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






OCTOBER 25, 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.



   >> LEE HIBBARD: Hello everybody. Just for you to know that we're going to start the next session in five minutes or so, which will be the Council of Europe open forum. A draft guide on human rights for Internet users.

   If you're not interested in that, could you try to make your way out of the room so we can get ready to start the session? Thank you.

   >> LEE HIBBARD: We are 7 or 8 minutes past 11. I would try to encourage you to take your seats. You but I would also encourage you to bring the people outside of the room into the room, because there are very few people in the room. And it would be great if we could have more people in the room to have a discussion. That's the reason for being here.

   So please encourage people to come into the room. And those who need to leave could leave. Thank you.

   Okay. We are -- it's now 11:13. We are a bit late. Apologies for that. We try to encourage as many people to come.

   I'd like to sort of slowly start this Council of Europe open forum. And this open forum is on a document which is on your Chairs, which is a document -- a draft document. It's a draft Council of Europe Guide on Human Rights for Internet users.

   And just a few words on the Council of Europe to begin with. To put this into context, the Council of Europe is an InterGovernmental Organisation in Europe. It has 47 Member States. Several observers.   You probably know that it has several underlying conventions. It has a Convention of Human Rights but also a Convention on cybercrime and the convention 108 on protection of personal data. And these are also signed by countries outside of Europe.

   So with that said, the Council of Europe is very much involved in multi-stakeholder dialog. So although at the end of the process, Member States sit down and adopt agreed upon texts, we are really building up a dialog. And I include this document in this, a dialog with other actors and private sector, Civil Society, other communities, both in and outside of Europe. So we really appreciate this Internet Governance Forum because it allows us to come out of the walls of Europe and to consult with other actors in other parts of the world.

   Why that is important is because -- the word "Europe," this work, it might have a beginning in Europe but I very much hope it doesn't have an end in Europe. I think it's a piece of work that we are going to discuss, which is think I very useful for many other parts of the world. We talk about human rights. The Internet Governance Forum, since its inception it's been a lot about human rights. And in this Internet Governance Forum in Bali the development was a lot of human rights and what it was supposed to deliver.

   And Bruce Synia, in one of his comments in the IGF delegate pack, said that he was concerned about everybody in the middle with regard to, you know, the Internet. And he talked about the -- he -- I'll just say he said "My main concern is for the rest of us, everyone in the middle. These are the people who don't have the technical ability to (inaudible) the large Governments and corporations who are controlling our Internet usage, or the criminal hacker groups who pray on us. These are people who accept the default configuration options to operate the terms of service," et cetera.

   The reason I point that out is because when we talk about human rights from a high level point of view, but do we really understand what the the user understands regarding their human rights? Do they understand in practice that they have the right to privacy or the right to freedom of expression, the right to assembly and association? Do they know what these mean when they are actually on the Internet and actually doing it?

   So the objective of this work was to perhaps start in Europe, was to help people to understand, to be -- to have their awareness raised about the fact that they have human rights online, first of all.

   Second of all, that they have information and that they have that right and that they can do things.

   And, thirdly, that they can do things, they can act upon their rights.

   So that's the basic aim. And this work is not about creating new human rights. It's not about creating new mechanisms. It's about simply understanding what existing rights mean in a practical context. And about trying to understand that there are existing mechanisms, national mechanisms, which can help users act upon their rights, as persons, the right to information, you know, to try to join the dots between them. So that's the, really, the basis.

   And you have the documents on your desks, you have the draft guide and the strategy of the Council of Europe for the Internet.

   So this draft guide, it looks -- it's drafted in very simple language for users, and on purpose, because we really want to convey the simplicity of our human rights is online. And this is a chance to have a consultation, which starts with the consultation on this draft now this week. And it runs until the 15th of November. So you have to chance now and later to send us comments. And I'll give you the e-mail address later to send us comments, written comments, and we are going to try to build those comments into the process.

   And we really are going to try to reflect the feedback and come out with a draft text which has been counted on. And then thereafter we are going to put it back into the intergovernmental procedures in the Council of Europe in December for discussion with Member States and with observers. And "observers" means ISOC and others, OSCE, UNESCO, plenty of other observers to discuss this draft, guide on human rights for Internet users.

   It was drafted by a mixed group of Governmental and independent experts. So there were seven Governmental experts and six independent experts, which just shows you how multi-stakeholder it is in terms of its preparation. And I'm very proud of that fact. And we have some of them with us here today and they are going to be some of our panelists. Others are to come into the room a bit later.

   I'd like to introduce you to two of them, at the beginning, and then -- so just here to my left, we have Dixie Horton, from Global Partners Digital in London. And you're one of the independent experts.

   And to my right, Meryem. Meryem, I don't know your affiliation. Could you tell me what your affiliation is?

   >> MERYEM MARZOUKI: Yes. It's true that I have many hats. Actually, I was there both as a representative of an NGO, European Digital Rights, which is an association of almost 30 national European organisationS, and also in my capacity as a CNS researcher in Paris.

   >> LEE HIBBARD: And I hope we will have Johan Hallenborg from Sweden come in. Because he was a Governmental expert that was part of the process in the last 12 months in drafting this text.

   Just to complete the introduction, in addition to Meryem and Dixie, the first parties, we have also Matthias Trainer. And Matthias is a member of the steering Committee, which is going to receipt this document in December, with the feedback. And he is going to -- himself and the other Member States are going to sit down and discuss this text and perhaps revise it and perhaps rework it into hopefully a finished, and then complete that process and send it to the final stage, which is to the executive organ and hopefully adopt the text. These are the intergovernmental things.

   But still, so the idea is that this text will be finalized and hopefully with a view to adoption in the first quarter of 2014. And that's the end of the beginning, hopefully, for this draft.

   But again I just stress the point that the word Europe, it's not just about Europe. It starts in Europe and I very much hope this will have a value and utility for people outside of Europe, because it could be a baseline for this. And it could be replicated, for example.

   The IRP Coalition Charter, and we have Mary Ann Franklin in the room from that charter. They have their own -- I mean they have a complementary process regarding their charter, and I think it's very important to stress and, you know, it's going to help each other for these texts to be worked on in that way.

   So without further ado, I'd like to take you to the text, the draft guide, and the idea is that we look at this guide and we have a discussion about some of the elements. I'd like your general feedback, your specific feedback if possible.

   As I said, it's been 12 months in the drafting and the making. And it's a great challenge to try to understand the human rights and it's been based upon the European Convention on Human Rights and certain of the Council of Europe legally binding Conventions, and other standards. And this work is not invented from people's heads. This is based upon previously adopted standards. So it's very, very measured. And the challenge has been in making the text simple for users to understand.

