about that.

     I saw him first really.

     >> Good morning.

My name is Dan Mc‑Gary, I work with the Pacific institute Of Public Policy, an independent think tank operator in the Pacific islands region.

I want to reinforce a couple of things I have heard and then come back to sort of a more general point.

May background, by the way, I have worked in Internet for about as long as the web has been around. Not forever but a fair amount of time. And done so in communities from Bafan island in the Canadian arctic out to the south Pacific.

Small kind of stuff is most of my experience.

I'll confess to a lot of trepidation here when we talk about the core principles and we don't have, for example, the telecos in the room, you know, forgive me, but I'll bring some real politic into the conversation here.

We can say what we like, but at the end of the day, it's not the legislation, it's the regulation really that is going to define a great deal of what happens. That is the commercial activity.

The principles of Internet are expressed at a logical level, if you will.

TCPIP and related protocols.

The practicalities of the Internet are dictated at the physical level, the infrastructure level.

And every time we have seen severe abrogations of the principles here, core human rights, they tend to be a result of the core physical network topology.

Unless we have some way politically of addressing that, all the talk in the world isn't going to save us.

The second point I wanted to make was something that is very close to my heart, and that is the diversity that we have heard addressed by the panel members already.

Living as I do in a microcost Mically small part of the world, we call it the blue continent, with unique cultures, Banatu has over a hundred languages, Papua New Guinea over a thousand, Solomon island a thousand, and these just in my neighborhood.

The danger of prescriptive approaches especially to the expression of moral and social standards is I think a very dangerous road. And Dr. Pasante has talked about this as well.

     I think it actually goes beyond taking a minimalist approach, even a sort of a U.N. kind of declaration of human rights approach, which attempts to find common ground among people.

     I think even that pushes and marginalizes certain communities.

So I don't unfortunately have any really good prescriptions.

I guess that follows, doesn't it.

But I feel from the way I have seen the Internet used, and its transformative powers, that the less we prescribe, the better the experience for those involved, and the more they cannot only participate, but they can appropriate the technology for their own purposes, whatever they may be.


     >> GEORGE: Thank you.

Who on the panel? Jeremy.

     >> Yeah, I agree with you. Very good and incisive observation.

     I think one of the telling things is that these core principles began as network engineering principles then now are being applied as social ordering principles.

And so there's no necessary validity to that.

But I think they are still useful in a certain context. We just shouldn't apply them outside their field necessarily without at least examining that a lot more closely.

Openness as well is something that means so many things to different people.

It's almost like multi‑stakeholderism has so many different means to different people.

We have to drill down and say exactly what we mean and what it means in a particular context rather than just trying to say it's a general overarching principle.

     >> I just want the react to the last piece of your comment in terms of proscribe.

In '99, I worked 7 years for Terra, the ISP provider of telefonica.

And I wrote in a paper, sorry, I wrote in a paper in Brazil that we didn't need regulation because we had enough laws with our civil code and consumer code should deal with the problems.

However, in 2003‑2004 when you saw the telecos really going down the regulation path to break Internet neutrality, then my discourse and many others have changed.

Because in '99 we had regulation coming out from e commerce perspective, so we didn't want that for them.

But it's different, right, when the political forces, as you say, the telecos and some other major stakeholders, which are important in the game, of course, but they come and try to regulate, and one stakeholder favor without talking to others.

In general the regulators are not so open for all the stakeholders.

We need to counter attack, right, to provide some balance.

So the diversity point I agree, so that is not my comment, but the rest I'm a little more careful exactly because of the politics and how they evolve over time in terms of who has the word and when.

     >> Sure. I want to appreciate again the use, the principle of proscribing as little as possible.

     I like that formulation.

     I think in answer to what Jeremy was saying, that is again, I appreciate the illustration of what I think I was trying say before about the different means of the word core.

I don't think we're applying network engineering principles as social principles.

