Internet Governance Forum
 Hyderabad, India
 Fostering Security, Privacy, and Openness 
 4 December 2008
 
 Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during Third Meeting of the IGF, 
in Hyderabad, India. 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.


 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Hello.  Let's start the next session, please.  We are starting the next 
session which is fosters security, privacy and openness. The chairman is Mr. Shyamai Ghosh who 
is chairman of the data security council of India.  And he is also -- was with the Indian 
administrative service, and his major assignments have been secretary of telecom and secretary of 
information technology in the government of India.
 So he is very knowledgeable about these issues and I will hand it over.


 >>SHYAMAI GHOSH:   Thank you, and a very good morning to all the distinguished delegates.
 We have a very interesting subject before us, particularly following from the previous 
session.
 Fostering security, privacy, and openness.
 I would add to that the right to information, which is a building issue in our country.
 I am sure the panelists will address whether it is conflict situation or a converged 
situation.
 Conflict in the sense of national security versus security for privacy, and the right to 
information.  Convergence in the sense of security, privacy and openness being mutually 
reinforcing preconditions for users.
 And by stepping up levels of user security and privacy, confidence is engendered for 
use of Internet and facilitates free expression of opinion.
 Here, there is a very critical issue which we, in the data security council, had an 
annual event previous two days -- we had intentionally had it in Hyderabad -- whether 
there is an issue relating to culture of privacy.
 Internet is global, but privacy could be local, could be regional, could be national.
 And a very simple instance of this is an issue which is debated here:  Whether your 
tax returns should be open for public view.
 I know politicians have to declare their assets, but should it be applied across the board.
 As is becoming clear, Internet has become a way of life, for the young and particularly 
old like us who are self-employed and we can't do without the laptop 24 hours a day, 
7 days a week.
 In this context, is Internet governance a relevant issue?
 And too long in this business, 15 years ago, if you use that, Internet has been free and 
it should continue to be free.  But there are societal issues which need to be addressed 
and, therefore, governance becomes a relevant point.
 In the Indian context, since we are here, we have an amazing story where 9 million 
subscribers are being added every month.
 We have gone from 2% penetration of telephones in 2000 to 30% now, but there are challenges.
 The rural population is still to be covered.  How can they be brought into the mainstream?
 Internet broadband penetration is very, very low still.  And one of the challenges which 
I faced as the administrator of Universal Service Fund is how to reach out.  And a solution 
which has been found is to support infrastructure through the universal obligation fund to 
fund infrastructure, which will be shareable.  And that will be the towers which will help 
penetration in the rural areas.
 Wi-max is a solution which we have eagerly looking forward, but at the same time, the incidents 
of the past few months had brought out the need to create user awareness for technologies like 
Wi-Fi.  Your identify can easily be stolen, if you are not careful, you don't know the do's 
and don'ts in this regard.
 Without taking up any more of your time and the time of my panel, I will now hand over to my 
esteemed colleague, Mr. Gross, whom I know for the last eight years, and he will now take over 
the management of the panel.
 Thank you.


 >>DAVID GROSS:   Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to everyone here to what I 
think will be, far and away, the best panel of the entire conference.
 We're going to try to do something a little bit different.
 In the spirit of the IGF, which among many other things is an experiment in self-governance 
and Internet governance, we're going to try a slightly different approach than the first panel 
in a way to see if this works as well.
 What we're going to do is I'm going to give a couple of remarks.  Then I have asked each of 
our esteemed panelists to talk for about five minutes on a subject that is close to each of 
their hearts and their professional experience.  And then we are going to try and engage in 
a dialogue amongst the panelists, and we will try -- I will try to make it, at least, as 
interactive if not controversial as possible, recognizing that people have jobs to go back 
to and they don't want to be too controversial.
 At the end, we will try to take some comments from the floor, so be prepared for that.  
We will try to do that in a way that will not interfere or take away from the open dialogue 
of this afternoon where there will be lots of opportunity for discussion as well.
 Let me begin by a couple of thoughts.
 One is that the issue of security, privacy and openness is, in my view, going to be the center 
piece for policy discussions for the next many years.
 I say that in part because if I look back on the past eight years or so, these have not been 
the front-burner issues.  They have been issues, they have been serious and important issues, 
but issues that people have talked about in terms of Internet governance have really focused 
on many other areas and have been much of the focus of things like the World Summit on the 
Information Society and many meetings.
 Which is an interesting situation because if you go back into the 1990s, the issues that we 
are going to be discussing here were, in many respects, the burning issues of the day.  And 
what I would suggest is that those embers have continued to burn and are about to flare up 
because they discuss, really, the confluence of societally important issues that are, in many 
respects, in conflict with each other and yet are additive of each other:  Security, privacy, 
and openness.
 We have a terrific panel here that has great expertise in this area.  I will note in the 
interest of trying to make sure that everyone takes away something that maybe is useful, I want 
to just sort of list a couple of the more recent relevant -- what I think are the relevant 
international statements that are important in this area, not in any way to be an exclusive list 
but just the ones that I find myself referring to with increasing frequency.
 Of course, I always begin with the universal declaration of human rights with regard to the free 
flow of information and its importance.  I think, of course, of the World Summit on the Information 
Society, and that was particularly in the Geneva phase, there were good statements there, but in 
my view, the Tunis Agenda was a high watermark for the commitment to free flow of information, both 
in paragraphs 4 and in 42 are the two that I often refer to.
 Just this year, we have had a number of important developments that I hope panelists will refer to.  
One is the OECD ministerial that we had earlier this year, and there are important statements there 
on the free flow of information.
 Just very recently, the International Telecommunications Union met in South Africa at the World 
Telecommunication Standardization Assembly, not often thought of as a place where, at least, free 
flow of information issues are discussed.  But in fact, resolution 69 that was offered there is, 
I think, an extraordinarily strong statement about the free flow of information in which member 
states were invited to refrain from taking any unilateral or discriminatory actions that could 
impede another member state -- and it was made clear that "member state" includes its citizens -- 
from accessing public Internet sites.
 That means, in my mind, that countries around the world have now unanimously and by consensus 
agreed to allow their citizens to have access to the world's Internet sites.
 And then very recently, in a nongovernmental context, there is the Global Network Initiative 
that a number of NGOs and companies came together to try to address the issues of protecting 
freedom of expression and privacy for users in ways that are , I think, very ingenious and very, 
very interesting to look at.
 With that brief set of comments, let me begin with John Carr who is the secretary of Children's 
Charities' Coalition on Internet Safety in the United Kingdom for a few opening remarks.
 John.