   A few words about -- to navigate you through this. You have a general introduction, followed by some overarching principles regarding access to the Internet and nondiscrimination. There is a chapter on freedom of expression and information. Assembly association and participation. Of course, privacy and data protection. Education and literacy. Children and young people. And another overarching element, which is the effective remedies part, which is very important. Because without effective remedies, you know, what rights and freedoms do you have?

   And so that's where we are. I'd like to just start discussing it with you. I don't want to talk much more. I'd like to pass to Meryem and to Dixie to begin with, and to others, and ask you to maybe pull out some of the most interesting elements you found in the process that you want to convey to the room and to remote participation if there are any, please signal them to me. And hello to everybody online.

   Should we start with Meryem? Do you want to start with some of the reading points you want to refer to? We will start with one and then work through the audience?

   >> MERYEM MARZUKI: Thank you very much. I prefer to start because I have to apologize in advance, I have to leave at noon to catch my flight.

   So first of all, let's welcome the co-chair, the Vice Chair of our Committee of Experts, Thomas Schneider, from Switzerland, representing the Government.

   Yes, actually, I will start by the end, by the effective remedies. Because, as Lee said, without effective remedies there are no real rights and we have many declarations by many peoples, or groups of people, different stakeholders, and they remain like wishful thinking without effective remedies and means of re-dress. So this is, I think, one of the main added values of this guide.

   So we tried in this section to addressing the user to tell him which kind of remedies. One first thinks of filing a complaint with a court, but we know this is a long process. This is a costly process. And this is a process that the average user would probably not undertake unless the issue is very serious.

   So we need to show the user that there are also other remedies, just like we have hard law with legislation, but we can also rely on soft law instruments.

   So we have identified a set of different remedyies, categories of remedies, which could be of course depending on the kind of violation of the right. It could be simply an inquiry or request for explanation. For instance, asking the Internet Service Provider some explanation about some rights infringement.

   It could be, as you can see, a reply. And what we meant here was a reference or recommendation of the Council of Europe on the right of reply, on the Internet, which in most of the cases I think could be a very useful mean of re-dress in the case of defamation or insult.

   There are also requests for correcting some content if there are mistakes. Request for apology. We have this here, I'm not sure to which example one can get apologies on the Internet.

   But we have restatement and reconnection in case someone has been disconnected from the Internet. And also some compensation.

   Then we give some inputs on what these kinds of remedies could mean in practice, to whom you should address to obtain this kind of remedy. We also mention, because that could be useful at the national level, we mention the guidance that could be obtained and more information from public authorities at each national level, and also including national human rights institutions, like conference (inaudible) data protection authorities, of course, for instance, in the case of privacy violations. And also citizens advice office, as well as human rights and digital rights associations and consumer organisations who are there to help also the end-users.

   We have put in this section, because we have had a lot of discussion on whether we should address cybercrime issues and especially the kind of issues related to identity theft and other fraudulent manipulation. And then instead of having one section in itself, we have included here in the effective remedies that the user can expect remedies when it is confronted to such intrusion, illegal access, or even identity theft, as I already said.

   And, finally, we have put in this section as well provisions that we find, of course, in the UN Convention on human Rights and in the Declaration -- the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the covenants, et cetera.

   We have introduced or reminded the user that each one has the right to a fair trial in case the person is facing any criminal charge against him or her. In this case, so there is the right to a fair trial.

   And in the end, we remind that there is also the possibility to file a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights, but of course after having exhausted all the available domestic remedies.

   So this is for the effective remedy section. Maybe we could give back to other substantive sections. I don't know, Lee.

   >> LEE HIBBARD: Let's just stop there. This section is very important. Effective remedies are very important.

   I want to know whether you have any comments. I mean, you know, in your opinion, in the countries that you live, do you feel that -- do you know that you have a right to an effective remedy? Do you know that you can go and approach an existing body which should be able to take that complaint and do something with it? I mean, are you aware of that or not? And which bodies are we talking about?

   I mean, the essence of this text is to try to make people aware and to act upon their rights. And so connecting existing rights to existing institutions, are we doing enough? And will this guide help people in your countries to do that?

   And the floor is open for comment. Meryem, please?

   >> MERYEM MARZOUKI: This may be not quite relevant, but it could be with effective remedies, there is a middle level that we sometimes miss, and it's educating managements about this guide and what they can do. Because they are making decisions without understanding.

   I've just had an e-mail from my senior management at my University who recently signed up to the Cloud with a large American corporation. Huge problems and issues about the data protection policy since the PRISM scandal broke even more.

   But they have no idea about the issues that we are talking about today. They are busy and they have cost cutting issues. So in terms of remedies, if our management doesn't know where to go, what to do, then can we also include in the remedies -- not remedies, but prevention. what is it, 90 percent of the cure? I don't know if there are ideas about that. And if I'm off the agenda point, my apology. But can we return to this point in a moment?

   >> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you very much. I mean, the fact is that prevention is sort of hinted at in the second sentence, which is through a tendered remedy, you shouldn't have to pursue legal actions and there are other avenues for re-dress.

   Anyone want to come with effective remedies? Hopefully you said the read the section. It's in the guide, towards the end.

   Any comments on this?

   >> MR. FISHMAN: I've got one comment at a very high level, which I no doubt you went round and round many times. I think I heard Marie say, and maybe I didn't, was it Marie? Meryem. I think I heard her say that this was very important because it's not covered necessarily fully in the rights available. And yet at the beginning, you say you did not establish new human rights or fundamental freedoms. So you must have gone around this a number of times about the guide side of it and the fact that you make the statement that it's not based on, it's not intended to establish new rights and freedoms.

   I don't know whether there is something in there that needs to be thought about. And the other thing I have is a very detailed point. The last sentence of the first bullet, I don't actually understand it. You complain about interferences with your what? What is it? "Interferences with your" is what it says. I don't understand that. It's on page five. The second line. I don't actually understand what it means.

   It says "Interferences with your" something.

   >> LEE HIBBARD: That was a typo. I saw that this morning. Thank you very much. And that's a -- I say that is an error in terms of -- that's a typo I think. My apologies.

   But regarding your first point, Meryem do you want to respond to the first point that Mr. Fishman mentioned, or not?

   >> MERYEM MARZOUKI: Actually, I'm not sure I got the point that was made.

