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

FINISHED TRANSCRIPT

EIGHTH INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM

BALI

BUILDING BRIDGES – ENHANCING MULTI-STAKEHOLDER COOPERATION FOR GROWTH AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

OPPRESSION ONLINE: RIGHTS AND RESTRICTIONS ON THE NETWORK

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2013

4:30 P.M.

SESSION WS16, WS44, WS183

OPPRESSION ONLINE: RIGHTS AND RESTRICTIONS ON THE NETWORK

 


The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the Eigth Meeting of the IGF, in Bali, Indonesia. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.



    

     >> JOHN KAMPFNER: Do we have everybody settled in? Question, close the door. Would you mind closing the door? Thank you. Great. Hi, everybody, my name is John Kampfner. I'm external advisor to global network initiative and closer to Google for expression and other issues. I'll be moderating this event this afternoon this workshop. You have the title in front of you. So, let me introduce the panel. I think it's probably best that I introduce them we have a large panel I want to keep timing straight we have time for interest change and Q&A. This is a collaboration between the GNI index on censorship and index for strategic analysis in Pakistan and we're aiming to discuss pressing issues at the intersection of the Internet telecommunications and human rights. So, without any further adieu, I'll hand over the floor to Ross LaJeunesse from Google.

     >> ROSS LaJEUNESSE: I'm Ross LaJeunesse, from Google. I manage policy issues in New Zealand not particularly known for oppression unless you include ravenous sheep around the country. What I would like to do is in the short time we have available is just take you through some new tools, actually, you probably know that going is relatively active in explaining the impact of how limitations of freedom of expression affect people and affect social and economic growth. And we find that is quite an important thing to explain. And you see that in a variety of context, whether it be in trade agreements, or elsewhere, that it's important that people understand that expression is not simply for political speech but also for education, and business transactions as well. And that context is particularly important. What I would like to take you through, quite briefly, in case you're not aware of, is three tools.

And if we could bring up the first one which is constitute. This is a tool that was launched a few weeks ago and it's a right space initiative provides a searchable comparison all the world's written constitutions. We'll add some of the ones that are multiple documents later. And it allows you to compare different country as approach to different human rights including freedom of expression. And it includes the constitutions that were in force in September, 2013 for nearly every independent state in the world. Could we bring up the Web site, please, constitute if you could click through to that please? Sorry I thought I sent the e-mail through so you could bring it up. So if you want to look, everyone has got their computer at the moment constitute project you can look at and have a look at that there.

They will be building this soon. It was developed with the comparative constitutions project. Google ideas seed today with a grant to University of Texas in Austin. And it's been quite useful.

    

     Okay. We might just go through to digital tech map anyone it's taking a while. The digital tech map is a new tool that was launched yesterday. Or the day before. This is a live data visualization built through collaboration with Apple network and Google. If you want to look digital tech map.com this provides a live map of -- currently occurring. It's pretty impressive. And it also gives a timeline as well where you can see the text occurring over time. You can break it down you can see those texts that originate from one country with a destination is in another country. For some of them it's unable to identify that because of Geo location. And so that prevents some difficulty as well. So maybe we can bring up if we just type in URL, digital attack map.com you can look at your on-line devices which you probably got.

Okay. That's project shield. We'll go on to that now. Obviously we've got D dot attacks occurring which as many will know is when Web sites are overwhelmed with attacks, they cannot handle that and they have to bring them down. So, actually, are you able to -- yeah.

     >> Can you just recount for me on the slides quickly.

     >> You can take it to.

     >> Can we run through --

     >> Take know digital tech map. That's constitute. The other side. The third one. Here's what we might do to this right at the end of the 7. You guys, you can go -- we'll go through that again at the end very briefly one minute at the end of the presentations in half an hour's time you can get that sorted before then? Yeah? So we will go through the three tools at the end of the seven presentations but for the moment thanks very much. And second speaker in one of the responses one of the participants for this is from CSBA in Pakistan --

     >> I guess, thank you for being here. I know we have limited time and we're going to try to focus on -- quickly the purpose of oppression over the Internet was actually an idea that was a collaborative effort. We had at least one Government I know of didn't like the idea of having this sort of title. I'm happy to see you're at least able to get on to IGF. We'll focus from our perspective on policy issues. What the problem is that we see developing in our region and we feel that it is becoming not just national, regional but will grow internationally. Which is this concept of a Deliberalization of telecom is that the taking face many countries and the benefits that took place after 1999 and all the implementations everybody is talking about how wonderful ICTs are.

Deliberalization, 180 degree turn. The number of telecom providers is decreasing and ISPs is decreasing in our country, for instance, we are down to something I with count on with my fingers. Number of ISPs we have, it's affecting competition because large players -- I'll give you an idea from our country telecom operator was acquired by Asala it's not just a national but a big telecom company regional in fact in south Asia and other area regions came in and took over. There's issues whether they paid for it. That's another matter. The fact they can come in and eat up the competition is interesting. The things they can provide for the Government, for instance, one of the things we may want to do is international clearinghouse for International calls which means all IR operators will have calls from aboard to Pakistan asked to suspend operations don't do it anytime more we'll take all of you and face in our data center in one place, we'll do it, and you don't have to have any operational costs No. Employees, nothing, you have a license because you're an operator and we'll give you the money.

By the way in addition to what we'll do is we'll take the cost which used to be say, you know, ten cents Ape minute, and we'll Jack it up to 0 cents and even further. Suddenly, calling Pakistan became 8 800 times for expensive from U.S. or other places that deliberalization was incredible. It's not just antidote, FCC took notice in the states and said this is not on and stopped payments to Pakistan group thank God for that. Our competition commission took note of that. Trouble was when these organizations come in in this fashion they're actually the people who represent the ministry happens to be their lawyer in court. What do you do? Those are the problems. That's just one example. You have further control, for instance, that is taking place allowing infrastructure, what else can we possibly do.

Guess what? You have same values we do. We're from south of Asia and maybe because we share the same religion let's help you filter. We'll give you $30 million worth of software and infrastructure for free to block certain content. Fabulous. Yes, it's for free? It what did they get as benefit of that. They don't just allow filtering but now they're surveying surveillance on every single citizen of Pakistan. There's no legislation, no legislation, regulation, or control of how they're supposed to do. It the next stage they plan to do is next, I know you're using Skype, I know you're using YouTube, over the top, I will decide how much you pay I'll send you a bill saying this is amount of usage you have this month that is the bill you pay me. That's you know dish don't have to go into the issue of privacy and other issues that that involves so usage will not be charged.