 >>JOHN CARR:   Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
 And my highly truncated remarks follow.
 It was interesting the treatise and documents that you just referred to as being the cornerstone 
of many of the debates that we're here to address.
 What you didn't mention, and, in fact, what almost always, in my experience, gets omitted is,
 for example, the United Nations declaration on the rights of the child.  The European Convention 
on Cybercrime.
 These are just two important international documents, important international treaties which, 
for example, create specific legal obligations on states and actors within states to provide 
for the protection of children.
 And what I think hitherto we have not seen addressed adequately is the way in which we 
integrate and balance the obligations on states, the obligations on adults in general, 
on businesses and so on to provide adequate protection from children and how you balance 
and address those with the other rights referred to in your opening remarks in relation 
to, example, free expression, privacy, and so on.
 There are tensions. I think they are tensions which can be resolved, but nonetheless, 
they have not yet been fully addressed, in my opinion, and perhaps today's session will 
see the beginnings of a more serious discussion on that.
 Very briefly, as we know, children have been and will remain major beneficiaries of the 
new technology.  Most children have no fear of the technology, none at all, unlike their 
parents.  And as we say in English, they have taken to it like ducks to water.
 And so children and young people generally are benefiting very specifically from what the 
technology can deliver. But wonderful though that technology is and fantastic though the 
range of opportunities that it's opening up for children and young people in general, we 
cannot remain blind to some of the down sides of not yet being adequately addressed.
 There are five broad categories of risk that we need to bear in mind when we think about 
children, young people's use of the Internet.  Content is the first and most obvious issue.  
That's to say the Internet's ability to expose children and young people to age-inappropriate 
material.  Some of it may even be illegal material; for example, such as child pornography.  
There are other issues in relation to contact, the way the Internet is able to facilitate 
exchanges, for example between sexual predators and vulnerable children.  And numerically, 
this is by far the more important issue for children and young people, the way in which the new 
technology is facilitating and enabling new styles of insidious bullying and online harassment.
 There are issues in the field of commerce, the way in which some Internet companies, rather 
unscrupulous companies in my view, seek to sell to children and young people, take advantage 
of their less worldly-wise ways, dodgy products or to misrepresent the terms on which those 
products or services are to be offered or in which they seek to obtain commercially sensitive 
or commercially valuable information from children; again, taking advantage of their naivete.
 There is the question of addiction, the way in which some children appear to be drawn into 
overuse of the technology, which can be at the expense of normal and healthy development of 
social relationships, taking exercise and that type of thing.
 And finally in the list of areas of concern that we need to think about is the issue of privacy.  
And that cuts across several of the ones that I just mentioned.  But what right to privacy
 does a child have, a legal minor have vis-a-vis its parents, vis-a-vis its school. How do 
companies determine whether or not they have in fact obtained true consent from someone 
old enough to give it?  And it's a very basic level.  If you think of commerce on the Internet, 
how do companies know, for example, if they are selling an age-restricted product to somebody 
that is legally entitled to buy it?  We have had several cases in the United Kingdom where 
children are buying alcohol, tobacco, knives, things of this kind and getting the companies 
to deliver it to their home.
 They couldn't go into the shops and buy these things because the shopkeepers would see 
that they were children and simply prevent them from buying those goods.  And if they 
did, they would be breaking the law.  But these things are being supplied to children 
over the Internet.  They don't even have to have the inconvenience of having to carry 
the goods home.  The companies will deliver them to their doorstep.
 And these are, it seems to me, some of the issues that we need to think about.
 One plea that I want to make, and it's a very heartfelt plea.  When companies speak 
about and when Internet companies speak about and governments even speak about reaching 
out to children, reaching out to families and reaching out to parents, all of which 
are very, very important, they seem to think that all children have got identical IQs, 
identical -- live in equally stable family settings and have got an equal facility 
to receive, understand and act upon the messages.
 Parents and families are all somehow modeled on some notion or idea that, in my 
experience, doesn't exist, certainly doesn't exist for every child.
 We have to get more sophisticated in the way that we think about approaching children, 
young people, and thinking about how we support families and parents to help their own 
children.


 >>DAVID GROSS:   Thank you very much, John.
 Now we're going to turn it over to Jac Kee, who is a member of the Association for 
Progressive Communications for a few comments from her perspective.


 Jac.
 >>JAC SM KEE:   Hi.  So I'm going to introduce into the whole debate about privacy, 
openness, and security the dimension of women's human rights.  This is particularly 
critical, because, historically, by introducing women's human rights into particular 
debates, it has not only deepened our understanding of what the issue is, but also 
has facilitated more inclusive and comprehensive responses.