   >> MR. FISHMAN: Rather than take up time, I'll make it cogently in a written response, if that is okay. It's a difficult question about whether this is -- I mean, this is a guide, yes? That's correct. That's good. But to make a statement like it doesn't establish new human rights and fundamental freedom, which is true. But it gives the impression, if you like, that a lot of these things are already rights and freedom, and yet Meryem said that they weren't necessarily at the moment. That's why it's important to have it in.

   >> LEE HIBBARD: Good point. We have spoken at length about that and you're right. And we have someone from the group of experts who is from the Swiss Government, Thomas Schneider, who I'm sure can respond to you.

   >> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Thank you all, good morning to everybody. That was a big debate in the group. And we have discussed a lot about how to put this, because there are reasons for why we talked about this.

   First of all, because it's in the mandate. The mandate said we should write a compendium on the existing rights of the users.

   And the other one, among Governments there is a big political debate on what is a right on the Internet, for instance, the right to access the Internet. Is there such a right or is there no such right? Would that imply that the Government would have to provide free access to the Internet to all of its citizens? This is a debate that has been going on since the WSIS for more than ten years now.

   And that was for political reasons, because some countries insisted and still insist on the fact that we don't create new rights, because they wouldn't accept new rights. That was stressed in the way it was the way it was stressed. But I think it makes -- it makes sense, because we had long debates with those who were in the group. The fundamental right is something very, very clear, very accepted, but the implementation of the right in the Internet environment is something where you can start debating what is part of the right, what is the consequence of the right. Sometimes in the process we establish dimensions of the right. For instance, net neutrality or other issues are linked to fundamental rights, but they are not the fundamental rights in itself.

   And there was a feeling that we should be clear. But maybe it's not clear enough and it's good to here, get this feedback that we won't create new rights, but basically we -- the same is to try and help applying existing rights.

   And also to flag, and there we are with the remedies. Although you have the rights, that doesn't mean that you can apply them. This depends on the national state where you live, and other factors. One of the political aims of this is that the user gets more aware and knows that basically we have rights but we can't always apply them. They are not always effective remedies.

   And if you draw the conclusion, that means that the political system should spend some energy on improving the remedies.

   >> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you very much, Thomas. Matthias, do you want to come in on this point? And sore sorry, Dixie, you wanted to speak, too.

   Ladies first? Dixie?

   >> DIXIE: I'm just responding to Meryem's point in and out. I want to respond about management and I don't know if Lee mentioned in his introduction that this guide will be an annex to a recommendation to be adopted by the Council of Ministers. So in that recommendation we're asking for certain actions by the Council of Ministers and by Member States of the Council of Europe. Among those is to disseminate it and to work with businesses, et cetera, to make sure they understand what their responsibilities are under human rights. So that is kind of one way that we're trying to address that.

   To the question of remedies, that was actually one of the hugest challenges that we had within the Working Group. When we were given the mandate, we were told, you know, we don't want to turn around to the user and say if your rights are violated, your only recourse is to go to the court. Because obviously a lot of the time that is way disproportionate. There should be something simple and easy that could be done, just putting content back up, or whatever it might be.

   And one of the challenges that we found is how few remedies there are, and that was a real challenge. Because we didn't want to turn around to the users saying you have all of these rights but there is nothing you can do about them. And that's actually -- and one of the reasons why that was more challenging is because users might have remedies in very specific situations, like from their national Government, if they have a data protection authority nationally, or if they are using a particular service and that service has developed some type of remedy, there are -- there's a lot of things that the big social platforms have. But there is little that was uniform across all of the Council of Europe countries or uniform across different platforms. And so that was one of the challenges that we had to deal with in the guide.

   And one of the things that I've been pushing for, and it hasn't made it in there yet, so I'm going to try again, is in the recommendation I think that we should be asking the Governments, as we're asking them to disseminate this, we should also be asking them to do an audit about which type of remedies they do have available nationally. And put that into a user friendly document to share with the guide. And I think that would be a step towards making it more real for users.

   >> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you, Dixie, very good points.

   You know, we had a discussion about this and about the actual instrument itself, which is your point about what is value, et cetera.

   But we are trying to work out -- everything in this text is built upon existing standards or already adopted standards by the Member States. So it's not new. It's taken from previous -- it's a consolidation of things to try to help users understand what rights they have and what do they mean in terms of their everyday values.

   What can they do and how do they understand themselves? It was originally a compendium and then it changed to guide. We are really trying to guide and orient users. Part of the value of the text is to try to help Member States help their citizens to understand and to exercise their rights online.

   Do you want to respond to that?

   >> MR. FISHMAN: Yes, quickly. I really must make it clear that I think this is one of the best draft documents I've ever seen. I look at a lot of draft documents in a lot of areas, and this is really good.

   When I read a document and I see something that doesn't quite gel, I have to bring it up. And I think what it really requires, probably, I agree with what you've done. I agree with what you're trying to do here, absolutely. I think it needs another sentence somewhere in the introduction to explain the relationship of the guide to the fundamental freedoms and rights. That's all. I'll try to draft one if you want.

   >> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you very much. This is why we're here. This is a draft. It's open to development. It's not at all finished. We really want your comments. And we really want to make this a stronger text. It's really trying to be enriched by you. We really want it to resonate with you so that it fits and that you want to take it further in particular.


   >> MATTHIAS TRAINER: Briefly. I'm not a member of the drafting group, but I'm closely linked to it since one of my colleagues, my Deputy in the Department, is Chair of this group. So I hear often about the practical difficulties, when drafting the text, which all in all, as it says now, is much endorsed by me and will be endorsed by my Government.

   But especially the part regarding effective remedies, and to see it from a lawyer's point of view, which I am, this really shows one of the difficulties I think the group had just from the beginning. What is a right? And moreover, what is the other part? And effective remedies, I have a bit of a problem when you take a term which is absolutely stated in the European Convention on Human Rights under Article 13. It means something very special that finally you must have a guarantee by the member state that you can go to an authority or a court with a certain quality. This is also in the Convention on Human Rights.

   So when I read the text here on the effective remedies, it's very fine the first sentence. But when you say to obtain a remedy you should have to pursue legal action, which is also fine. But two sentences more, you say "effective remedies can also include explanation, reply, correction, apology" and so on. This is not the effective remedy term that we have in the Convention on Human Rights.

   I mean, what I think and what I really strongly would propose here is to say what is the effective remedy in the way that the state finally has a positive obligation if the private companies don't do anything. For example, you have a court case finally, and you would have as a Judge to decide how did this private network operator behave?