     I think we are talking about network engineering principles that enable whatever social principles we want, and being very clear about the separation between building an interdepartment that is robust and will adapt to whatever social principles you want.

Because in fact you go back 25 years, and certainly in my experience, we didn't think we were building a network, for instance, to support privacy as a core value, because the way we think of privacy today hadn't really been thought through then.

We have a very different definition and a different set of concerns around privacy now than we did then.

What they were deliberately building was an infrastructure and a way of building networks that when people do come along with privacy as a concern or surveillance issues or principles in the human rights declarations, that it is possible to adapt the network to support those.

     I think that is actually a very important distinction.

As far as how you engineer the network that enables all the important social goods that are really what we are here to deliver.

     I think as sort of a plug for George's other workshop, I think instantiating that and being able to clarify that distinction and work with that distinction in purely policy realms is actually where the technical community is not only able but I have to say I think obligated to take a role, to show up and have a voice.

     >> GEORGE: Thank you. Now we come to the gentleman on the aisle.

     >> Thank you, I'm Mr. York from Denmark, representing the Danish government, Danish media council.

What I was thinking about, when we move the marketplace to the Internet, something is really going to happen when we are talking about coalition between stakeholders and government.

Because in Denmark we have had this case about a book.

It's a book about the hippy culture in Denmark in the '60s.

And the front page of this book is a naked woman running on the beaches.

But the rights holder of the book wanted to put this on Amazon, and Amazon put on the Apples, what you don't want to see on the Internet.

     I was thinking freedom of expression, if you put the market on the Internet and these companies selling our products on the Internet, they can decide what kind of books do we have, what kind of front pages do we want on our books, this is very big case in Denmark.

Actually they raise this case in the EU community, and she had meetings with Amazon but didn't succeed, didn't convince them to say this is also a meaning, what it means when you talk about freedom of expression.

You cannot just censor a book like this.

You can say what is my question.

My question is to the panel maybe, when we come to core values and building a new Internet society and the market moves into the Internet, do we really believe these companies will go for freedom of expression and so on, or do we need some kind of core values and regulations on law enforcement.

Thank you.

     >> GEORGE: Who would like to take that from the panel.



     >> This is a hot question.

Actually, I have a comment.

Alejandro want to comment?

Yes, let him.

     >> ALEJANDRO: Yes.


     >> You go first.

     >> ALEJANDRO: Thank you.

The principles, thank you.

I'll be very brief.

The principles, the engineering design principles include the ones already discussed and a couple others.

One of them is layered architecture.

One of the things that the operators and standardizers of the Internet teaches very much is to be careful about layered processes or violations of the layered principle.

That means adjusting one layer to favor one specific behavior in another layer, instead of optimizing.

A technical example would be to adjust the lower layers where you just have packets traveling, so that it's more like a telephone network, and it's not optimized for world.

You gain or avoid what you lose for messaging or e‑mail or moving pictures or for data access, somewhere you will destroy the balance.

We take it one step further.

We can say again when you are talking about human rights, when you are talking about things that are very important for many of us, like freedom of expression or freedom of association, the first thing you need is to keep the Internet open, that you don't, for example, try to censor a book from Denmark in a country that doesn't like the book from Denmark, that you don't do that censoring by blocking access to Denmark in the network.

Because you have a thing for the openness principle, and here openness is better defined because it's only openness between the technical sense, a network open to connect anything in license standards.

And a standardization process that is open.

You're not speaking about openness, for example, with respect to languages, except the codes to express the languages and so forth.

So avoiding layer.

The idea of layers, and the idea of avoiding layer crossing helps you very much.

It takes you, for example, to the law in Brazil, the troubles that Carolyna had.

You don't try to solve legal or human kinds of problems by juggling with the technical needs.

You solve them with the law.

You solve them with human social governing.

If someone is not allowing you the freedom of expression, you don't leave the net, you use as it is and you avoid also doing things like the kill switch, which actually abuse the technical architecture by the law.

And this is the kind of (breaking up) dynamic coalition.