 So, in particular, I would like to speak about today is on the issue of sexual rights.  
Why are we talking about sexual rights?  This is because in this area of content 
regulation, sexual rights is often brought up as a form of discourse that's mobilized 
to justify content regulation interventions or to talk about issues related to 
openness, security, and privacy.
 And, in particular -- so what are sexual rights?  Sexual rights is basically a 
state of physical, emotional, mental, and social well-being that relate to sexuality, 
not merely the absence of disease, dysfunction, or infirmity, but it also requires 
a positive and -- approach to sexuality and sexual relationships as well as the 
possibly of having pleasurable and safe sexual experiences, free from coercion, 
discrimination, and violence.  And this is from the Cairo program of action.
 So numerous human rights have a direct bearing on what -- on sexual rights and 
sexual health.  This includes right to liberty and security of the person, right 
to be free from torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, right to private and 
family life, right to nondiscrimination, and, importantly, right to information 
and education.
 So we're looking at these three sort of -- what has been raised as three concepts 
that apparently are in tension with each other.  We are talking about openness. 
 The free flow of information, the ability to be able to acquire relevant and 
timely access to information that directly impacts upon your life.
 When you look at sexual rights and women's sexual rights, in particular, this 
is very critical, because we are -- the Internet is not -- it doesn't exist 
in a vacuum outside of social relations.  We have to locate this within the 
social, political, economic, and cultural context that we exist in.
 So sexuality -- women's sexuality has often been constructed as a kind of 
lack, as passive.  And it has a whole cultural connotation of shame.  It's hard to 
exercise sexual agency without some kind of cost on the individual.
 The Internet has provided a kind of critical space to enable women to explore and 
self-author their sexual agency, to be able to acquire information about sexual 
and reproductive health that may or may not be available in other sorts of 
public spaces, for example, about abortion or about negotiation of condom use 
by teenaged girls, and so on and so forth.
 And also about exploring a more positive form of -- and a more active form of 
sexual expression.  So the Internet has also facilitated what is now known as 
erotica, so sort of depictions or expressions or explorations of sexual 
encounters, behaviors online made by women for women that puts women as the 
sexual actor, not as the object that is being acted upon, which is found in most 
mainstream pornography.
 It's also become a critical space for women of marginalized and diverse sexualities 
to network, to exchange information, and to be able to build communities with 
each other.  And this is where it also intersects with issues of security -- sorry, 
issues of privacy.  So it becomes very important for people -- for women who are 
accessing information online, who are interacting online to be able to feel safe 
in the space to not be subjected to intrusion or surveillance either by people 
within their community, their families, for example, for a domestic violence survivor, 
it's critical for her to be able to go online to find support information, 
and for her cache and cookies, that it's possible to delete this in her footprints 
online.  Or for state intervention, there are communities working on diverse 
sexualities in very prohibitive contexts who found it very necessary to be able 
to learn tools on secure online communications to anonymize themselves and to build 
Web sites based on this, because it's critical for them to be able to mobilize 
and advocate for their rights.
 And in terms of security, this has -- this is quite interesting, because it's 
also raised -- we're starting to realize the different forms of security issues 
there are for women who are accessing online spaces.  So the intersection between 
violence against women and communication rights has revealed the many dimensions 
of power relations that exist in this online space that either amplifies or 
disrupts what's happening in our social spaces.  So, for example, things like 
online harassment or cyberstalking, which we are only beginning to sort of 
unravel and understand its impact.  We know it happens.  It has happened before 
on the streets and now it's just happening on digital spaces.
 Things like using GPS technology to track spouses who are being controlled in 
domestic violence situations, and at the same time, the reclaiming of these 
technologies to disrupt what it's being used for, so that's a very famous instance 
of women in Afghanistan who put video cameras underneath their burqas to be able
 to document immediately and directly violations against the women's rights in 
very oppressive situations and use the power of the Internet to be able to safely
 and anonymously disseminate this through a video viral.
 So I suppose when you think about this, and by casting a sort of a lens that 
understands dangers and risks to certain kinds of rights, not just in terms of 
the state versus the individual or the corporation versus the individual, but 
also in the more shifting dynamics of social relations between individuals and 
individuals, whether in a family or whether in a social context, and things 
like, for example, privacy becomes interesting.
 The concept of privacy have not been very kind to women in general when 
it's applied in law.  So, for example, in situations of -- it took many, many 
years for domestic violence to be understood as a crime against the state and 
a public interest issue, because privacy was understood in the -- in our 
imagination as a domain, a space.  It wasn't linked to the body.  It's not a
bout privacy of myself, but it's privacy of my home.  And the home belongs 
to the head of the family, which is usually male.  So then it's the intervention 
into the home becomes a problem because you're intruding into the right -- the 
man's right to privacy.
 And I think I have one minute left.  So maybe I will just leave it for the 
discussion later.  But I guess I just want to end with a few sort of -- a 
few questions.  One is, when we talk about harmful content online and we 
talk about harmful practices such as what's happening in social networking 
platforms, we must locate it in its social, cultural, political, economical 
context.  This is relevant, it is connected very much to what's happening 
in the real life.  And when we talk about harm, then we can't be simplistic 
about this harm as well.  We have to interrogate it, unpack it, what is this 
harm, to whom?  Who defines it and who participates in this decision-making? 
 And I will leave that for the discussion later.


 >>DAVID GROSS:   Thank you very much.  I think that's going to highlight, 
for example, we're going to have some interesting by plays here.
 [ Applause ]
 >>DAVID GROSS:   For example, the issue of women's rights, particularly with 
regard to sexual issues and the like, versus the issues that John highlighted, 
which is children's concerns, where and by whom do the lines get drawn?  
Who is a child?  At what age is that changed?  Is that a uniform global 
phenomenon?  Is it a local issue?  Is it a -- what is the role of governments?  
These are the issues I think we can express and have some interesting dialogue on.

 And with that, Joe, Joseph Alhadeff, who is the vice president of global public 
policy and the chief privacy officer at Oracle, who generally on a day-to-day 
issue doesn't deal with those issues, but will raise some other interesting issues.