   Did he, for example, use due diligence when he was offering his service and so on. So did he get in contact with the customer who looked for help, and so on?

   And finally, as the Judge, then I would decide the entire behavior of this company and would say well, this was in line or was not in line with the legal basis.

   So just this hint on effective remedies. I think it's one of the most important parts. But don't confuse people in the way that you use legal terms from the Convention and say it's the same as, for example, a help line, which is of course necessary.

   So maybe you can make a little slight difference in the wording here. Thank you.

   >> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you. Very good comment.

   And I wanted to take note of an e-mail address because I'd like you to send in commants. This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. I'll repeat it regularly throughout this session.

   I'd like to bring in Meryem Marzouki, but before we do that, the gentleman who is writing. You seem to be confused. I don't know whether you want to come in on this point. You were shaking your head. I wanted to get your feedback, please, to tell us what you think, if you agree.

   >> JAYANTHA BUFI: Yes, yes. I'm Jayantha Bufi from Youth For Change and Understanding, and I'm also a member of the advisory council for the Council of Europe.

   It's simple, because besides the policymaking, which I think this document is well done, but should also, I say, give more explanation in terms of the background, since it's a guide.

   I would like to underline the fact that the Council of Europe, and I'm new to the Department, we are running the speech movement, which for people that pass by Strasbourg it's very easy to see because the buildings underline this campaign.

   Why I am underlining this, there was a colleague from the Department presenting this. I don't know why he is not here. But for the role of education, the education especially among the young people, it's important that the policy, when we speak about the documents, what are the actions in terms of education that the Member States are taking? And we are just -- well, two weeks ago, we had a joint council and there is also then a commitment of the Member States that descended to extend the campaign to 2015. So there is already a commitment from the Youth Department and Member States that there is not discrimination online.

   So, basically, it could be cross sector, in terms of (inaudible). Sometimes you are aware the Council of Europe is not always easy. But especially with the educational Department you could bring a great benefit also in this paper, in this way.

   >> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you.

   We have Meryem. Thomas, do you want to speak? Ladies first.

   >> MERYEM MARZOUKI: Yes, I just wanted to quickly answer Matthias' point.

   First of all, thank you very much. Because this is very important. I think you've got a real point here. And probably we should replace this by 11 remedies or practical remedies or something like that.

   Now just because I have a leave in five minutes, do you want the presentation on access and nondiscrimination?

   >> LEE HIBBARD: Before you leave, if you could, before you leave it would be good. And we will come back to Thomas if you don't mind so Meryem can speak.

   >> MERYEM MARZOUKI: I'll try to be quick. As Thomas said, we had a lot of discussion and debate on whether we should introduce a right to access, and then we decided not to because, that was Monday, because some Governments present in the group didn't want to have this mentioned for a very simple reason, and they agree very much on this. Because just claiming a right to access, even at the Constitutional level, is very nice. But what we need is real Public Policy and money to make this right of access real. So we prefer to talk about nondiscrimination, mainly.

   So we addressed some what we refer to in general as Internet principles, like network neutrality. And by saying that there should be nondiscriminatory access and affordable access. And we were quite precise in mentioning the greatest possible access to content, application, and services using the devices of your choice.

   Also, we made it clear that any users should not be disconnected from the Internet against his or her will, except when it is decided by a court. And here there is a clear reference to adopting like law and other three strikes.

   So we have taken the same route, I would say, as the UN Rapporteur on freedom of expression, Frank LaRue, in his report on this. He is not claiming in this report the right to access, but a kind of freedom to access, acknowledging that to realize your human rights on the Internet, of course the prerequisite is that you have rights.

   Then we have also -- we address public authorities, be they national or regional or even local public authorities, in view -- to remind them that they should facilitate the access to the Internet for people living in, let's say, rural areas, and also for the poor. So there should be some kind of affirmative action I would say and some specific policies, so that these people can have access as much as the people living in big cities.

   Also, there was a mention of special measure needed for low income, as I said, and also people with special needs and among them disabled people.

   And, finally, we address in this section the principle of nondiscrimination as set forth in international human rights standards and also in the European Convention, of course. So that the access of persons shouldn't be discriminated against any ground. And we list this kind of ground, which are sex, male or female, race, color, language, religion or belief, or absence of religion, that is what we mean, or any political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with the national minority, property, birth or others, including ethnicity, age or sexual orientation.

   I have listed to all of these kinds of possible discrimination grounds, because I think this is very important. This is very important that they are mentioned here in this guide for Internet users.

   Thank you. And since I have the floor, I would like to say good-bye to everyone and sorry that I can't stay more with you.

   >> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you, Meryem. We have Thomas who wants to take the floor and Luca and Jeng Han and Thomas.

   >> THOMAS: Before you leave, Meryem, I wanted to say good-bye and thank you for all the good work you did in the group.

   Just a quick remark, and I agree with everything that Meryem said, right now. A quick rart to what Matthias said about effective remedies.

   One of the challenges with this text is that we have to do the margin and walk between being legally correct and what we think or hope are understandable by an average user. But I see the point about what effective remedies the word or expression implies from a legal point of view, based on the Convention.

   So if you might add a sentence there, because we could say in the Convention, this means court. And -- but you don't -- and if you have ideas on concretely rephrasing it or changing the word effective remedies to something else in a particular situation then we would be happy.

   >> MATtHIAS TRAINER: I know this is the challenge to make it understandable. But I just wanted to say even if you make something understandable, you shouldn't use legal terms in the sort of -- sort of a fluffy note. And technically what should be explained to the user be it in the main text or in the memorandum, that finally there is a responsibility of the state, finally, even if it's just a relation between privates -- first of all you try to get an agreement with the private company or so. But finally, it's always the question: Are the human rights sometimes infringed? And finally, it's a state that -- or you have the right that the state decides about it. Thank you.

   >> LEE HIBBARD: The question is, is this draft guide, I repeat, it's a draft waiting for your comments. Is it raising the rights and accurate awareness information? Is it really giving the user the right information? Is it really explaining to them? I'd really like your comments.

   Luca first -- Meryem did you have a comment?

   >> MERYEM MARZOUKI: Luca first.

   >> LUCA: Thank you. So as a couple of speakers were speaking about net neutrality, I would like also to mention an initiative that has been started by the Council of Europe and developed by Dynamic Coalition on Net Neutrality, a modern framework on how to protect net neutrality in consistency with human rights standards and obviously with the the European Convention on Human Rights.