So these are the kind of things that we're seeing in a regional basis in deliberalization and nobody is screaming gets violation or apt violation and this is not just impacting a trade issue but accessibility, availability and digital divide specifically and ability of Diaspora abroad trying to communicate. It was becoming a political issue. Where can we address this FCC is national response in U.S. We need to figure out places where these sorts of oppressive regimes or regulations or whatever you want to call it need to be addressed. We talk about at ITU accounting problems the horrible people from the west gaining money from this okay I understand that. But what about the trouble this is creating. And where will this be addressed and when will this be on agenda and where will this be and how and when will we resolve this and as I close my initial rocks my question is we need to find a place where we have a global united coalescing on these issues to deal with it, whether ITU or something else IGF we need to start discussing this the ball doesn't roll in one direction it can anyone another.

     >> JOHN KAMPFNER: Thank you very much. Food for thought on the nexus between commercial profit surveillance and human rights in Pakistan. I'm sure there will be questions on that. Our third speaker is Lisl brunner, for those of you who may not be aware and I assume most people are, in I think it was April, industry dialogue began a collaboration with GNI, Lisl will give details of the industry dialogue and it's a new form of working with a group of Telcos predominant any Europe and elsewhere to working with global network initiative, Lisl.

     >> LISL BRUNNER: Thanks, so I'll talk a little bit about how a group of telecommunications companies are dealing with freedom of expression and privacy in relation to their interaction was Governments. And in mid 2001 or 2011 when the UN guiding principles on business and human rights were launched a group of telecommunications companies came together to talk about how these principles could be implemented in the telecommunication sector and in particular, with regard to freedom of expression and privacy. Some of these companies had had experience in difficult situations and Egypt with Internet shut down and situations involving surveillance in Eastern Europe and Iran and they realized that the way to address these issues was collectively that when you interact with Governments collectively it is a much stronger message than what you speak with one voice, that when you share best practices among different companies everyone learns from this experience.

And so, in March of this year, the telecommunications industry dialogue was officially launched and it has a set of guiding principles that are based on the UN guiding principles in business and human rights. And we also announced a two year collaboration with the global network initiative. Multi-stakeholder organization that has significant expertise freedom of expression and privacy. During these two years, the two groups will look at the way forward and share learning and discussion best practices on how to protect the people's rights to freedom of expression and privacy. To find answers to the question what does a telecommunications company do when it faces a Government request to take an action that could have a negative impact on its customers' rights to freedom of expression or privacy. And we're also finding ways to engage stakeholders in having this conversation and dealing with these issues and we launched our Web site last week and we look forward to further engagement with stakeholders and I'll leave it there and look forward to your comments and questions.  

     >> JOHN KAMPFNER: Thank you very much indeed Lisl. Now we'll have two perspectives from geographically desperate regions but two emerging powers beginning here, right on our door step with Indonesia ICT watch and Donny Bu, Donny.

     >> DONNY BU: Thank you very much for having me here. So, first of all, so I want to give some of the example that is particularly becoming some cases in Indonesia. So maybe I want to use the presentation. So my talk is only five minute and that's enough. Okay. So, if you go to downstairs we have a booth, we have a booth and we develop -- we produce four postcards in our booth. And this postcard of freedom of expression, and censorship brought to you from -- and this postcard. So actually in Indonesia we have challenge in freedom of expression. One is we still have differ mission on IT call so, -- being detained and he said it's been cut clean because he tweet that one of the members did corruption and reported to police and detained for one, one day, one day is enough because it's like for chilling effect pretty much.

And the others is about filtering or censorship it itself. I don't want to -- because it will be in other cases. So I want to share about the how Indonesian Internet is being affected. We can see in the downstairs as well, we have MCIT booth which is they promote -- it is good intention to block content. This is fine. And they say it's positive. And this is -- well I don't know about these technical things but this is only about this spec mechanism but interesting is about the policy itself. Before -- I mean, before -- last month -- before last month this is positive and this is the Internet provider in Indonesia and that positive is not mandatory at all. So it is like database containing a Web site and developed by MCIT Government, Government MCIT basis, it's not mandatory at all. So only for ISP use that kind of database this ISP so.

It's not -- I mean it's okay several ISP, not lock their Web site green not looked we have 150 ISPs in Indonesia, 150 in Indonesia so therefore using all system okay? And this is the graph of the Ministerial decree. Last two weeks we have like discussion with the -- this is only a draft. But from this draft we can get an view of how the Government feel about the Internet access. So, this -- this is about thousand control the content of the Web site. In the middle it says that -- positive has become mandatory. It's still a draft. No worry. No worry. For a while. So, every ISP has to use the database from -- which is developed by the Government. If ISP has already established their own mechanism they have to have also have -- database for -- basically. And this is example how the page when some Web site is blocked.

The logo will be displaced. I will show you some legitimate content that missed block by ISP. For example, lesbian an gay association is for the Web site I will show you this is for LBG for Indonesia why -- sake blocked this is the engine from -- you can see males.net, males free, so they're blocked because the contact are males.

     >> JOHN KAMPFNER: Could you wrap up and we can come back to details later on.

     >> DONNY BU: I'll show you this -- this is most interest. Let me show you. Okay. No it's a Web site. This is -- this is content ill legitimate content it's about content okay but it's being blocked last month. It has been blocked because according to Internet graph if you see ten years ago what this content, ten years ago, this one, this is the same domain name but watch, ten years ago, but still on the database. So, you know, it is not clear but you can -- we can discuss later about it later. Thank you.

     >> JOHN KAMPFNER: All right. I can see what was the headline of the draft legislation. Control of negative content. Okay. Right, lost questions and lots of practical questions for you Donny and afterwards from Chile, from Derechos Digitales, Claudio Ruiz. Claudio.

     >> CLAUDIO RUIZ: Thank you. I would like to share with you a little bit of perspective of original scope over these issues. I'm from America where we have a lot of experience over this approach on the Internet agenda and most of the cases certainly by the way actually less than a month ago in the case of Peru, they've approved -- with less than five hours of discussion into the congress and which has very, very complicated issues there -- of the good will that's been driven. What I really wanted to share with you in the three and a half minutes I have, it's just trying to think about how the technology of the Internet freedom agenda has been drive into the region and what I noted most in the region is cHILE case and as you may know, cHILE was one of the first countries in the world to have a -- in our telecommunications Act and at the same time Chile is quite well known and not so much -- but about the ISP Internet provision we have because of the last copyright Act.