 >>JOSEPH ALHADEFF:   Thank you.  I'm going to start by actually referencing one 
of the documents that the chair brought up, which was the OECD recent ministerial 
in Seoul and some of the issues in the declaration, just because it -- taking a 
step back, it gives us a little bit of context as we look at the concepts of 
privacy, security, and openness.
 And one of the things that the ministerial came to the conclusion of was the 
importance of information flows, ICTs, and innovation to economic growth, to 
societal interaction, and to the benefits that arise, while recognizing that 
there are risks associated with the use of these technologies and the need to 
address them in an appropriate fashion.
 And that was an interesting concept, because I think we have to understand the 
utility of this context as we look at it and as we look at the potential benefits 
and tensions that are inherent in the overlap of the three topics we're dealing with.
 I think a number of issues that were raised at the DSCI Nascom meeting that was 
referenced also are important, because we focused on the cultural aspects of 
privacy.  Privacy, unlike security, has a greater subjective aspect that is more 
tied to local culture.  When you sit there and you look at password security, 
password security is not an issue of local culture.  But how you deal with 
information and control over information has many issues that are locally relevant.
 So when you start entering into a position where we have global information flows, 
but you still have regional and local regulation, you start understanding some of 
the complexities that are inherent in this space.  You then take that, the concept 
of Web 2.0 technologies, some of these more collaborative and interactive 
technologies, which create the idea that information again is less tied to geography, 
that users are now creators and publishers and not just people who are acted upon, 
and that you have generational and geographic attitudes and values that are changing 
related to privacy.
 And there you get kind of a flux and a mix.  And when we take a look at those issues, 
we come into the area of privacy, security, and openness, and we try to figure out 
where's the overlap, where's the mutual reinforcement, and where's the tension.
 And as we look at these, I think there was one question that was asked by one of the 
early speakers in the first panel that was very pertinent.  And that question really was, 
what kind of security do you want and how much security is enough?  Because those are 
the kinds of questions that relate to where you actually look at some of these tensions 
and how they're resolved.  Because what you really want is, you want security to be 
effective.  You want privacy to be respected.  And you want an open framework to 
enable transparency and free flows of information.
 And when you look at privacy and security, in many cases, you have the possibility 
of having mutually reinforcing concepts and technologies.  I'll provide an example of -- 
since we are well familiar with databases, one of 
the things we looked at was, when we looked at database technology, there are a lot 
of technologies that were built into the database initially to promote security,
 so the type of audit protocols you have, the type of role-based access controls 
you have were very much security tools when they were built.  But they have a 
privacy effect when you think of configuring them the correct way.
 And when you think of security and privacy and you configure them to optimize the 
combination of both, you actually get a very interesting equation where one plus 
one equals three.  And while that might not be good math, it's a good result.
 And so that's one of the things where you have to think about how do privacy and 
security become mutually optimized.  Because it doesn't have to be a balancing on those issues.
 Now, there are going to be places where you have tensions and you do have to have 
some kind of balance.  There is an example, for instance, of within the European 
Union, companies -- and in most other places -- companies have a responsibility for 
protecting their customer data.  On the other hand, there's also a responsibility 
for having some privacy aspects of the workplace and respecting employees in the 
workplace.  And there you have a tension on how much monitoring is appropriate 
and how you manage these issues.  And that's a balancing that has to be reached.
 And that's the kind of balancing where a stakeholder consultation, where 
consultations with data protection commissioners, are important ways of finding 
the appropriate resolution to those issues.
 You'll find that you also have the same things with openness.  So the issue of 
transparency, the issue of notice, they're very important issues that promote 
openness.  You have free flows of information.
 On the other hand, if you are completely open about how you configure your 
security, you have provided information on how to compromise your security.  
So that is a place where you have some tensions.  If you are completely open 
about certain types of information, you violate obligations of confidentiality 
that you may have to your customer, to your employee, or to others.
 So, again, those are areas where you have to resolve those tensions, but where 
there are also mutually reinforcing possibilities.  And I guess one of the things I 
want to come out of this is that you don't have a simple, black and white solution 
of saying, it's either in balance, it's either competitive, or it's either mutually 
reinforcing.
 It's all of those things.  And the question is, how do you best optimize.  You 
have a lot of elements that you are managing.  There are ways to manage them with 
the greatest optimization.  And one of the ways you have to look at those is, you
 have to have flexibility in the frameworks.  One of the things that was also said 
this morning was a one-size solution does not ever work.  In security, it doesn't 
work.  In privacy, it doesn't work.  And while the word I'm going to use has a 
technical meaning, I am using it in a much broader fashion than its technical 
meaning.  What you really have to look at is how you develop interoperability.  
How you make different frameworks interoperate, how they work together.  Because 
we are not going to get a unified framework of everything for everybody.  And it 
may not be beneficial to have one.  But you do have to have frameworks that talk 
to each other, that work together, that allow you to collaborate and work cooperatively.
 And that is one of the things when you take a look at the three topics we're 
dealing with, really, what you're talking about is what is the effective interoperation 
across those three topics.  
 And with that, I will stop before I get a little note.


 >>DAVID GROSS:   You're too far down there to give you a note.
 So thank you, Joe.
 I think one of the issues that we'll come back on here, some of the points that 
Joe just raised, which would include, if one size doesn't fit all, who decides 
what size does fit?  Is this a role for government, for self-governance, is it 
something that customers tell you?  Is it something that you decide for yourself, 
how the various actors interact, particularly in a global environment?
 And similarly the issues that you raise with regard to Web 2.0, social networking, 
and the like, obviously, has an impact on all of the discussion we have had so far, 
it seems to me, including the question of how much privacy is the right amount of 
privacy.  And perhaps the changing views on the importance of privacy, as 
demonstrated by various people.
 We're going to next turn to Professor Stefano Rodotà, who is a world-renowned, 
chair scientific committee of the agency for fundamental rights of the European 
Union.  Former president of the EU group on data protection.


 Professor.
 >>STEFANO RODOTÀ:   Thank you, Chairman.
 We live at a time when the issues related to the protection of personal data 
feature a remarkably contradictory approach, speaking frankly, a veritable social, 
political and institutional kind of schizophrenia.  There is increased awareness 
of the importance of data protection as regards not only the protection of private 
sphere of individuals, but their very freedom, at the same time, is internal and 
international security requirements and market interests are pushing towards the 
erosion of fundamental safeguards.  The multifunctionality criterion is increasingly 
applied.  Data collected for a given purpose are made available for different purposes.  
Data processed by a given entity are made available to different bodies, public and private.  
Reuse and interconnection are the leading criteria.
 May we react to this trend and find a more sound and correct balance between data 
protection and security, data protection and market logic.
 Look, for instance, at two important international documents, the charter of 
fundamental rights of European Union, and the European Convention on Human Rights.  
Shortly, these two texts make reference to the -- states that limitation for security 
purposes never can impinge on the essence of the right to data protection and they must, 
in any case, pass a preliminary democracy test.
 Having in mind this basic criteria, and at the same time we need a positive reinvention 
of DP, of data protection, because the many technological and institutional changes.  
 For example, social networking, YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, deeply changed the context
 of data mining and profiling, because informations are made public by the same data 
subject.  It means that we must rethink the rules on data collection and access on both 
sides, data subject and data collectors.
 Second, digital person is under attack.  Through massive profiling, identity is more 
and more built up by others.  Pressures for trace-back make anonymity disappearing.  
Can we accept our societies be converted into nations of suspects?  The transformation 
of people into naked individuals?
 Third, we are facing changes of the same body, because the diffusion of devices like 
electronic bracelet, wearable computers, microchips on the skin that can be read through 
the technology of radio frequencies.  Can we accept people be converted into networked 
persons, tracked and traced, configured little by little, in order to transmit signals 
so that can be continuously controlled. Finally, it has been proposed the retention of 
all data produced by people, a perspective dramatically risky in the perspective of 
the coming Internet of the things.  Can we accept this digital tsunami?
 Answering these questions, we can find a renewed and strong legitimization for 
data protection looked at by many people as a fundamental, fundamental rights.
 Thank you.
 [ Applause ]


 >>DAVID GROSS:   Thank you very much, Professor.
 Our last presentation, formal presentation, will be given by one of the great champions 
of free flow of information and freedom of expression.  He has worked tirelessly on those 
issues through many forums.  We spend a lot of time together at the World Summit on the 
Information Society, where he was really a champion of the free flow of information.  
Abdul Waheed Khan is the assistant director general for communications information at UNESCO.  
He gave a fabulous speech yesterday.