So it's to make sure that the network leaves freedom for everything else people want to, and define it in the proper layer with either human rights or commercial.

     >> Okay, if I can supplement.

     I fully agree with the gentleman that law enforcement should have value and principles. If they are enforcing laws, there should be legal principles in the law as well.

What I want to supplement is about this layer, Alejandro just mentioned, and what is the interaction between technical values and social values we have been talking about.

It seems these set of values are interplaying closely.

This is not a one‑way of communication.

They are talking to each other.

They are influencing each other.

Technical value could be adjusted in order to promote certain social value. And social value can reflect technical value.

An example, I can introduce internationalize program. To fulfill its value of diversity, diversity of causes, human rights value, and it's written into this human rights legal documents.

     I do agree with the gentleman from Pacific island, we should respect the language and culture that we're representing, including regional groups.

To achieve that diversity value at a social level, like we need some technical setting and arrangement, and what one can see is that at a technical level, we have to ensure that the Internet is interopenerable, it's interconnected, so we need to define what is a uniform standard to make sure what is a permissible code points in this internationalized native scripts, domain names, and in some I.D. and communities, even more come indicated, they have various characters, different characters for nonspeakers they are different, not the same, but for the people using this language, they believe these two look in the different character, the same things that need to be mapped.

For that case, well, I can at a top level to ensure the technical value, the need, the coordination that is really called the coordination row, but on the other handle it is the language community, they define what is the variance recognized in that community.

So actually they are working together to achieve these two values at a different level, but it's actually working for the same goal of human beings' common good.

     >> I'd like to reinforce Alex's point with regard to the primary role of the legal system here.

I'd like to tell you an anecdote.

About 15 years ago I went to a museum presentation in which aid am Clayton Powell had five television sets chosen to be borderline.

He asked which are legal.

It had nothing to do with the message but the method of delivery, whether cable, videotape, a private thing, I can't remember the fifth.

The point is the same image was legal or illegal depending upon delivery.

It's unfortunate delivery content isn't technologically neutral. It's unlikely even within a single country much less across country boundaries.

     >> Thank you.

I'm from Singapore.

     I have got three points to make.

One is that this comment about third use, being nonproscriptive, what we are doing is assuming values already in the way we act and direct, saying should be nonproscriptive is a value in itself.

     I think we should spell it out as opposed to leaving it unspoken.

My second point, I think writing I want out or spelling it out is a good thing because then it forces us to look at issues, to reconcile things, and also then answers governments when they say who says that.

So I think when you say something written out, that is a positive thing.

Also forces us to look at situations where the conflicts and principles and actions, so how are we going to resolve conflicts.

Compacts and principles.

     I think these are quite important things.

The third point, I agree with Alejandro, we shouldn't see values as arising out of the engineering.

The engineering approach assumes trade‑offs in everything you do.

You want a cheap laptop or good laptop?

Cheap or light laptop? Cheap or powerful.

There are trade‑offs in everything you do.

Engineers tend to approach from the point of view of trade‑offs.

In some of the principles there are no trade‑offs.

No trade‑off in human rights. By definition. It's inalienable.

     I think the approach to trying to solve some of the issues is not ultimately not helpful.

It may be in the short run in certain situations, but I don't think ultimately helpful.

     I think we need a fallback in looking at, and I applaud stuff a forum. I hope it continues next year and on.

Thank you.

     >> GEORGE: Comments from the panel? Alex?

Would you care to comment?

No, okay.

     I think the statement seems to be accepted.

Oh, Alex, we can't hear you.

Alex? Are you there?

     >> ALEJANDRO: Yes, I am here.

     >> GEORGE: Talk loudly, please.

     >> ALEJANDRO: In this thing about generating compromises.

That is exactly the point of the coalition.

You can be guided by certain principles, yet compromises, and for example our presenters did a fabulous job by giving us a means that works so well in the sense of openness, facilitation, (breaking up).