Which is quite interesting -- in my perspective the human rights -- which is of course when you're talking about Internet, quite difficult actually. But what I wanted to share with you, the first one despite what you think there is two problems with territory relation one of the -- in the world and ISP liability was not Government driven or not congress driven this was possible because of the pressure of society in this matter in the case of the copyright Act a lot of people involved there at Derechos Digitales and -- association and so on and competence of course and in the case of the -- actor reform to the telecommunications Act was because of other things that put pressure into the congress to get these laws into it. My first idea is that somehow it is quite interesting reforms -- it's quite interesting approach to the law over Internet matters it's not govern driven and it's also the fact of pretty interesting approach and society pressure was because of that.

And basically it's in the case of cHILE and the first point of courses it is worst thing we have on ISP policy really is lack of agenda of dimming tall agenda that somehow can drive all these processes over a more general approach. And this is very sad can I actually talk for all the weekend if you wanted. But I know I have like 30 seconds left. And the third idea, it's one of the most important problems that we are facing right now actually. And if we take into Act ISP liability that we have and profit and we see what has been the reaction of this provision after the referral of the copyright Act we can see the United States influence has been quite important there to just thousand operate at approach because US Disapora are mainly I'm talking about the states of course in general way but UCR specifically has been quite aggressive over this reform because they say that this is against Diaspora that we have with state which is not and they're -- progress in this priority watch Lisl that they have 301 report they have which has been kind -- quite difficulty in the internal policy way when we're trying to talk about you know the copyright issues and stuff.

And second idea is that right now we're -- our government part of TTP relations where US of course are against all these kind of balancing of agenda and freedom of expression In a general way and I think it's important to somehow balance that kind after approach. I think one of the most important difficulties we have right now is kind of influencing our internal agenda. So society is pushing for agenda and at the same time our Government is trying to restrict on the trade agenda and trade basis this important Internet freedom kind of --

     >> JOHN KAMPFNER: Thank you very much so U.S. Government in a number of ways and in one way in particular it in eye of the storm. We're grateful. -- state department trying to do the good cop side of things. So over to you Scott.

     >> Scott: Claudio you're the third person today that mentioned the problem that we are creating with trade agreements and I must say that we have not in my branch of the state department focused on this so much so we'll take these comments today and go back and try to do better in terms of incorporating freedom of expression provisions and trade agreements along with whatever IP protections are deemed necessary. Very happy to be here and representing United States. It was a challenge getting here because of our Government shut down. But we got at approval in the end. Let me just say first off in a global sense, we in the state department U.S. Government are very committed to freedom of expression issues generally including Internet freedom and unfortunately we continue to observe as many as you have in the wake of the spring there's a crackdown on freedom of expression generally both on Internet and off Internet albeit in China with the new law against -- monitoring a crackdown against anyone distributing any information critical to Government and Vietnam, with the recent decree 72 also imposing restrictions on Internet as well as imprisonment of bloggers in the middle east and countries like Pakistan we're seeing greater enforcement of blasphemy laws and in Latin America, Ecuador, Venezuela, laws restricting independence of media.

Unfortunately some of the restrictions being discussed vis-a-vis the Internet are emblematic of general restrictions we're seeing on the freedom of expression. Several speakers referenced digital divide, indeed we agree that that is an important issue to address but we think it's important to recognize two digital divides. One is access divide. In which we still have millions if not millions and billions of people that still don't have access to internet and types of technology that allow folks to communicate. We're doing our best to try to address that divide. But I think it's important for us to also remember the freedom divide. Those who do have technical ass access to the Internet but who are denied such access in places like China Iran, and Cuba and the importance of addressing that freedom divide. Freedom house as many of you know issued most recent freedom on the net report which unfortunately documents the ways in which access to the Internet based on really for political reasons is being denied.

And one means that we think can help to address this is so-called freedom on-line coalition of which we were founding partner, 21 Governments who have come together to try to address these challenges both diplomatically and programmatically, Estonia is newest Chair of this freedom on-line coalition and we will be convening in Tallinn in April and developing agenda for the freedom on-line coalition and we're looking forward to getting contribution from civil society to formulate that agenda. We very much would like your ideas on what we should be doing. We've already gotten a few good ideas today. And lastly, let me touch on an issue which many have addressed at this IGF and that's the role of multiple stakeholders in the global conversation on Internet issues. We have seen unfortunately since last IGF, instances in which the multi-stakeholder model has not been respected, in particular, the wicked negotiations of this past year demonstrated that Governments are dealing in different ways with engagement with multiple stakeholders and we in the U.S.

thought it was extremely important tone gauge civil society both before, during and after the wicked in developing our policy positions in terms of our positions in the negotiations there. Other Governments like Kenya, adopt aid similar model. But unfortunately there were many Governments that did not take that approach, that felt it was up to Governments alone to develop their positions going into the negotiations. So we think it's absolutely critical that in our engagement on Internet issues that all Governments look to civil society as critical voices within the development of governmental positions and we urge all of you, those of you from civil society and Governments, to do your utmost to try to incorporate the diverse views of stakeholders in those negotiations. So let me leave it at that.

You all know that we have significant challenges in the U.S. right now, kind of squaring our surveillance policies and practices with our Internet -- and I think we're in the possess of doing that. President Obama has created a review board and is looking at reforms that we can undertake on our surveillance policies and practices by the end this year we hope there will be recommendations from that board and that there will be a new Government policy. But we would urge all of you from wherever you come, to ask your own Governments what their policies and practices are on these issues a lot of scrutiny on the U.S. now, deservedly so. But as I heard from a group of activists later today most Governments are not willing to talk about these things and most don't have congressional or judicial oversight of these matters and I think now it's time to have a global conversation about what all Governments are doing in this space.

My hope is that after this review process that we're engaged in that the U.S. will be able to stand up and say, we've gone through some difficult period. Here, but we have adopted some policies and procedures that we think other countries should adopt as well. So happy to hear others comments and concerns on that thank you.

     >> JOHN KAMPFNER: Thank you very much indeed Scott your concluding remarks took the words out of my mouths and I'm sure out of the mouths of many of our participants here and I'm sure there will be more follow up on that and you and the other points raised our other speaker is Mike Harris index on censorship write used to be, over you to, Mike.