   The framework was presented two hours ago at the Dynamic Coalition meeting. It is a framework that not only defines what is net neutrality and the limits, but also how to implement it. So who should implement it and how. It defines several things. If you have the time, you can read this report. Unfortunately, I just have two copies left because it was quite successful. But you can find it online at netneutrality.info. It's CC by license. The model framework is also in a report that has been drafted for the Council of Europe. Because this standard has been suggested and proposed, stimulated by the Council of Europe, and will end up at the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers in a couple of weeks so it can be considered and perhaps hopefully recommended.

   >> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you, Luca. Meryem, do you want to --

   >> MERYEM MARZOUKI: I just wanted to answer your question. I think it's a brilliant start, perhaps leading to precision. I think it's certainly clearer. I think it's a question of which users, if you are really targeting everyday users, like people who don't necessarily understand law, but want their stuff to work properly, then I think this is a really good start.

   But of course it's about formatting and also anchoring it in, if they live in this country where do they go? If they live in this country, where do they go? You'll start to create a long tail, I know, but that long tail is important. It's a question of design. And the content is like I've just read "your employer must inform you of any surveillance and or monitoring they carry out. And if they do not inform you," this is about the remedy, "what can you do next?"

Because most of us with employerswho make these decisions don't have much recourse once the decision is made.

   The migration is happening on your desktop, you find out, and so on and so forth. And how can you do it in such a way that you're not exposed as an individual? You really have to drill down eventually as the document flows down, a long tail and a nice head.

   I don't know. Does that make sense?

   >> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you very much. We will discuss it at length that there was a choice made about the length and about the simplicity.

   Very quickly, once again, it was a very long document, lots and lots of pages, which no longer becomes useful for the user because it needs to be navigated and it becomes very difficult, and then it becomes a much more exhaustive compendium.

   There was a decision to make it short and very easy to read and very easy to access and to act upon. And so far there has been a choice made about what to include and what not to include. It's selective. It's selective in it's choice of what to be included. And it's not exhaustive at all. So in the sense that it could be open to periodic review, it can evolve. I hope it will evolve. And the short head, long tail, it's a very good point that it had a long tail, that's a good point. But how much information is good for the user?

   Thomas, do you want to come in on this point because I want to get to Jeng Han.

   >> THOMAS: Thank you. I think Meryem raised a very essential point. It's a question of how much space do we have in this format. The idea is -- at least my idea is I hope they will have the resources at the Council of Europe to do it.

   This is not the paper. This is not the end of this, it's the entry page of a website where you can click on every issue and find the respective human rights Article, the respective court cases, and ideally, but that is probably not see easy, you can type in the country that you live in. Then you can get the remedies in your country. That would be nice. I don't know whether they can go that far. But for sure the rest should be part of an interactive website where you can choose your level of information, or depth and specifics to a situation.

   But we might add a sentence which I think is not there yet about, especially with the remedies, about the differences between national legislation. This is something that we might at least hint at.

   >> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you. Jeng Han from UNESCO.

   >> JENG HAN: Thank you, Lee, and everyone. I appreciate this great initiative to our version for the users about Human Rights.

   I think this approach is very good in an Internet context. We didn't do any sort of thing for TV users, for radio users, but we do it for Internet users because it's an issue.

   And I just wondered, is it for users in Europe or in general?

   >> LEE HIBBARD: You must have come in late. It starts in Europe. I mean, it's going to be adopted. It has a multi-stakeholder Europe and nonEuropean outreach and discussion. Now we're in discussion. It's a consultation process, which starts this week in the IGF and runs to the 15th of November. You can send in your comments in by writing and we will try to include them in the revision of the text. Thereafter, it will go to the Member States, the 47 Member States and other observers, including nonstate actors, to discuss with Matthias Trainer from Austria and Thomas Schneider from Switzerland, and others, to discuss this draft revised. And further revisions to make sure that we get a selection of information and the balance is all right.

   >> JENG HAN: I want to continue to comment. Because you know UNESCO, we had -- we also promoted awareness, literacy on the human rights and freedom of expression. To my point of view, this is too sport. It's too simple. There are too many things which I wish would be more elaborated. Maybe in Europe the user as has a higher level of literacy for the human rights issues. But we had a project on the freedom just to talk about the free expression issues. It was a 100 page booklet on that to teach people, including youth, on what freedom of expression is. What should be done? What are our limitations with some cases?

   It's not an easy job. It's not like everyone here, you know everything, it's apparent. But for the normal user, the families, workers, and they all use mobiles. And so I think for the policy maker it's fine, but for the common users, it's far from being understandable.

   And just a few aspects to share. If we do something like this, we will have more aspects on safety and security issues as well. I saw it in the young people and the children, but to my understanding there are many adults, they are less aware of that.

   And on the education and the literacy issue, the item, I like to also have a language, multi-lingualism component there. And I understand in Europe it's diverse, not only in terms of access, the domain name and your URL but also the content.

   And for the -- for the remedies, it's very interesting. When I read it, I just wondered on any follow-up on all the conditions you are going to create for that? Because it seems not so feasible. If I am a user, I'm really very, very, you know, unfitable position in the expert, if my gmail is hacked. But can Google do anything for me? And we also encompassed some attacks. And then the ISP cannot just help in general. But I also reported to the French police. I live in Paris. The police said we can't help either. We don't have this capacity. So, basically, we are helpless.

   So yes it's useful to right in this way to make an African claim, but in reality it's really far from being possible.

   >> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you very much. Those are very good points. And I look at my remote moderator, I can't see you. Are there any comments?


   It's an entry point document. If it covers everything, all levels, it will be a much bigger document. What is enough of an entry level for a user to get excited about it, excited to be with it? Interested in the fact that they are doing something regarding that right. They have a right. They can do something.

   The additional information, the website that Thomas talked about, the national mechanisms need to be understood and information needs to be communicated. There are many things which need to be around this text, which ever length it will be. That's what we have to think about, those next steps.

   So first things first. I think the very important point is the effectiveness of the guide with regard to Member States is very important, but not just Member States.

   Now, you please, because you're not part of -- I don't know you and I hope you've got some very interesting fresh comments to make regarding this text, please.

   >> Hi. I'm Katherine Easton. (Inaudible) I'm based in the UK.

   My specific work is accessibility and discrimination, disability discrimination as it applies to the Internet. And the suggestions may not really be relevant for what we're doing here, if you're aiming this at the end-user. But one thing I thought about, looking at this, when you were talking about effective remedies was the notion of using the document as a kind of steering document to be in a regulatory sense and a softer sense. And I'll give you some examples. And that basically would be discrimination stat sheets that exist in the U.S. and the UK that I look at applying to the Internet.   And quite often even the websites of public bodies are not as accessible as they should be.