When you go to the upper layer, the discussion where people say I cannot deal with human rights, you find that human rights indeed are not susceptible to concessions, but people have different sets or different interpretations without concessions.

You have to make sure at the lower level, because we keep the network running in such a way and growing in such a way that whatever the result of those discussions, there will still be a network on which (breaking up).

That is a beautiful problem. Between working on the core principles of the lower layer and in dialogue with everyone else working at the higher layers.

Thank you.

     >> GEORGE: Thank you, Alex.

Other comments.

Sebastian, anybody remote with a question or comment?

     >> We have a question from one of the remote participants. From Jody, from New York City. He's from New York City.

And the question is how does the increasingly length of the content delivery networks and cloud affect the end‑to‑end principle.


     I read it again.

How does the increasing reliance on content delivery networks and cloud affect the end‑to‑end principle.

Thank you.


     >> GEORGE: Anybody want to take that? I'm not sure we have an answer for that.

Suzanne, I think.


     >> Let me see if I can.

I'm glad somebody asked about the end‑to‑end principle, which in engineering terms is the idea that you can ignore how information gets to you, and is in fact exactly the opposite of George's example a few minutes ago.

The idea being that what you get is independent of how it got to you.

And in fact, the cloud, cloud technologies, NAT, a great many technologies that in fact compromise the end‑to‑end principle, lead to less transparency for the user and even for the operator about who has control of what pieces of information, when and how.

But if you look at Alex's scorecard, there are also technological advances that have sort of, they're addressing that head on.

For example, DN sec, a specific technology for signing DNS data, so you can validate no matter how it got to you, no matter from a Cloud service or NAT, however it reaches the user who made the query, you can tell, you can validate that the data that gets to you is what was originally put in the DNS, what was intended for you to get, that your ISP hasn't tampered, your content provider hasn't changed the answer for their own reasons.

And we are making progress, slower than perhaps sometimes it seems we should be, on almost reinventing end‑to‑end in a network that doesn't use the same technology or the same orientation it did when the principle was formed.

Frankly, we miss it and we are reinventing it in some ways.

     >> GEORGE: I can see two issues here.

One is just observing that, well, my home page is the New York Times.

And when I get it in Bali here, it's full of Indonesian ads.

     I know the New York Times doesn't publish in Indonesian.

It's very common to have space rented out on web pages and have local advertisers fill in.

So that is a clear violation of the end‑to‑end principle.

It doesn't destroy information but it may add it to destroy the impression of the contents.

The other issue is the legal issue.

When you transmit information and there's an intermediate host, and there always will be intermediate host, at least a couple, and maybe a lot more if you go through the cloud, who owns that information, has right to look at that information, et cetera.

Those are questions with very different answers depending who is answering and where they are sitting.

     I am not a lawyer, but I think one of the major issues to be addressed in cloud computing as well as non‑Cloud computing.

Any comments?

Thank you.


     >> From the lawyer perspective, it's very interesting what you said actually because it's also who owns the information. Or if anybody should own the information or control that information.

And at the end, whatever your information passes, all the actors they say wait, I do own here, so I have the right to know who you are, what you are doing, who you are, so here is your ad, which also conflicts with the privacy right, which is a human right.

     I think it's a really good good question because for example, when we are discussing information flow, which means that these actors, they want information flow. Right? But nobody wants exceptions for privacy.

That is one of our fights in trade agreements right now.

     I think you are right. This is one of the biggest issues for me right now.

     >> I agree with caralina, one of the obvious clashes.

Another is IP 6 migration, designed to restore some of the end‑to‑end principles so we all have our own IP addresses again. But privacy advocates are worried about the extent to which that will make tracking easier.

A good example indeed.

     >> GEORGE: Sir.

     >> Don Mc‑Gary, again, from the Pacific Institute of Public Policy.

     I think this is actually a good example of why I feel the battles are actually going to be fought out in the regulatory world rather than the legislative world.