     >> MIKE HARRIS: I'm going to start by saying something you have to try not to laugh. But, I actually think IGF is really important. And it's really important because it's one of the few occasions where civil society gets to engage directly with Government and directly with business. We don't often have parallel conversations direct between civil society and Government and business. This is one of the few occasions in which we get to directly challenge or directly have conversations with. I don't want to draw a divide between multi-stakeholderism which is something we all -- well most of us believe strongly in, and the power of collective individual action. And we've seen from Edward Snyder revelations occasional we have multi-stakeholder processes often stuff we don't know if civil society and often stuff we don't know in businesses so there's also an important role for individual action the action of whistle blowing and action of calling on power.

Now, the U.S. shut down, that shows that the constitution has been directly developed to curtail executive power. U.S. constitution was when it was in visage and drawn up they wanted to -- they couldn't have a Monarch. Scott said the U.S. Government is willing to talk about surveillance. But we weren't talking about surveillance until Edward Snowden leaked a number of top documents that should be enormous scale U.S. surveillance perhaps not of U.S. citizens but certainly of citizens of every other country on earth and as a global forum we should be really concerned about surveillance. Because,  if we don't take this seriously now, we give an opportunity and if we don't draw a line in the sand we give an opportunity to China and we give an opportunity to other countries to justify their own far more pervasive surveillance systems and the chilling effect on freedom of expression will be absolutely huge if we do not get this right or we get it right now.

But we have to ask ourself why was only one contractor one whistle blower Edward snowden where were other responsibilities of other employees to say hang on a minute, he might be unconstitutional this may go against Fourth Amendment. Collective we have to send a message that as participants of IGF as citizens of society we all have an individual responsibility whether working for Government or whether working for corporations or society to make sure we do hold power to account that we do uphold the values and founding values and we do uphold universal human right standards. There's also how do we tackle oppression on-line when it comes from small, private sector players. Say, for example, Cameron international developed a product called fin Phisher is that the used against human rights activists in Belarus and bellrain it's software an actual system that takes control of your mobile phone or your lab top.

What is the responsibility of corporations to stop this software from being -- from working and being able to infiltrate your laptop? And are these corporations doing enough? Are Microsoft doing enough to make sure their operating system is resilient against these sort of hacks that do compromise the work of human rights defenders. It's a complicated question but I think there needs to be more work between private sector organizations and civil society to break this problem. On Telcos, Telcos are doing a lot to implement the -- principles and uphold basic freedom of expression privacy but it's still the case that across the world, there is equipment that can be used for surveillance and has been exported to some of the most authoritarian countries on earth and I'll give a report folks freedom on Internet freedom and I have colleagues from -- just in the second row.

This report shows how teleCom equipment sold by telescenario Swedish form has been used to record and survey the mobile phones of dissidents in -- this is happening day-to-day basis western companies selling this technology knowing that may be used against people that are fighting for their right to freedom of expression. How do we hold those companies to account. As one final comment about legal frameworks and democracies. We have spoken a lot about on-line crime and Diaspora OS attacks and it's interesting that often, attacks that take place on-line, are punished in a different way from attacks that take place off-line. So for example, in the next couple weeks there will be attempt to occupy parliament square in London. They'll go down and block the roads. On the whole those people will be given slap on the wrist and if you are very unlucky might get 80 pound fine and night in prison.

If you, for instance, did DDOS attack on Department of -- Web site you would probably end up spending a very long time in prison as a result of that. Even if you take it off-line for 30 second, one minute, we do treat on-line crimes and off-line crimes if a slightly different way. What other ways are there in which he we can evaluate and be proportionate? That's a final thought. I'm not saying we should tolerate DDOS attacks it's a huge problem and often used against civil society activists but it's interesting about how do we balance laws on-line and off-line and is that balance right?

     >> JOHN KAMPFNER: Thanks, Mike, just before I throw it to the floor we have a full house and I imagine there's a lot of good questions and observations and I want to then start interchange between panelists I want to -- you guys can you get those original slides up and to give Ross one minute total just to go back on the three Google tools? Have I got them or not? That was third one.

     >> ROSS LaJEUNESSE: If you go to actually probably -- if you just pause on that one so this is the digital attack map. And you'll see this is live. This is -- technical so when people try to bring down Web sites, and you can see in the U.S. where most of the attacks are occurring at the moment. The top part, you will see where you can't see the origin it's because they're unable to identify which country the attack is originating from. And you'll see other arches say from China to U.S., or from I think is it vitae until it Brazil, where you can identify origin and destination of the attack. This is occurring in live time. At the bottom, of the page, is a timeline and you'll see peaks. And at that point, you can actually look back over the weeks and months of where the key attacks are occurring, or have occurred I should say, and it's quite a useful, quite a useful tool.

So that really gives you a flavor in realtime of the types of attacks that are occurring. To the extent they can identify where they -- to the extent they can identify where they originate and size of the impact as well. It's quite a useful tool.

    

     The second thing I wanted to mention briefly is it's all very good saying these attacks are occurring where and what can you do about it? So there's a new tool project shield, and this is an initiative that enables foam leverage Google's technology to better protect their own Web sites. And In other words, their Web sites that may have been taken off-line because of these DDOS attacks and they can use Google technology help protect us. This is still in testing phase. We're inviting web masters serving independent news, human rights and election related content sites to apply to join the next round of trusted tiers. So if you're interested in doing that you can go to project shield. And there's a short video there that you can look at that. Thanks very much.

     >> JOHN KAMPFNER: You have freedom expression map that was the third one.

     >> ROSS LaJEUNESSE: Project shield.

     >> JOHN KAMPFNER: The three dichotomies or three questions that might be worth -- one is obviously as it comes up is -- model or versus governmental IT U one is universality of the web and -- different regions -- (two different audios feeding through) --

     >> JOHN KAMPFNER: Where are the Mics open the floor. Is there just one microphone? Okay. Thanks. If you direct your questions to one or two people and then maximum just here in the middle please and then gentleman here and then I'll make sure that all the participants -- okay, there, there, and then toward the back. We'll take those four together yup.

     >> My question is Mr. Seth the Department of State is that right? I'm from Jordan and I am talking from a position of somebody who works in censored web site in Jordan and I appreciate that -- the United States concern over freedom of expression in other developing countries but I feel like it's really hard for me now to make a distinction between democratic and undemocratic country When's it comes to oppressive actions on-line especially after U.S. revelations and U.S. revelations that are happening. I have to tell you how this revelations are actually oppressing my freedom in my country because nowadays I feel that I cannot really use the internet freely knowing that the U.S. is actually surveillanceing on my actions on-line one, and then, that United States Government is actually setting the bar for Governments like Jordanian Government when it comes to surveillance issues.