   And there seems to be a theme, even across the Member States as well, of focusing upon the public sector to try and actually tangibly bring about change. Because I'm fascinated by the gap between the substance of the legal provisions and the actual reality, specifically looking at accessibility. But this could apply to things such as data protection as well.

   So in the UK we have a disability equality policy GT which applies to public sector agencies. So the public, public bodies, public agencies. And what it's really trying to do is not so much create new GT, but to say you should be a beacon of best practice here. You should be steering the actual tangible change and you should be showing others how they should actually come about in reality.

   And what then happens, I would argue, is a trickle down effect, because it impacts upon the procurement policies of the state agencies and how they actually deal with private companies who then perhaps provide data protection solutions, accessible websites, and other similar issues.

   So I just wondered whether you discussed some things such as this. What I wanted to say to you is do you have extra duties placed on the public bodies? But just to have certain statements that say okay, these are the rights, but actually, as signatory parties to certain Conventions, you as a nation state should be actually showing others how to act, how to make these rights actual reality. And I don't know whether you want to discuss that.

   >> LEE HIBBARD: I think it's a very good point and it's particular to certain countries. You are saying to the UK. Just before we go there, I mean, if we can find some words which actually, as an entry level, you know, encourage this practice in this text, that's something to think about. And if you've got comments again, I suggest that you make comments and bring them into the text.

   Because this, if it's going to be effective, it's going to resonate with different stakeholder groups, users, and also governments and other authorities that you are referring to. So it has to start somehow, somewhere for users.

   So it might be just a few words and the rest can be explained in another document. But please.

   Does somebody want to respond to that? Dixie or others?

   >> DIXIE: I think it's great you have this large group, because you can go into detail a little bit. It's putting an enormous responsibility on so-called end users to sort of figure this all out. So I know it's important to us. The same thing with the charter. Okay, what is the first step. And then once you make the first step, you realise how many more steps you have to make. So I mean in that sense I would say take courage and build out the website as far as you just described, Thomas. I don't think that should stop short.

   But if you're in a school, if you're in a University, if you're working in a Government Department, you're a secretary, you need to sort of have the end users in your head. Who are these people? It's still very abstract. You know, it's your secretary. It's your research assistant. It's your student. It's your student who cannot get into the building because there is not a decent lift access. It's your student who's got dyslexia. It's the international student IFC which covers very different levels of Internet access and equipment. So know your rights, as that famous punk band used to sing. Know your rights. Look inward. So I think we need to think and really visualize who these people are speaking to and the levels of use.  

   So the Governments need a certain language. The regulators need a certain language. But we have to keep pressing on. I'm missing it, too. The management, the ones who make the decisions, the procurement decisions. The ones who decide whether they migrate to Microsoft (inaudible), whether they go with Google. These decisions are being made now, and they're huge investments. And once an institution is tied up, they're locked in and they cannot get out quickly. So I'm thinking maybe we need just a little bit more management at every chance we have. We do want the Council of Europe to do very, very well. But if you want to be accessible, there are different formats. And go, go, go, right to the end. Get the money. You can get the money better than we can. Come on!

   >> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you very much. I put it to the Governments particularly to know with regard to that point, are you really doing enough to make sure that this really moves on forward? It's just the beginning, really. And there is a lot more to do at the national level. Again, it's an entry point which need to excite and to promote.

   Very quickly, Thomas, because I'd like to pass it to Dixie. There are one or two things that she particularly likes and wants to talk about regarding the draft.


   >> THOMAS: Just a quick reply about the forerunning role of public entities. This is a good point.

   But it's difficult to put this into text because we can't say like it is your right or you can expect the public entities do it, to the user.

   We have -- this is only one text. We have the explanatory report, which is what the text is called that goes to the Committee of Ministers with these tests, and that will be also used or transformed into something that will be acceptable to the user. And also in the text that goes to the user, there are bits and elements that are not here because they are not targeting the user, but rather the policy bodies. And there, this might be a good place to put in that they actually have a responsibility there that is larger than just a normal company. So I fully share the point.

   Thank you.

   >> Just very quickly, that could then lead into a lot of quite in-depth resources as well that could aid in the Government Department's procurement decisions.

   >> LEE HIBBARD: Hi (inaudible) do you want to give us some input?

   >> I am (inaudible). I am a private citizen. Well, I don't know exactly what I think, finally, after I read it two or three times.

   I can understand that it's difficult to find the right level or amount of information and I completely agree with that.

   So to escape from the problem of people being -- feeling it's too small or a mixture of daily things and exceptional situations, I don't know how we can manage. Maybe by giving more information, saying -- making this difference between regular situations and because, you know, also they have to know that when they write something on this, there are some limits. Not only the Chairman, there are others.

   So there is a need for more information, more -- and maybe more examples of different situations, also best practice. But not directly within. It could be done behind a URL or something.

   >> LEE HIBBARD: That's being done because we did not want an overload of information.

   >> And privacy, in my view, it's a little short because, you are right, with allowing -- you have to mix confidentiality on the communication. What happened with freedom of expression, because here again you have that. And about all these personal data processing, which you don't see much.

   So all of this is referred to. So it's a little short. I mean, I don't have -- there is one example I don't agree, but this I will write to you. Because the term of reference, you know, if you take the Americans, you agree to it. So they can do anything they want, which is completely against the principles. So this -- we have to find another example. I will make suggestions to you by e-mail.

   >> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you.

   >> So I think it should be a little more complex. Also, I don't know, but under data protection, the data protection authorities in Europe, but not only, Canada or even Burkina Faso. They make great things like animation --

   >> LEE HIBBARD: Cartoons.

   >> (Speaking a non-English language.

   >> LEE HIBBARD: Cartoons.

   >> -- to figure out, because in Africa a lot of people don't read a lot, about half or a third.

   So they are making theater things, very good.

   So how not to present the Council of Europe doing something that nobody does? You know, what is the added value from what is already done at the national level? How to make a connection with things that can be much more detailed.

   I quote, it is not a criticize. I quote, more effective because you know more practical and so forth. That has been done. I don't know, because many, many references will be not very interesting. I mean, too heavy. So what you did has some advantage, but in another way --

   >> LEE HIBBARD: Please give your comments, because I'm -- please criticize the text. It's important that you criticize it and say what you're unhappy with. It's not about saying what is good about it only. I really wish we could find out the difficulties, because this is what we're here for. And I'm very reassured that in general you understand and you understand the parameter, with some reworking. That is reassuring, because you are a policy expert and that is reassuring. So we are making progress. That's what matters.

