IGF 2019 – Day 3 – Convention Hall II – DC – Joint Efforts to achieve the SDGs

The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Berlin, Germany, from 25 to 29 November 2019. 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 event, but should not be treated as an authoritative record. 



>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Are we on?  We're on.

>> MICHAEL OGHIA:  Oh, there we are, never mind.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Shall we start?

>> MICHAEL OGHIA: yeah, I believe so.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Hello, everyone and welcome to this main session where all the Dynamic Coalitions are coming together to share their work with you, to share their achievements and to answer our questions.

We have 14 speakers here, it's a lot and we have time constraints but be sure that we will be able to include everyone who is sitting here and who wants to ask the question.

So how this session is going to run, we split Dynamic Coalitions into small blocks depending on which field they're working in, which Sustainable Development Goals, I hope you will forgive me if I call them SDGs to save us more time, which SDGs they pursue and in addition to questions about their work we have three main policy questions.

The first one overarching one, is how policies that promote Internet connectivities and Internet use can be designed to be more inclusive, more bottom‑up to provide more participation and to ensure the input from local communities.

The second question is related to development of the new technologies such as IoT:  How can we secure them, both on the end level, on the end user level, but also in terms of complex technical measures in cybersecurity.

And the last one, with all these intelligent technologies developing, how do we ensure that regulation, legislation, and policies will be human rights centric, will promote and ensure human rights?

And I'm going without any due delay to move to the first block of Dynamic Coalitions that we have, that works on various Sustainable Development Goals, but they also have something in common.  They promote connectivity, and they promote inclusion, and of course, it is related to more overarching aim of such SDGs as good health and well-being, quality education, gender equality, decent work and economic growth, to name but a few.

And first DC I want to ask to answer our question about their work is Dynamic Coalition on connecting the unconnected, and I would like to ask the speaker, Christopher Yoo about their work.  I know you've been working on connectivity and it is not the first Dynamic Coalition session I moderate, and honestly, I admire work year after year.

I know that it is very important in connecting the unconnected and achieving such SDGs as reducing inequality, decent work, and economic growth, as I said, to name a few.  What have been done this year to connect who still remain unconnected?  And what are your challenges in connecting them?

>> CHRISTOPHER YOO:  Well, thank you very much, Tatiana, for such a kind introduction.  What we are doing is collecting data.  When we talk to policymakers about precisely the issues you raise, they're constantly asking for more solid information and they need it not just to figure out whether to commit resources to connecting the unconnected.  That's not really the problem.  There's a consensus now that that needs to happen.  They need to know where to invest and how much to I'm vest and to mobilize the international finance community they need to know what's the impact of a marginal investment of additional money and you find it's not just we need to carry it not just for connectivity for its own sake, but for its contributions to the Sustainable Development Goals, and really what our work has done is to change the focus beyond just connectivity to start to measure what does the connectivity get you?  I'll talk about a couple different things.  We have a database of 1,000 interventions of people around the world and we've contacted them all and now generated 120 case studies that allow us to collect data in ways that connect cross project comparisons.  Most don't collect any data and those few who collect it collect it in an idiosyncratic manner and without data people fall in love with the technology and think that it's the solution to everything and what the data tells us is that different solutions even within a single country, different parts of it, the urban and rural regions, the more mountainous regions, the less educated regions will all require different types of interventions and they will all require interventions on both the demand side and the supply side.  We've all learned the hard way the idea that if you build it, they will come is simply not true.  They need digital literacy training, gender obstacles need to be overcome and they need programming and lessons about how to do that and what will work and not work as well.

What's really interesting to give you a couple headlines what we learned, many people have worried about capital expenditures.  As it turns out operating expenditures are more critical because if you lose money on every successive year it doesn't matter if your initial build was expensive or cheap.

And most of the operating expenses are in backhaul.  As I mentioned we need to do demand side interventions but in fact the digital literacy training people understand it's necessary but people don't really know what it means.  Is it basic skills training?  Is it more advanced training?  Is it just initial training or more sustaining engagement after that training and building of mentorship and communities?  And we're in the process of studying those different implementations in a concrete way.  We discovered that the majority of projects have no revenue.  They receive grant or Government funding or corporate social responsibility funding but have no ability to evolve into being self‑sustaining.  Some of the Government projects are designed to get continuing funding but for most of the grant and social responsibility funding they are not so we've been encouraging people who make these grants to validate business models that have the ability to become self‑sustaining.

And lastly this point I've made we're doing active studies to look at the impact of connectivity on health care, on education, on economic development as Tatiana mentioned, using the gold standard research which is randomized controlled trials and controlled trials to get an assessment.  We thought we would be contributing to literature that already exists.  We found out there's never been a paper substantiating this.  If you're interested we have a web site at 1 World Connected.org and we'd encourage anyone interested to contact our Dynamic Coalition, or contact us directly.  We'd be happy to share what we've learned with you.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you very much, Chris and thank you for sticking with time.  I so much wanted to start this session, from Tatiana Tropina and my co‑Moderator.