So, for example, let's say, look how United States is doing it, which is like that preaches democracy why can't window it the same way the U.S. is doing it?

     >> That was very similar to your point another Jordanian activist made on-line back in June question of how do you distinguish between democratic and non-democratic states and that was the assumption that all her traffic had been directed by U.S. Government back to Jordanian Government. Jordanian Government.

     >> Thank you for raising that concern I've heard that multiple times over course of IGF and I'll take that back to state department. I think it's important to realize the limited purpose us for which -- fist of all let me say I'm not representative of NSA nor am I fully aware of everything that USA is doing. But, as we've embanked on kind of reflection in U.S. Government and engagement with external actors on this, one of the points I think is important to recognize is that the surveillance that is done by the U.S. is done for limited purposes and it's essentially done to identify terrorist threats, criminal activity, --

     >> (Question off microphone).

     >> Revelations don't indicate that the surveillance is for anything but those purposes. So, that's the first point and I think that is very different from the sort of surveillance that take place in China or Vietnam or other place where surveillance is --

     >> (Question microphone).

     >> One of the revelations two days ago in Lamont that senior French business figures and politicians were having that -- certainly they're not potential terrorists, perhaps they are.

     >> I should toad that some surveillance is classic spy stuff that all Governments do in terms of trying to find out what each other you know is thinking or planning and that sort of thing. So that falls into a different category than some of these other things but I think you can distinguish what the U.S. has done from what China has done. I would like to think that.

     >> Before the next question --

     >> I wanted to say this is extremely challenging issue. I mean, you know, it's -- U.S. Government officials are saying something and we know what we read in the press and we have our crystalized views of what we thought it was. I won't get into that debate. Every country in the world even in ours we're facing it where I live, is conducting espionage and on the basis of content and the only distinction one can possibly make apart from espionage is the fact that you spy on everybody else, is what you do with your own people. That's the only distinction one can try to make whether China U.S., others, and that depends on regulation and law you have within your own country only your citizens not debate of other citizens does that matter one country have responsibility for other citizens of another country I won't get into that debate but a country has responsibility to its own citizens and it does set standards and laws to what it does with own citizens and as a matter of best practice you have to ask yourself what does America represent and what does UK represent and what does China, Pakistan, India what other country represent and ask yourself this is what we need do sat some stage figure out what is best practice here?

There's bad practice. There's horrible practice taking place and better practice taking place. It's time we had this open discussion. What do you, in your own national countries to your own citizens do? And whether you have the proper safeguards and protections in when you chalk up that list you have to ask questions like, okay, is there a legislation under which you're doing this? What are the controls that you have? Is there a court and judicial oversight that you have over this? And I think you'll be pretty easily then be able to sort of say, well, this is the good practice or maybe can be improved and this is the terrible practice. And I think that's all an important discussion and I think I don't want to be distracted by this espionage is espionage that's been going on for a long time. I don't think we should discuss that but just closing this point, I think the one take I like people to walk away from here is where he we discuss this in coalition these issues.

One deliberalization causing the same effect and causing and enabling the things we're talking about and where can we talk about better practice when you deal with your own citizens thanks you.

     >> JOHN KAMPFNER: That's a good question and good challenge let's move along a lot of people want to ask questions and we have an opportunity go back to that issue and many others. Okay. Just, it should be on.

     >> Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Thank you for giving the floor. I'm delegate from Chinese delegation I want to briefly react to what has been said by distinguished representative from the U.S. state department. I think, he should have follow that the duty example of Indonesian -- that started to talk about out of their own problems because you know much better about your own problems is that he started to call the names of a group of developing countries, whether it's China, whether it's Vietnam, whether it's Cuba, we know -- it's in typical practice of double standard. You should have started with the state of surveillance, which has been a topic hot topic during this IGF from day one. So, that's rather instead of finding reasons, excuses and talking so lightly, we trying to find solutions. I agree with one of the panelists, it is not U.S.

Government which has taken initiative to find solutions to -- because it has been reviewed and you started you had to admit, okay,  this is one point that we have another point. And I wanted to react to what has been said about cracking or striking on the rumor spreading on-line. Spreading rumor whether you know -- I mean off-line or on-line, it will be dealt and it is serious and will be dealt with in accordance with law in any country including China. By the way, this practice is -- I mean it's supported by a regulation which has been public promulgated by the Supreme Court and supreme up suspect tore's office we're talking about a rule of law of course we admit that probably we all need to look at our own problems if there are deficiencies we need to find ways to improve. So, we admit we're not perfect. But, on the other hand, we always say you have to look in the mirror and look yourself in it whether you're clean or not, thank you.

     >> JOHN KAMPFNER: Thank you I'll ask Scott to respond your challenge briefly but it may be of interest to you that I've just been come from two days of discussions in Beijing on these very issues and many Chinese delegate was key tomorrow press upon me the perils of rational and irresponsible opinion both of which should be punished.

     >> Scott: You know I mean I'm happy to discuss U.S. practices and I think we already talked about that. There's no question there's room for improvement in the U.S. President Obama is appointed a review board to look at policies on surveillance and try to strengthen appropriate balance between security and privacy and freedom of expression. So we're embanked on that process now and our hope it that by the end of the year, we will have in place a certain -- to the process that will improve a sort of judicial legislative and other types of oversight we have N the case of China, our understanding, for instance, on this rumor provision that it's used not only to curtail rumors but also those Whoa are spreading information that's critical of the Government. And we think that is a legitimate restriction on freedom of expression.  

     >> Thank you.

     >> JOHN KAMPFNER: These microphones keep on cutting out. Okay. There's two lady there's -- okay, anytime way, I do emphasize not every question to --

     >> I'll share.

     >> JOHN KAMPFNER: Okay fine. Can we have two different microphones -- okay, yeah.

     >> Yes, hi I think you were going to say not every question perhaps addressed to U.S. delegate but this with I believe another one.

     >> JOHN KAMPFNER: We will have a quota.

     >> I'm Mary Anna based in tore an to with global networks of -- free expression I don't know if my colleague is here from the committee to protect journalists but they recently published -- sorry? Oh, committee to protect journalists in New York recently it's very interesting report on relation with press and it was I should quote directly from it, because I think further than the surveillance issue talks strongly about access of -- it mentions U.S. President Barack Obama pledging open Government has fallen -- (audio broken up) journalists and conspiracy advocates say the White House -- sorry. Disclosure of information and exploits its own media to evade scrutiny by the press. I thought it was important to highlight here because it's longer history, of access to information, related surveillance, yes, there is review board for surveillance but what about the much broader issue when I think a country fears a discussion open discussion with awareness among its own people, there's a real concern then you know given the post 9/11 world and everything but you know my opinion would be that further discussion, open discussion, access to information, would aid us rather than impede us.