   Can I ask -- have you finished?

   >> I'd like to add that if this is going to be used by teachers, by parents, there is some more background. Because it's -- with Internet, suddenly everybody has to face things that they never thought about before, except if there was activism. Okay? So you have to give the background and also on the other matters.

   >> MR. FISHMAN: This is a criticism and I'm afraid it's of the process. I'm now discouraged about commenting on this because some of the comments that have been made have been answered by saying that is somewhere else. Which is without that somewhere else, without that material, it's quite difficult to motivate yourself to comment on this.

   >> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you very much.

   Yes, please, then we will go to Meryem.

   >> Well, actually, it shouldn't be more presensitive than it is.

   >> LEE HIBBARD: Your name, please.

   >> Ashroff. From the Data Protection News Institute of Human Rights.

   And I think it's -- it covers all the necessary rights. I'm just maybe more concerned of how this would be communicated to the user. Even if it's simple language, I can see how this -- in the communication aspect to the user, to the end-user, is a bit difficult job.

   And maybe I can refer to something that Meryem was talking about. Since we already are doing integration of human rights in school curriculums, education curriculums, so this could actually be bought in this process.

   So to be up to the national context how actually to communicate this further to the end-user, if the child or adult.

   >> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you very much.

   This should be our -- if it's adopted, it should be for the Member States at the national level to promote and disseminate. It would be for the national Member States at the national level to promote and disseminate in their networks, et cetera.

   >> I just want to add as well, if I take some examples from Denmark, and the complaint handling unit at the National Institute, to deal with a guide and website and complain electronically, they have forms to do some awareness. But still we are facing every day that the end-user didn't read and it not aware. It's also -- it's so much you can do.

   Also, when you do this, you have increased the access in complaints that the institution can receive and how it deals with this and the capacity as it comes into play.

   >> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you very much.

   We don't have a lot of time left. I would like to pass it to Dixie to comment on one or two of the points, and we have someone from remote. Should we take that very quickly then, and we will pass it to Dixie. Please.

   >> REMOTE MODERATOR: Yes. We have Oxana from Ukraine. Regarding monitoring mechanism on media and Information Society issues from the Council of Europe, what is the status of this initiative just now? Will it cover national IGFs, for example.

   >> LEE HIBBARD: Matthias very quickly comment on that.

   >> MATTHIAS: I just don't have a response. I just have an opinion.

   I say first of all, of course, it will be an instrument of the Council of Europe. So let say formally accept it first of all by members of the Council of Europe. But the intention, as Lee has already pointed out, it to present an instrument, a tool, that can be used by everybody. So that can be used by, let's say, in global context. That's what we wish, yes? We say it's a preference document for people, and we I think -- I don't know how much Council of Europe will be stress is copyright.

   But I think the Council of Europe will be very happy if this instrument is also some kind of best practice example in the context of making them understand to people the users' rights.

   So trying to answer this question, first of all, it will be a political document. It will be a document which will be seconded and supported by Member States. It will be a Committee of Ministers decision. But the substance is such and the tool is such and the meaning is to offer an instrument to everybody who wants to make use of it.

   That's the way how the council sees it, because I speak as a Member State.

   >> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you, Matthias. I hope that responds to the question.

   Dixie? Really, it's the last ten minute and we will wrap it with comments from Matthias. Dixie, please.

   >> DIXIE: I'd like to comment a little bit on the process. When we started about a year ago, we didn't really have a nixed end point in mind, I guess, on what the document would look like. And it was getting longer and longer and longer and more complex. And every nuance and case study and examples -- you mentioned examples. That was one of our starting points that we all went out and tried to reach out to our networks at home and say what kind of human rights violations or interferences, perhaps, do you experience at the national level?

What should this guide be speaking to that would be relevant. So we had all that in there as well. And it was extremely long and complex and valuable for perhaps for academic users or legal users, but not to an average user, I would say.

   And we made a decision -- I can't remember time. I guessing about six months ago to go down the route of trying to have a very short, very user-friendly document at that point. And we assessed all the language at that point.

   But we didn't want to lose all that work and extra work because it was important. But the kind of route we wanted to take was the one Thomas mentioned earlier. It's going to be a hard document, but it should be digital, it should be online. And if it is online, then you have the possibility to share more information, but in a way that the user is only directed to that which is relevant at the time. So it becomes hopefully that information is there, but it's not off putting and it doesn't put someone off using the document.

   And in terms of that second document, and where that is at, I would be interested in hearing as well. I mean, we have versions that we have looked at, but I'm -- in terms of how that process relates to the process of finalizing this, there was a question at the last session about whether we could finalize this and spend longer on that because we haven't had as much time to work, like finalize and clarify that, as we have on this document. So that was an interesting point.

   And okay, so, Ali asked me to pick up on a point from within the charter that I thought was interesting and relevant and important.

   The freedom of expression section, to me, is very close to my heart. Just because of the nature of the Internet and the nature of its roles in our everyday communication, freedom of expression is something that is integral and we do have violations of this within the Council of Europe countries. You can see that because of the court cases at the European Court for human rights.

   So that was the kind of section that I wanted to kind of discuss briefly. Within that we were trying to define the contours of that right. Trying to give the users' sense of what that actually means. It doesn't mean that there is actually anything, but there are kind of protected areas of speech and other areas where there are permissible limitations.

   We tried to give the user a sense of what the role of the public authority was in relation to that. We tried to give the users a sense around anonymity and pseudonymity and what kind of rights they would have around that.

   But the bit which I find really interesting and important is the bit about what the roles of ISPs and online service providers, in particular, is related to freedom of expression.

   So I think the way that users experience the Internet, and if they are on something like Facebook or something, that feels like a public place to them. And that is a very important town square function for society. But at the same time a lot if not most of the popular spaces are privately owned.

   Under the Human Rights instrument that exists, they do speak primarily to the State and to the roles and responsibilities of the state. As Matthias was mentioning earlier when they were talking about effective remedies from a legal perspective, they're not actually talking about what the ISPs and online service providers should be doing. They're talking about the role of the State. And that's quite a difficult issue to get around in the Internet space. And it's not just the Internet space, either. I mean, the way that the human rights framework developed was, you know, when we were at the very start of globalization, before we had the massive transnational companies that had a lot of power, so it did make sense to focus almost exclusively on the States. Since then, the human rights movement has been moving forward. They have been looking at what the roles and responsibilities of businesses are in relation to Human Rights.