 Mr. Director General.
 >>ABDUL WAHEED KHAN:   Thank you, Mr. Moderator.  You have given away what I 
was going to say.
 But, anyway, coming from UNESCO, representing UNESCO at this forum, I'm sure you will 
not be surprised if I take you back to UNESCO's constitution that was created some 61 
years ago.  And that constitution talked about free flow of ideas, information, and 
knowledge.  And you mentioned several declarations in recent times that have reiterated 
this fundamental principle of free flow of information and knowledge.  And this, of course, 
is anchored in article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, freedom of 
expression and freedom of the press.
 But, again, in recent years, we have talked about this fundamental principle not only 
applying to the traditional media of printed press, radio and television, but to new 
and emerging technologies, what we call the freedom of expression applying to technologies 
without frontiers.
 I'm sure when you look at the emergence of new technologies, there will be new other 
technologies developing, and, therefore, as far as we re concerned, the fundamental 
principle of freedom of expression should not be compromised, whether in respect of 
old medium or new medium.
 If you recall, if I can take you back to the World Summit on the Information 
Society, UNESCO advanced the notion of building knowledge societies.  And we talked 
about four fundamental principles of building knowledge societies:  Freedom of 
expression -- of course, you will not be surprised that that was one of the major 
principles -- universal access, respect for cultural linguistic diversity, and quality 
education for all.
 We believe that openness, the concept of openness, applies to each of these fundamental 
principles.  Freedom of expression, it is obvious.  But when you talk about universal 
access, how can you have universal access without relying fundamentally on the concept 
of openness?  You -- the respect for cultural and linguistic diversity, likewise, has 
to rely heavily on the notion of openness.  And quality education without openness in 
Internet, you cannot really expect this technology, what we refer to as flexible learning 
or e-learning or online education, et cetera, again, will be restricted without relying 
fundamentally on the basic principles.
 And yet there are attempts made to curb freedom of expression and free flow of ideas 
through technical means.  These are, for example, filtering or blocking software on 
servers.  Financial means, such as high taxes and tariffs.  Legislative, special laws 
to block, for example, sites.
 So attempts are made to curb openness and freedom of expression on the Internet.
 In our view, the fundamental principles that must be -- that must govern the Internet 
and its structure must be transparent and democratic, multistakeholder approach, of which 
I mentioned yesterday, and several other speakers did, facilitating access for all, and 
ensuring stable and secure functioning Internet.
 Now, in -- Mr. Chairman, in your remarks, you mentioned that the security, privacy, 
and openness on one hand may appear to be somewhat conflicting ideas.  But on the other 
hand, you can also think of convergence between the three.  And I think the world will 
be a better place if we look for those convergences. However, in doing so, I would 
strongly urge that we maintain the principles of openness and freedom of expression 
as a priority element in any future discussion and policy-making decisions.
 Thank you, Mr. Moderator.
 [ Applause ]


 >>DAVID GROSS:   Well, thank you very much.
 Now we're going to try to do the more controversial part of this program, now that 
we've had the opening comments.  And so I'm going to try to start by asking a couple 
of what I hope to be reasonably provocative questions to talk about what I think are at 
least the tougher areas, the grayer areas of where these things come together, with 
the hope that then our panelists will ask each other.  And the idea here is to have 
some interaction, which I will share with the audience is hard when we're all facing 
out rather than to each other.  But we'll do the best we can.
 And, John, I'm going to put you on the hot spot first, if I may.
 Jackie made what I thought was an extraordinarily articulate set of statements 
about the importance of communication amongst various people to talk about issues 
that are, of course, of great importance to people, their human sexuality and the 
like.  I don't think we mentioned that age was a particular issue necessarily.
 You have talked about the rights of children.  You have talked about content and 
concern about contact and the like.
 Let's take off the issue of child pornography, just because that's, in my view, 
the easy case.  I don't know anybody who is for child pornography.
 Let's talk about teenagers, who are generally considered to be children, but yet 
have a lot of indicia, particularly in many countries, have a lot of the rights of 
adults.  They can often marry at certain ages and so forth.
 Tell me a little bit about how you, and by whom, should draw the line about issues 
of importance to women for teenaged women to have access to sexual information and 
to be able to communicate with each other.


 >>JOHN CARR:   Well, clearly, it's incredibly important that teenaged women, teenaged 
boys, for that matter, can get access to relevant and appropriate information about sexual 
health.  If they weren't able to do that, not only would they be putting themselves 
at risk, but also they'd be putting other people at risk.
 I don't -- I don't have a problem, in principle, with any of the points that were 
made by Jackie in her contribution.
 The issue arises, really, in a broader context, which is simply, you know, every 
society that I'm aware of has passed laws and/or has quite strong social conventions
 around what's considered to be acceptable for legal minors.  I don't see a reason
 why the Internet should be exempt from the same conventions and the same rules in 
principle.  And to some degree or another, I think we're still all struggling to 
come to terms with some of the rather windy rhetoric of the early years of the Internet, 
when it was seen as completely, you know -- providing a means of, essentially, doing 
away with the old alder altogether.  Well, now that you buy your Internet access with 
your TV, or in shops that -- the Internet's become, essentially, a consumer product, 
it's a family product, hundreds of millions of children and young people are using it, 
we can no longer think about the Internet and Internet policy without also thinking 
simultaneously about how this or that decision will impact upon hundreds of millions 
of young people.  
 And yet, I mean, you mentioned, for example, the document produced by the Global 
Network Initiative.  There's no discussion in there about the rights of children, 
the rights of young people.  There's no attempt to balance, in that document, the 
issues of how the Internet is impacting upon young people and young people's development.  
And I think that's very regrettable.
 And I hope the same energy and resources and impetus that was behind the development 
of the Global Network Initiative, for example, can be put behind a debate about 
how we do balance out these different tensions and different conflicts.