So thank you.

     >> JOHN KAMPFNER: Okay. That point is noted and we'll incorporate it into later discussion. Right who is next hand somebody here with a hand up, right here. Yes. Okay. Go there. Yes. Fine.

     >> Hi. I have a question for Google. Project shield. I have a couple of questions I hope they're not too technical first one is are you going do ASP protection or PHP and ASP coded sites that's first one and second one I read up on it a little bit and I want you maybe to elaborate more on the how free this service is now and in the future and if you can talk a little bit about proprietary closed code which I guess this is? Those are the two main things, thank you.

     >> ROSS LaJEUNESSE: Thanks I should preface anything I say by saying I'm not a technical person. So I'll be limited with that. I think the other thing to say it's very new. So it's still being developed. It's not something that Google has done just itself But it's working with others to do that. So, to be honest I think the best thing is to read up on-line where we will post most of those ideas on Google ideas site and follow that and if you have particular questions I'm very happy to take them and follow up afterwards but I'm afraid I can't offer any additional technical details on that. I'll see what I can get for you if we meet afterwards.

     >> JOHN KAMPFNER: All right. From Venezuela apart of second ambassadors.

     >> I want elaboration on shield but that was answered and I want to know some of the panelists opinions on action of privates coordinated or promoted by Government that contribute to this Censorship clay mat to climate to predict shield itself And in the end contributing to this title of the session, what was the word, oppression on-line?

     >> I'm not quite sure if it's under -- person here to answer that question but what I would like to say about it, it's that you -- and this is political. And in a political realm you need to figure out how to stop the different kind of lawyers and as for society, from society perspective I would say we need to have traditional agenda which is subject change ideas, exchange Web sites and like best practices and stuff because it's important to introduce and have a look closer look of what is happening within this region and in the case of -- and Venezuelans's quite complicated as such as -- for instance, and we have cases where you have just traditional kind of surveillance like traditional kind of -- from freedom of expression. But you can see a trend there. Especially when you see other kind ever problems develop from human rights and justice and internal -- and the problem is that Ecuador, Venezuela or Brazil which is not providing enough fund for -- working better.

So I think it's in different lawyers and it depend on each one of the institutions what to do.

     >> JOHN KAMPFNER: Can you provide briefly a perspective with regard to Asian?

     >> DONNY BU: So, -- came from the Government so as we have to follow any direction or order from Government, so it's like basic for -- because we have IGF -- media so it was all stakeholders to sit together to prepare idea because the idea -- there's a lot we call in Indonesia direct Governance and -- civil society private sector and Government. In certain we talk about -- but actually we also talk about several -- related to the policy also for adopting policy drafting. So, we believe that, the sector side, we believe that some problems in Indonesia for example like censorship or information open an Article or surveillance is based on the not proper Governments. So we believe on dialogue. So while we are preparing this idea we sit together and sometimes we talk about well, -- society we can informally talk with Government.

This policy maybe it's not valid. So if like, like, top down lobby. Some civil society information not so happy with the approach. They still believe that the movements have to be stopped from the -- but we also do have engagement from multi-stakeholders.

     >> JOHN KAMPFNER: I want to remind folks that on the agenda we're also talking about intersection of Internet telecommunications and human rights and we have Lisl here from the industry dialogue new coordinator and we have -- from France tell come rotating Chair of the industry dialogue for the telecodes. Are there any questions now or coming up specifically with regard to telecodes? I would like to go to them first just so we have balance here in about third or fourth row and then we'll come back -- to the white shirt.

     >> Thank you. Nicholas -- from University of Netherlands and I'm interested in issue of accountability of telecompanies and one of the things that strikes me about this initiative of global network initiative and TELCO action plan is that they sent out a number of interesting and well balanced principles, and as usual, principles are very good in principle in fact, but then I am wondering how -- or to what extent they're followed up in practice and specifically, I'm interested in what would be the consequences if one of the companies involving this initiative doesn't abide by the principles?

     >> LISL BRUNNER: Thanks for the question. Part of the guiding principles that the companies have adopted is the commitment to report externally every year on how each company is implementing these principles into their actions and into their activities. And this coming year will be the first year in which every company publishes as part of their annual report a section on how each of these principles is being implemented.   Almost all of the companies also have an assurance process of their corporate social responsibility reports so an independent auditor comes and examines whether or not what they say is actually being done and so, that is kind of extra point for accountability. But also dialogue, multi-stakeholder environment is natural form of accountability. And so taking part in conversations with Governments and with civil society and with customers is important part of that as well.  

     >> JOHN KAMPFNER: Guy in the white shirt in the back.

     >> Thank you. Hello. This is also addressed to the gentleman from Google. I'm Girard Harris with non-profit technical firm from Dan called -- it's a simple question. I see there's a lot of anger and mistrust against the U.S. Government and so why should we all trust the U.S. Government with our data? Can you tell me, why would human rights activists investigative journalists in a large corporation in collusion with the Government?

     >> ROSS LaJEUNESSE: I'm so glad you asked an objective question rather than loading it with new terms. I think firstly, you know, the I would say there's a session tomorrow is it tomorrow or Friday or surveillance and a lot of these issues will be discussed there and secondly, we have stated very clearly, that there is no backdoor, side door, any other door. Thirdly, I would say we also produce well we're the first company to produce transparency reports. I'm not sure if TELCOs have gone that far yet and you can look at those and they'll say how many requests we get and how many we filled and we're actually taking U.S. Government to Cortright now in foreign intelligence surveillance court to reduce transparency. There's a range of actions we're taking in terms of security of your data. We take that very, very seriously.

That's not only a point of principle it's a point of commercial interest. And those both apply and that's why we have pretty strong protections and those are all available to look at on-line.

     >> I'm so glad of questions when you trust U.S. Government or cooperation of western Centuries coming up I suggest when we do that use that as an opportunity top flatten this discussion platen I mean equal lies. Say there's a company from the west that is supplying like Pakistan sweeper supply door doing surveillance we'll stop them okay. Then what? Then you'll have a Chinese or Russian company be asked to assist and they'll come in and the problem does not get solved. The problem is to be solved where we can actually flatten this issue as a global level and find a mechanism in some forums where we sigh this issue needs to come up in every country and they need to be responsible or we have to have mechanisms that can actually address this. And I think that would be, I think, something, hopefully if we can do that. Will actually get dividends to the kind of rights we're trying to protect.  