   You might have heard of the RUGGIE principles, which talks about the respect and -- oh, it's protect, respect and remedy framework, which is trying to look at how businesses respond to human rights.

   And this really difficult issue to explain, it's an important issue to explain to users and it's a difficult issue to explain to users.

   Because online space is like potentially Facebook or many others can make their own rules to a certain extent about how they want to create that environment. It would be probably legitimate to have a space, for example, if it's a women's rights website and you're having conversations about women's rights issues, if they wanted to delete comments which were maybe rude or unhelpful or if they are off topic, and that doesn't hit the language under human rights documents. It might not constitute excitement to hatred or violence or discrimination, but they still would be able to take that down as a private space and having the right to kind of create the space that they want.

   And in many ways, that is a very good thing, because it means that on the Internet there are sorts of different spaces that meet the needs of all different types of community. So there is a lot of value in that and having different types of spaces. But at the same time, there is a very thin line or a very hard to recognize space from where that goes from a small community that is making a certain type of environment, to where that might go to something like Facebook, which actually is a lot more powerful. And when they make restrictions that are more restrictive than freedom of expression, it can actually have a very big impact of how human rights are experienced by the user. And that's the very difficult issue that I know the Council of Europe has done a lot of work on.

   And I'm going to wrap up.   But I like that we started trying to look at how you could explain that to a user in the fourth bullet point, and I think that's very useful. And if anyone is going to give feedback on this guide, I ask them to have a particular look at that bullet point to see if you can make any suggestions on how we can make it stronger.

   >> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you, Dixie. This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. That's is the email address if you want to make some comments before or by the 15th of November.

   I'd like -- we are in the last minutes of this session. And we started late, so I think we can run five minutes over.

   If you have any comments to Dixie, I mean, you know, the freedom of expression part was very -- we spent a lot of time on that part. It's hard to, you know, to fairly treat the contours of freedom of expression and trying to use information and awareness of what they can do and what they may not do. There might be some restrictions. It's very challenging to put it in simple, simple words, really. And we really tried hard to stay away from legal speak as well.

   If there are no comments on that, I think I'd like to pass to Matthias to say a few words of wrap up. Because he is -- in December, he will be receiving this document with all the other Member States to look at it, based on the comments received, and it's part of the next steps of the process. Please.

   >> MATTHIAS: Thank you, Lee.

   I liked very much what Dixie has just said. I think it's important at a certain stage you have to make a decision and you say you have something on paper. And if you have something on paper, this doesn't mean that it's the end of the story. It's the beginning of a story. You have something black and white. And the additional value I think of this document, (inaudible) but for the first time. Because you know the Internet user rights attempt to have them in one instrument, this is not new. That was done by also, in the multi-stakeholder approach, in various ways. It was -- it was, as far as I know, you have the Internet rights charter. You have ACP, and so on. But here, this will be really the first time that 47 Governments would show their readiness as a political commitment. Yes, we want that the users understand their rights, what means first of all. Of course, we are, of course, bound by the human rights, because they are all bound by the Convention on Human Rights. But to give a political commitment, we want to directly address you.

   This is the important thing. Of course we are careful. But that's what you can say in any Council of Europe instrument. As soon as, let say, we have an instrument supported by member States, it's not that you can say well, that's soft law or whatever. It is an instrument especially for the people. And that's what I wish, what, for example, journalists or human rights activists also would use much more tauts to Governments that they say: Look, you're Government. And we can take a lot of these recommendations and declarations from the Council of Europe, that they go with them to their Governments and say you have committed yourselves to that. So now explain it to me why did you commit. And then it will be quite hard for a relevant authority or ministry to say no, I didn't mean it like that.

   So this is one of the political implications which are very important that we will have for the first time, or will have an instrument which says that we have started now an ongoing process to make the direct effect for users more not only, let say, obvious, but also applicable in the way that they define orientation. And it's also an instrument that shows the, how shall we say, especially in the context of the remedies? We all know it's a kind of corporate social responsibilities. And we all know very well, it's the companies. It's the authorities with best practices maybe from the public authorities.

But it's also, let's say, all of our friends from the various organisations who really also have a common responsibility.

   So I think the process, I'm quite optimistic there will be some more weeks of intensive work. I don't know how the group works now, online or if they have a meeting, but I know they're in close contact. I think they all need input from everybody who is -- that the great advantage of the Council of Europe is this is really, I think, very, very high quality mixture of people. You called yourself the mother of data protection, so I think you can bring in really a lot of experience what to explain to people and what they should know about their rights.

   So this will be then a decision of the Committee of Ministers, I think, in the early stage of 2014. We will see if it works like that.

   But I'm quite optimistic and I think on the whole, there is a lot of interest in it to make best use of it and then finally to see it as a living instrument, which is under permanent, maybe, revision.

   Thank you.

   >> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you, Matthias. So the consultation is still open. I invite your comments. There will be access to the memorandum, the draft. So you'll have access to it.

   And we want to just focus on the draft guide because too much information would be too confusing. We want to make it simple and clear, and that's why we did it like this in this step. But you'll have a chance to have that information and to comment. And please do comment. And Matthias is right, it's open to periodic review once adopted, I hope. And I have really very much hope that we can come back next year and look together again at the, perhaps, a final guide for the moment and to talk about that. Because that's where it lies. If we can create something perhaps just in Europe, you might have a lot of resonance and positive change elsewhere. I still don't -- I still believe that in terms of Internet Governance Forum and discussions, we never really, really fully, fully talk with and to the users about what they understand and what they can do. There is an assumption that users can or cannot do things.

   But again, it's layered and it's very complex. And this is trying to bring back information, some understanding to the user. And I'm really proud of this document and I really hope that we can bring it back to you and then we can keep on revising it and keeping it going.

   We have to wrap up, unless it's urgent.

   >> How can one make comments on this?

   >> LEE HIBBARD: Please send your comments to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Meryem, please.

   >> MERYEM MARZOUKI: Is this document open for -- like can we use it in class? Can I take to it my senior management? Or not?

   >> LEE HIBBARD: You can -- it's a draft text.

   >> MERYEM MARZOUKI: So we can start -- I'd like to get feedback on it. I think there are people who need to see this at work.

   >> LEE HIBBARD: It's open consultation. It's open consultation. There are no limits.

   Thank you for your time. And I apologize for running slightly over. I really hope that we can meet again and we can carry on discussing this.

   Thank you for your time.

   (End of session 12:40)



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.