 >>DAVID GROSS:   Jac Kee, let me turn to you and ask did that sound right to you?  
Do you believe that it should be left to traditional norms, which are often 
government-created norms, to determine rights of information for teenagers, 
non-majority children, but yet have a lot of the indicia of adults?
 And you mentioned the issue, for example, in repressive societies, at least 
repressive for women, the issue of trying to make sure that people know about 
what's happening there.  What is the appropriate role for governments?  Is it national?  
Is it up to the individual?  Is it up to the family?  How do you view these?


 >>JAC SM KEE:   I think that the role of governance, and when it comments to Internet 
governance, really the primary function of it is to see how you can create an Internet 
that empowers the users and the people to be able to realize the multiplicity of their 
rights.  And these rights are -- you know, rights are not neutral as well.  They are 
not apolitical.  It's not immediately understandable, as you were talking about women's 
and human rights.
 And I think the problem -- not the problem but the difficulty that comes with when 
talking about protection of children is that it's -- and lso about sexually explicit 
content.  This is where we talk about regulation of free flow of information.  
This is where we talk about setting boundaries of what can and cannot be done.
 And in many times, it is writ in very noble -- or not noble, but very genuine 
kinds of intention to protect and to create safe spaces.
 But when we rely on norms and when we rely on, especially -- norms means things 
which are normally accepted as correct and things which are deviant from the norms 
are those which are punished or sanctioned.  And the Internet actually is a very, 
very valuable space to explore what is considered as deviant norms, especially when 
it comes to issues of as sexuality.
 So, for example, in a country where abortion is illegal, the Internet becomes a 
critical space to find out more about what this means, what the processes are, 
who can help you and what kind of decisions you can make about your own body.
 We do live in a gender disparate world.  You know, in all the institutions where 
decisions have been made and disseminated about norms -- whether it's mass media, 
whether it's the government, whether it's religious institutions -- you will find 
there are not many women present who are able to engage and participate in this 
decision-making, whether formal or informal.


 >>DAVID GROSS:   Secretary Khan, let me put you on the spot here.
 You spoke beautifully, as you always do, about the importance of free flow of 
information.
 We have heard about the role of protecting children and the role of governments 
and other traditional norms.  We have heard articulately about the importance of 
access to information, particularly global, because you can get access to important 
information about yourself and about the changing norms and the like.
 Who sets the limits?  Who sets these things?  Is this for governments?  Families?  
It can't be, as we have heard, one size fits all.
 How do you try to analyze this?  Who are the actors and how do the decisions get made?


 >>ABDUL WAHEED KHAN:   Difficult question.  When we met this morning, I said I would 
be happy to answer easy ones.
 [ Laughter ]


 >>ABDUL WAHEED KHAN:   I never promised to answer a difficult question.
 Clearly, I think one of the things that we, as human beings, are empowered, really, i
s to look for solutions.  No (inaudible) is forever.  And no law is forever.
 However, there are certain fundamental issues, such as freedom of expression which 
I mentioned in Article 19, that it is the world adopted Universal Declaration of 
Human Rights, and that is where it is enshrined.
 Now, most societies find their own -- or legislate their own laws to deal with the 
specific issues.  If certain activities are regarded as criminal activities, the 
law of the land is often able to deal with those activities specifically.
 But that does not mean that you dilute the fundamental principles; in our case, 
the freedom of expression.
 There is no need for doing that.
 I think most governments are in a position to legislate laws where to deal with 
the specific issues.
 This has been our stand always, and we see no reason to change that view.
 Thank you.


 >>DAVID GROSS:   Joe, let me put you also on the spot here, and since you are the 
representative of the corporate world here, I will probably do something completely 
unfair because it really doesn't involve Oracle as far as I know.  But we've talked 
a little bit here about the role of individuals and families and governments in making 
some of the rules with regard to free flow of information and these difficult issues, 
but there is also an important role, and you touched on this a little bit, with regard 
to companies, and particularly for ISPs and the like.
 For example, just this past Sunday in the New York Times magazine section, there was a 
fascinating article that talked about the role that Google has played in trying to work 
through these issues of trying to balance various laws that are global, that affect a 
global company like Google, their customer service agreements that restrict the types 
of information, particularly sexually explicit information and the like that people 
can put on there, and the issues about how those decisions are made and by whom are 
they being made.
 How do you think these issues should be dealt with?  Are these issues that the free 
market can determine?  You can determine your own ISP based on their policies?  Is it 
left up to governments?  Is it left up to individuals and to families?  Or is it left
 up to companies?


 >>JOSEPH ALHADEFF:   Well, I think when you look at these issues, you have to look at 
the fact that there is a multiplicity of factors that you are dealing with.  And what 
you have in the market is a number of different styles.  And this issue isn't a new issue.
 When you first started having service providers on the Internet, there were different models.  
There were some models where they were trying to create a safe place for families, and so they 
limited content in a much more dramatic fashion.
 There were other ones that were merely giving you connectivity and they weren't really 
limiting access or content.  And there were some who were attempting to take people who 
hadn't really had familiarity with the Internet and attempted to give them the guided tour.  
And so you had hot buttons to hit certain types of content and certain types of Web sites.
 And I think what you end up having is, there is no one entity that can make all of the 
decisions.
 Companies will take things that are appropriate to business models, appropriate to the 
laws they operate under, and will attempt to factor those in and provide notice of how 
they have done that factoring. They cannot provide kind of transparency to the level of 
individual decisions because you will stop being able to do any business if you get to that 
level of granularity.
 But the framework conditions are usually something that are disclosed in the policies 
or terms related to the Web site.
 And that, then, enables consumers and citizens to make certain choices about what type 
of sites they want to use and what they can expect to get from those sites.
 And I think what we really have is there is no longer the bright line there used to be 
between -- I mean, in some industries, there stills but on the Internet, it's much more 
of a community-based concept now than it ever has been before.  And the idea that there 
is just pure regulation and just pure actors upon which regulation takes place is no 
longer really the fact.
 You have people who are engaged in working with people who are in regulatory structure.  
So you have public-private partnerships and ways in which those discussions are happening.
 You are having much greater communication with stakeholders in the process as well.
 And much more collaboration and consultation.
 And I think the dynamic that we haven't yet come to which will change this even further 
is when users become their own publishers.  Because there, it's not a corporation anymore.  
It's a person on their own computer who is creating a blog or creating other things, and 
they might still be using an ISP for the communication, but they are, in many ways now, 
an actor in and of themselves and they are interacting with many others on the Internet 
and they are posting and creating content.
 And so that will, again, change the dynamic.
 So I think we are in a fluid area, and the answer is everyone is part of the team in 
terms of making decisions because it's a question of a multiplicity of options, a 
multiplicity of ways of doing things.  And I think there is a need for inherent flexibility, 
but you do have to get to the point where abuses that may be created because of that 
flexibility also need to be dealt with.  And that's where we get to, what you called, the 
more obvious things such as child pornography is something that has to be dealt with.
 So you can't have a Web site that says we would like to promote and post child pornography.  
That is just not acceptable.
 So there are some norms beyond which you don't go, but I think there is a large flexibility 
among the other things.  And choice, in many ways, actually helps people.