     >> My question to the gentleman from Google.

     >> It's getting almost as many.

     >> Sorry. Your motto is don't be e-mail and Google had become -- are you going to make strong encryption use enable G mail and do you agree users e-mail will be incremented by pass words that the users control.

     >> ROSS LaJEUNESSE: That's far above my pay grade I would say I'm not sure you're aware that G mail has I think in the last year, activated a service under which you will be notified if we become aware you're subject of state sponsored attack. And that comes up as a flag. And we recently confident our systems can identify that. So that is existing tool on Gmail today. And in terms of encryption there's certain level of encryption already but in terms of technical details I would have to look into that and come back to you.

     >> JOHN KAMPFNER: There was a question, yes, there at the back. Is it state department or Google?

     >> No.

     >> JOHN KAMPFNER: Good. Then you may ask it.

     >> NARELLE CLARK: Narelle Clark, President of Internet society of Australia. My question is to -- on the topic of internal training programs in order to ensure that staff comply with sorts of appropriate processes and principles that should be in place when surveillance prayings are taking place, my own observation is I am TELCO engineer and spent many years in the business that the move away from you won't hear this often but move away from traditional Telco practices does mean we seem to be losing some of those well entrenched good practices with behaving better towards surveillance activities. Would you care to comment on that.

     >> Can you justify what you mean by behaving better.

     >> Preserving secrecy of the materials which are under intercept for example. So I think we have started to see leakage of material and the things that people have been intercepting. I'll try to put that in a more coherent day it's a very long day. That one of the issue was surveillance is that unauthorized, unlawful access can be made quite readily. Once you install that capability, what's to stop the evil expartner or you know the nasty person from getting access to it?

     >> I'm not quite sure thousand answer that question but precisely because of these issues, the guiding principles for the telecommunications industry dialogue were drafted and they do include a portion on training that training is crucial to making sure that these policies that the company as don't are reflect add cross their operations. And those are definitely conversations that we want to continue having and your observation is noted thank you for that.

     >> JOHN KAMPFNER: I'm going to farm that question to ever our friend from telecom you may be able to answer that as well as putting another point.

     >> As TELCO we do -- countries where were part of the country. We have a few hundred to few thousand and people sitting in the can't rip and a few billion dollars of equipment still in the country. And that's pretty different from an Internet company who can make his business from outside the country. So we leave the country we're subjected to enforcement from the Governments of those countries. So that's why we constructed the idea to be transparent. We've been forced by revolutions that we are forced to do things we deposit want to do and we mentioned Egypt but there's quite a few others where we were asked to shut down to filter and to send even SMS messages and this was done sometime again in fronts of our -- so one of the principles that was mentioned is our first priority whatever happened is to try to save the life of our people in the field.

And that's why we do things we don't want to do them. But we are trying to put transparency into that and then again we are facing Government when it could be unlawful to be transparent and we could talk about Egypt because Government is gone.

     >> We could say we have to do it that was a huge step towards transparency but we had to do it because the Government is gone.

     >> We open dialogue to Governments so we not be number -- so we not be forced to do things and if we are for say Government security or Government interests we should redebate what is Government security and what is Government interest F we can find our way between the two within the Diaspora and have a discussion we would go forward and do it it's best we can do. At least, Google said that inter transparency report that we do not -- I'm not sure we are yet allowed to try and report CSR and we report everything we're doing this year and there's few things to report before all these event but from what I remember, Google had also transparency report before this WIKI leak and of course there's transparency report and transparency report we want to make sure what we can do, question do it and we can be transparent.

     >> JOHN KAMPFNER: Before giving the microphone to Mike, one of the tasks facing GNIs associative work with the industry dialogue is reconciling the differences between ISPs and intelligences in the historic legacies and in the extent to which by nature of the work, Telcos through internationalized land lines and histories were imbedded with Government and technical differences between the two different sectors. There's a lot of work to see how far that sort of cooperation goes.

     >> MIKE HARRIS: So there's the word oppression in the title of this workshop. So we know why the Chinese delegates turned up. They turned up because they thought with the word oppression in the title we would talk about China and talk about your legions of state and talking about the facts that freedom is virtually non-existent in China and fact we're rounding up leading bloggers and fact many of your most talented individuals have fled. That's why you're here and that's why you thought you would participate in this debate. I tell you what it's incredibly depressing watching Chinese lecture the U.S. Government on mass surveillance. It's incredibly depressing site to watch where we have major leading nations of the world all engaging in gross symptomatic mass surveillance and at the IGF we say this is where we draw the line and hold our democratic Governments accountable and say we know what best practice is and that's executive oversight judicial oversight and jury saying yes you can Sure say there individual and no you can't curtail individual.

I think we also have to get involved in legal warfare. We have to say, as civil society, where Governments are surveying us we have to have challenges and we need change corporations. It's good corporations are taking corporate responsibility a lot more seriously than they were a few years ago. We seen that in spring. But companies also have responsibility where they're put under pressure by states to use every means they have in their disposal including evil warfare to push back. Maybe they only push back 24 hours maybe 4 hours but it shows states they cannot Act with impute tut whole time. (Applause).

     >> Where do we go from here. We have to flatten and I find a way to address these issues where do we address it by having workshops and discussing it or take it somewhere. And the question is should this -- everything else came from ITU and is this an issue coming to ITU and on the main panel and where should we discuss, any ideas, guys?

     >> Right, it's actually more questions and that's a good challenge for participants when I asked them in a few minute time for summing up remarks. Yes.

     >> My name is Sridi Hall. I'm a blogger and activist my question is related to Google. Google is currently having battles with user and commercializing prospect and with all the server ends going on now do you think I should feel secure that my data will not be used against me? Just a general question?

     >> What was the last few words not be used for?

     >> Being a customer do you think I should feel secure that my data will not be used against me? (User).

     >> JOHN KAMPFNER: So our interest in a principle sense and commercial sense is to keep your data safe and it's your data. If we are requested under legal processes (this is Ross) that are robust and according to rules of law to disclose that, we're obliged to do so and that's the way the law works. So, that's presumably answering your question.