     I think that we should really keep this in the front of our minds as we develop language around this. Because regulatory language looks a lot different from legislative language.

In fact it serves very different purposes.

But maintaining the neutral platform that allows us to quite clearly and unambiguously, but with great diversity, express the social mores and values that particular populations may hold, that is to me, at least everything I have seen as we roll out Internet across the Pacific, that is where I see the fight happening.

In fact, I spend more time sort of sitting with the regulators than I do with the legislators when it comes to this kind of stuff.

     >> GEORGE: Thank you, Olivie r.

     >> Thank you, Oliver Canpion.

Someone just mentioned IP 6, and it's causing problems (inaudible) and the alternative is the translation, which would break the core principle of end‑to‑end connection and end‑to‑end user connection.

So that is, there's no easy answer to the future, unfortunately.

But it's good that we keep a close eye on all of those potential problems and try and find perhaps long‑term solutions if we can.

Thank you.

     >> GEORGE: Thank you.

I'd like to end the session by asking Alejandro a couple of questions.

Alejandro, I note that you are in effect setting up a core Internet values observatory in which you are tracking the state of these principles over time.

But first, you have three principles which you are tracking.

Why should it be three? Are there more? Are there less? Do you see this evolving? Or are these cast in concrete and following from the original implementers of the Internet.

And second, what would you recommend to people here who want to participate in the Dynamic Coalition or to help you in your work or both. It may be the same thing.

Do we have Alejandro on line?

     >> ALEJANDRO: Yes, George, can you hear me?

     >> GEORGE: Speak much louder, please.

     >> ALEJANDRO: Thank you for this question.

Thank you for these two very important questions.

     I think the honor, the audience's participation today has been extraordinary.

     I value the discussion very much.

First, there are a few more principles.

     I already mentioned the layer principle.

Suzanne has mentioned scalability.

We have a bit more information on the coalition website and we will be moving forward immediately a document that allows to identify these things.

We are getting this from retrospective analysis.

We have in previous years meetings with Scott raddener, Richard search, people there at the beginning explaining how these values came to be and how they are important.

Now to move forward, I think that we will set up these observatory and make it known very fast, at least in a very selective (breaking up).

We will call for people's help to flesh out the table and the evaluation that we have, let's say closing on the period of 2012 and 2013, and to great dynamic reporting on things that impinge significantly on these values during the year from now to the next IGF where I hope that we can have a next step of the discussion looking for the important coalition, the engineering compromises that are being made, the things that seem good but actually will do some damage here.

And also for think a very important thing, going back for example to Dan Mc‑Gary and others like Alice Munia, access to (inaudible), to provide you with tools for thought and analysis where you can, for example, let me just take one example from Carolina, and from George, you are looking at owners of information, owners of services that take that information from end to end.

You have to make sure, for example, that the transport contract, and so forth, are involving the end‑to‑end principle as much as possible in order to make sure that it is against the contract and against the law to tamper or interfere with the origin.

     I think we will be able to provide people over the year with opportunities to build this collectively and provide these valuable things for people making decision, from the individual consumer all the way up to the highestest level of policy making, that they are wise decisions that enrich the Internet instead of contending against it.

I want to thank George for the very valuable contributions he made and for picking this up, and thank you in the name of Shiva and Sammy not able to participate remotely.

     I make a special mention for the interpreters and transcribes because they made possible my participation and remote participation for those of us left with value, the way we have been doing this is reading the transcript and participating in response, and they have done a wonderful job.

Thanks everybody for taking part in the session.

     >> GEORGE: Thank you, Alex.

We're done with the session, and certainly not done with the principles and their discussion.

Alex has suggested that if you want to help, there's way to help.

And if you want to discuss the issues with the people who are here at the IGF, we're all here, and this has been a very energized session.

     I think that good audience participation, this discussion is not going to end here.

Please join me in thanking both the panelists and audience for an interesting hour and a half before we go to luncheon.

     >> (Applause).



(Session ended at 12:34).




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.