 >>DAVID GROSS:   Professor, Joe touches on this idea that basically you let a thousand 
blossoms bloom here and let people pick which flowers they would like.  Does that really 
work in a global environment where you have various cultural, historic, and other norms 
that are important to people, important to cultures?  Something that's acceptable in 
one place is unacceptable elsewhere, and you have people having access or perhaps even 
being able to be required to see things as they go through the Internet, as they surf 
the net.
 How does this get worked out?  How do you see this being dealt with?  Particularly, 
as you point out, with issues such as self-publishing through things like Face Book, 
MySpace that you pointed out, where individuals are going on and posting things that 
perhaps are interesting to some, perhaps not so interesting to others, and sometimes 
regretted down the road by those who published.


 >>STEFANO RODOTÀ:   You are right, because we need kind of intercultural dialogue in 
this field if we look at the global dimension.
 In this very moment, in my experience, we are facing multi data protection models.
 You know, if you look, for instance, to the European Union, there is a progressive 
uniform harmonization of the rules.  And this model is now an important tool in the 
global dialogue.  Why?  Because if you need personal data from the European Union, 
you must give -- you must have this legislation giving adequate protection to the 
information transferred in other countries.
 So other countries bargaining with Europe, having relationship with Europe, must 
confront themselves with this kind of model.
 At the same time, at the same time, when you are looking not only with regional 
rules -- Europe as a region of the world where data protection has specific relevance.  
When you look at the new phenomena, like Face Book and so on, I think we have to look 
to a common resonance.  In this, the Internet Governance Forum, has an 
important -- is playing an important role, giving support to the idea as being called 
Internet bill of rights, Internet rights.  That's semantics.
 This is a crucial point and important approach.  We need some common rules.  But what 
it means, it does not mean that we have to go through traditional avenues, negotiating a convention.
 We need, as has been said, a multistakeholder and multi-level approach.
 It means that, for instance, for some areas, we need rules.  In other areas, we must 
recognize that codes of conduct are today the only valuable approach.
 So I think that we need dialogue, we need global awareness, we need this idea of 
Internet -- I use the wording Internet Bill of Rights, as a 
process, not as a negotiation of traditional convention.  Top down.
 We are living in a world, Internet, where the procedure is more and more bottom-up.
 This is the right approach, in my mind.


 >>DAVID GROSS:   John, go ahead, please.
 >>JOHN CARR:   I just wanted to come back on the point that Joe made, saying that 
everyone is part of the team.
 That's simply not true.  It's certainly not true in the U.K.
 Time after time, surveys by entirely independent academics, talking to parents, 
for example, about their children's use of the technology reveal that the parents, 
a good number, absolutely not all of them, but a good number have no idea how to 
grapple with some of the essentially technologically based challenges or issues that 
their children are having to deal with.
 One of our big mobile phone companies did a survey which they are showing the 
evidence on a video that they did as part of the process of doing the research.
 Parents who have just bought brand-new mobile telephones for their children had no 
idea that these phones, these devices allowed their children to connect to the 
Internet.
 And by the way, in some cases, these were parents who had, in fact, installed 
filters and blocks and had all of these discussions about Internet usage of 
computers at home.  They then buy a mobile phone device and then discover that, 
actually, they have also provided their child with Internet connectivity through 
their mobile device.
 Now, what do we do about this?  I mean, it seems to me that you can say, well, 
there's nothing we can -- actually, I think what some companies are saying is 
there is really nothing we can do about this.  It's not our responsibility.  
And it's just kind of tough on the kids of those parents who haven't understood 
some of the issues here.
 But, you know, that's it.  There's nothing we can do.
 I don't accept that.
 I think that, companies have a responsibility, if they are selling a product 
that can put children at risk, to provide that product in the safest possible 
condition that it can be at the time of delivery.
 I admit after that, it gets more complicated.  But certainly at the point that 
the computer or mobile phone or whatever it is is sold into the domestic 
market -- I have nothing to say about the business market and what adults 
do -- but into the domestic market where there is a reasonable supposition 
that children or young people are going to be using the device or using 
the connectivity, I think it is incumbent upon the seller, the vendor, 
to make it as safe as it can be.  At the moment, it is completely the other
 way around.  A computer or a mobile phone can be sold into the domestic 
market knowing there is a very high chance that children are going to be 
using it, and then the companies trust to luck, they trust to luck that 
the parent will find out that there are issues, will act upon it once they 
found out, will act correctly, and will sustain that over time.
 And I don't think that's a reasonable way of dealing with it.


 >>ABDUL WAHEED KHAN:   As technologies develop, and as more and more people 
use media and technology, there are studies that show that the children are 
spending more time with both new and old media than they are spending in school 
and with parents.
 So your point is well taken that it's unthinkable that the exposure that they 
have to the media and its content will not have some kind of impact on their psyche.  
Definitely, there is clear evidence that that is already happening.
 I am not going to address the issue of technology and what features you need to 
build and how to safeguard, but I was at an e-inclusion conference in Vienna only 
a few days ago, but that's not the only place where people are talking about digital 
literacy.  We at UNESCO have been talking about media literacy for quite some time, 
information literacy.  If parents need to be educated, how best to use the 
technology for the growth of their children.  I think, first of all, they have 
to acquire information literacy and media literacy.
 And therefore, in the new wonderful world that we live in, the three R's 
that we were used to, reading, writing and arithmetic, are no longer sufficient.
 It is important for a forum such as this to recognize that new literacies are as 
vital, if not more vital, than the three R's that we have been used to.
 Thank you.