     >> JOHN KAMPFNER: We have time for a few more questions having sort of asked people to diversify, feel free to spread them far and wide as you wish. Or are we running up against time? Okay, so, if that's what we are -- let's rise to the challenge it's easy to complain. In practical terms whether it comes to specific asks or requirements of corporations or Governments, or whether it is in multi-stakeholder and other international forums, what is the best way for encapsulating -- we got GNI which holds company to account as civil society organizations such as human rights and watch index and part of it and is growing Sean now beginning to explore collaboration with Teleco. How do we bring it to international, for which are the best international forum and how is it best done, particularly not just in a critical complaining way, but in a practical way to achieve results.

Would wants to take that challenge on first?

     >> It's pretty difficult window answer. Because it's obviously easy to point out the problems. And I would say one of the most morning things we can do actually is raising human rights standards that can apply. This is a very general thing right? General standard. We heard about it a lot. And but as well as was having with word balance when you talk incorporate. There are times we talk about human rights standard we don't have a very good idea what we're talking about when we're talking about human rights standards I think it's important to take into account what human rights said when you have the kind of things like interAmerican human rights systems, for instance, and therefore try to figure out how that is done for freedom of expression and such can apply to just set different standards to Internet. And I'm not saying nothing you know new but it's very important to try to figure out what are best practices companies and handed and criteria we use as a starting point is what our human right experience in the last 45, 50 years having --

     >> Answer my own question? Look, they're -- okay you can take it oh, God. We can do something about it and everybody wants to shout and scream we heard that. You take it to ITU and we had something happening earlier like last year and take issues all sorts of issues and it would be said let's do that and maybe the idea is that it does get rejected maybe that's the news piece and media and see who actually rejects that may be one way to do that or the other way would be at the very least IGF I know this issue was struck off from being anywhere close to main session of the IGF maybe idea to have discussion next IGF maybe that's another way to do it I can only think of these two ways and third mechanism which is not necessarily international convention or governance to have coalitions come together and say we as countries as a caucus we, and our subordinates in these countries will not be subjected to these things and we'll ut.weight of the U.S.

and other Government behind this issue. Maybe that's the way to do it.

     >> JOHN KAMPFNER: That's a perfect que do say GNI is meeting in Brussels in November it's a start of that. And hopefully, if 21 countries or more are holding themselves up as leaders, self-professed leaders in the field, then they have to be held to higher standards as others. Lisl, do you want to offer some GNI and other thoughts.

     >> LISL BRUNNER: Sure I think that Claudio made a really good point that at the end of the day when we talk about freedom of expression and privacy we're talking about concepts that are established in international law and particularly in international human rights law and so the conflict that we often face is what happens when domestic law is not necessarily consistent with international law and the standards that countries held themselves to and what do companies do in these situations is the question that we're trying to answer. And any forum in which we can dialogue with international actors, having those standards, in former discussion I think will be valuable forum.

     >> Well the most important is to increase engagement of civil society to do any dialogue, local, regional or international but most important we have to increase engagement of civil society but most important is to create capacity building of civil society itself because actually we have a slight challenge on civil society in Indonesia where we're talking about the Government and telecommunication issues and so only a few of civil society understand would be up invited by Government. When we talk about -- when you talk to Government about, why don't you invite multiple society to be edge gauged on policy draft and policy making or any freedom of expression to policy, and the Government said that well actually we want to invite civil society but we don't know which one could be invited. So the challenge in Indonesia still civil society and when civil society any dialogue from local, regional, would be very useful unless it would be talking and talking.

Thank you.

     >> Well I think that you know as I said in beginning forums like IGF are incredibly important. Secondly, I've talked about legal warfare and upholding corporate responsibility and upholding state responsibility. I do think in the grand you're scheme of things we need more protection -- and I think there's a problem that very few states globally have protections in their constitutions, have legal protections for whistle blowers unless we have that we can't really push -- we can't really push forward convincingly for freedom of expression and finally I think we're starting to get a clearer idea of global benchmarks around freedom of expression and privacy and a lot of work is being done on appropriate measures, take down of content and appropriate measures of take down copyright content and we're starting to see the emergence of global standards.

I think the next part is actual implementation of those standards. We need a lot of civil society pressure so that we move quickly on this and we don't wait another ten years for companies to have proper implementation of these guidelines. Because all too often it might not be the worst egregious case but defamation laws and content of take down of defamation laws huge problem. We're starting to see solutions and guidelines. We need them imposed.

     >> Ross, I wanted to ask you what is your chosen or preferred international forum for dealing with these issues. What about Zahid's point which is throwing it at ITU is a challenge, challenge towards -- so far western Governments and some corporations have been reluctant top do that. Tell us which you think are the best public mechanisms for airing these problems in not so much rhetorical way but practical way that it results.

     >> ROSS LaJEUNESSE: That's always a significant challenge with international institutions. And I think it depends on nature ever the problem. And it depends on what you're trying address. I think respectful engagement is incredibly important And actually spending time to listen and understand different perspectives as cliched as that sounds is actually vital because that's how we understand different perspectives and come to collective solution. And that's why you know there is for multi-stakeholderism in that sense. I would also say in a practical basis you know, there are Internet tools that are available but also I invite you if you see practical tools that you feel we should be doing or other private companies should be doing, let us know. That's important for us to hear from people that use our services. And so that's a dialogue as well between business and those that use our services that is particularly important in this context as well.  

     >> JOHN KAMPFNER: Scott, before coming to you for final thoughts some of the writings and other things I've done since -- one of the great sadnesses I have felt is the don't which the surveillance that has been revealed has undermined got work that Governments and other have been doing on the hostile side freedom expression side in terms of credibility of the actors and in amongst the question there's a huge challenge about forums you can begin to answer the question about how do you beyond words, how do you begin to restore the credibility of the external free expression work is that the being done or will that just be in time of the revelation?

     >> Scott: That's what I think we're trying to do. I like Zahid's idea of guest freedom of on-line coalition in issue and I think broadly the notion that like-minded Governments and entities and individuals coming together around a set of principles and approach on these issues is what needs to happen. And I would be very reluctant to have this discussion to date in a state-centered organization like ITU or for that matter UN itself because I don't think you'll end up with an outcome that is going to be best for human rights. So thank you.

     >> JOHN KAMPFNER: Okay. We had a large panel and I'm grateful for panelists of keeping open being remarks brief so we were able to engage in pretty full on dialogue all of us together. There's many more panels and other discussions on these issues so if you could thank the panel and thank you all for attending and enjoy your evening (applause)

* * *

     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.

* * *