 >>SHYAMAI GHOSH:   I thought I would comment.  I was quite -- The issue raised 
by Professor Stefano that cross-model data flows have a different regime as compared 
to data available on Internet.  If every country insists that you follow my rules 
for cross-border data flows, then data flows will never happen, because it will be 
impossible to replicate a legislative regime of one country in another.
 So whether or not this issue could be also tackled in the way we are dealing with 
Internet governance, because that also deals with information flows.  And Mr. Khan 
has raised very valid issues, in the sense you have freedom given to you.  But the 
catch is reasonable restrictions.
 What is reasonable restriction?  As again, it's varying from different country to 
country, different situations.  Whether or not there could be some global definition 
of reasonable restriction anticipating the circumstances of.
 We are dealing with a global situation, a situation which is global free flow.  
I think more conventions that can be evolved at an international forum like this 
would help facilitating everybody, while addressing all the concerns which we have.


 >>JOSEPH ALHADEFF:   While we're neither an ISP or a search engine, apparently, 
I'm standing in their shoes for part of this discussion.
 I think there are legitimate points to be made about making sure there's 
information about what features are available, making sure that you have 
technological capacity to do some level of blocking and control, especially 
for technologies that children may use.  But I also think there's some level 
of responsibility that the parents need to take.  'Cause you can't set -- you 
can't say that any phone that may be sold in the domestic market needs to 
essentially be disabled from having any connectivity.  Because that's not a 
viable option.
 So the concept has to be --
 [ Applause ]


 >>JOSEPH ALHADEFF:  Apparently there's an ISP in the audience, or a phone manufacturer.
 The concept is that there has to be some middle ground.  There's a principle 
that's in the OECD security guideline that essentially says, each according to their 
role.  And everybody, every actor, has a role to play.
 Parents buy knives.  That doesn't mean all knife makers have to make dull knives, 
because knives may actually occur in the home, and children may cut themselves.  
You can't go to that level.
 And I'm not suggesting that you were saying that we do go to that level.  
I'm using an exaggeration argument.  But I do think there's a responsibility 
for all actors to play in this.  And you're absolutely right, there's a disparity 
of information.  There's no question that there's unequal information.  
People need to do a better job of getting that information out there.
 But part of the problem is parents are buying a phone without going to the phone 
store and saying, "By the way, I'm buying this for my kid.  Is there anything I need 
to know?"  They may think they are buying it for themselves.
 We need to get to a place where there is a better understanding.
 The last point is we are in a situation which has not happened before, as far as 
I know, which is is that the kids are much more technologically sophisticated than 
the parents.  And, in fact, some parents who use the technologies don't use them 
well enough to block the kids, because the kids know the way around them.
 So this is a situation where the adoption of the technology and the knowledge 
of the technology by the people who are, quote, unquote, at risk is actually 
at a much higher level than the people who are attempting to control them and 
create benefit for them.
 So I don't exactly know the way that education can happen in this space.  
I think it definitely has to be a public-private partnership, where multiple 
venues of education are the best way forward.  But I do think we have to have
 the concept of responsibility across the broad range of actors.  
 And then perhaps one comment to something that Professor Rodotà was talking 
about.  One of the other regional approaches to privacy has been that of APEC.  
And there's an interesting concept in the APEC approach which has value as we 
look at information flows, and that's the concept of accountability.  And the 
concept of accountability exists in the OECD guideline.  It's inherent in the 
E.U. directive, obviously.  But it's the idea that obligation flows with information.  
And that helps one move across boundaries.  Because one of the problems that you have
 in an adequacy context is you have to find another region to be adequate.  And that
 is a time-intensive and labor-intensive process which has only happened with a 
handful of jurisdictions to date.
 So I think one of the things we learn in the accountability concept, if you look 
at obligation flowing, there may be contractual methods, there may be technical 
methods in which the information is given similar protection to that required in 
its country of origin but in a way that doesn't require a change of legal framework 
or an identical legal framework in the location of where the information is received.  
So that may be one of the things that we're looking at.  And it's clearly something 
that in the European Union is being considered as they look at binding corporate rules.  
Because in many cases, binding corporate rules are an accountability mechanism.


 >>DAVID GROSS:   Unfortunately, we're now at that stage where we have to wrap up.
 Just when I think things are really getting hot, which is unfortunate.
 Let me just suggest for this afternoon for the open dialogue a couple of additional 
things that were touched on but we obviously didn't have time to start to get into, 
and one of which Jackie, I think, alluded to, which is the issue of privacy on the 
Internet, that is, being anonymous on the Internet.  If you are trying to get to 
information that you don't want everyone else to know that you're trying to access, 
for whatever reason, anonymity can be very important. Obviously, on political speech, 
anonymity can be sometimes very important.  On the other hand, in an age where we have 
terrorists and we have a whole host of social problems that require people to be able 
to find out who is speaking, whether it's protecting potential predators and so forth, 
or protecting children from predators and the like, the ability to be able to track 
people down, to know who is that on the Internet, who are you dealing with, for fraud 
issues and otherwise, is a very tough and interesting set of challenges.
 What is the role of authentication?  What is the role of privacy?  What is the role
 of anonymity on the Internet?  And how does that change?  Is it -- can you limit it
 to particular areas?  Or do you have to have, as we talked about, basically one size
 fitting all here?
 That issue, it seems to me, becomes heightened as we talk about medical issues, 
which Jackie was alluding to as well.  The issue of privacy as medical records and 
other sources of very private medical information about individuals gets placed on 
the Net, exchanged.  The importance of that for people to have access to information 
and have medical professionals have access to it but yet the security issues, the 
privacy issues of having that potentially disclosed.  Those are some of the issues 
that I think can be explored much further.  Obviously, this is a very rich and deep area.
 I want to thank all of our panelists for their participation.  And I want to turn it 
over to our able chairman.


 >>SHYAMAI GHOSH:   Thank you, David.
 I think several issues have been raised which can be taken up in the afternoon 
session.  It's not an easy issue to deal with.  The challenge is how do you convert 
the areas of conflict into areas of convergence so that both the issues are addressed 
in the proper perspective.  And there is probably a possible view that many of these 
will have to be decided in a multistakeholder environment.  And perhaps the IGF, 
under the U.N. auspices, would be a proper forum for taking up this particular issue 
as to how do we take forward situations of conflict into convergence.
 Thank you.
 [ Applause ]


 >>CHENGATAI MASANGO:   Thank you, Chair.  And thank you to the moderator and 
Mr. Gross. Please, can you remember to return your headphones.  They need to be 
recharged.  And also, we'll meet back here at 3:00 for the open dialogue, for those 
who are interested.
 Thank you.