>> MICHAEL OGHIA:  I'm Michael Oghia, and I'll jump in.  Obviously, the things we're doing at DCConnect is really important.  What's also important to consider is once we get people connected how do we engage them and make sure they can continue to take advantage of the opportunities that the Internet and ICTs offer?  So we're going to jump now to Gunela so I want to come to you because for many years, your DC has been critical at trying to make really bridge this gap between those who have Accessibility and Disability needs and kind of where our technology currently is, accessible especially for People with Disabilities.  It serves SDG10 about reducing inequalities quite well and so I see from your submission and the work you've been doing this year that your focus has been on the participation of People with Disabilities in Internet Governance and so basically we want to know what are the ways, what are some of your ways of catalyzing such involvement of those individuals with disabilities, those with accessibility needs?  What has been done so far especially over the past year and how do we exactly make Internet Governance processes more accessible and more inclusive?

>> GUNELA ASTBRINK:  Thank you very much.  Yes, and it's good to follow from Christopher.  Connecting the unconnected is very important for People with Disabilities certainly in the Global South, where there is limited possibilities at this stage for People with Disabilities, and we know that there are well over one billion people globally with disability, so we're talking about a very large number of people, and certainly in the Global South there might be 85% of that one billion, so we have focused in the past and we will continue to do so to encourage persons with disability to engage in the Internet Governance processes, and one of the sayings in the disability movement is:  Nothing about us without us.  So the voice of People with Disabilities needs to be heard in fora like this.

And the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability has been operating as one of the first Dynamic Coalitions within the IGF, and one of the ways we operate is to assess how accessible the IGF venue is, and also the online facilities, and we had a meeting today discussing just that, and while we appreciated very much the accessibility in a number of ways of this venue, and certainly the volunteers from the German hosts have been really fantastic to help the persons with disability who need to get around the venue, and so from that, we are then able to discuss together with the support of in this case the IGF SA to enable some of us to travel to be here today, and during this week of IGF.  And accessibility for People with Disabilities is really a cross‑cutting issue.  We really feel we can liaise quite well with just about all the DCs sitting here.  Because obviously with connecting the unconnected, the Internet of Things which we're going to talk about later, gender issues and so it goes on.  There are issues from the perspective of persons with disability in all of these areas and certainly as you state the SDG goal that's really important for our DC is to reduce inequalities within and among countries in particular, that's target 10.2 which discusses the empowerment and promotion of a socioeconomic and political inclusion of all irrespective of age, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status, and we also refer to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which has been signed by over 180 people, which requires a number of Governments to abide by the particular articles in that Convention.  And I can talk a bit more about that later so thank you very much.

>> MICHAEL OGHIA:  Tatiana?

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you very much, and again, thank you very much for keeping the time.

>> MICHAEL OGHIA:  My pleasure, sorry.  I'm staying in this block a little bit longer so let's continue the track basically with inclusion, because that's really I think a lot of what this first block is focusing on and in fact, I don't believe ‑‑ do we have anybody here from the ‑‑ is Stuart here?  I'm sorry.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  He arrived a bit later I believe.

>> MICHAEL OGHIA:  Fair enough.  Stu, it's good to see you.  Obviously, Stuart is working with public access and libraries, the DC of public access and libraries, and libraries are a key way of providing connectivity especially in places where connections are not as good or in places where digital literacy is a lot lower and so a big part of, one of the big SDGs your DC connects to is SDG17, which is focusing on the partnerships for the goal and helping and in this case with your DC helping people access the Internet and like I said focus on public libraries and public institutions of sorts.  In your experience what are the most important components of a policy that will support libraries as public Internet access points and what is currently being done by your DC to influence the adoption of such policies?

>> STUART HAMILTON:  Sorry for being a little bit late.  We had a Dynamic Coalition meeting so we've come from that.  We discussed the first part of the question which is what sort of policy environments do we need to be successful at our jobs?  I think it's worth reminding ourselves we have over 400,000 public libraries worldwide which I think makes us one of the most interesting stakeholders in IGF because that's 400,000 physical Internet access points all over the world and I can only think of maybe Post Offices as another similar stakeholder but we're pretty unique in that regard.

What we're looking for are policy frameworks that are going to get our libraries connected where they're not connected and connected better where they are.  We want high‑speed access where we can possibly get it and we want to make sure our libraries are included in National broadband plans where a National broadband plan is part of a National development plan.  We want to be included in any sort of specific sort of development plans around the SDGs so our session we just had focused a little bit on the extent to which we already are and we've commissioned a piece of research through the DC which analyzing 32 plans where we found libraries included as public access points so that's encouraging but there's a long way to go to get more than 32 countries in that regard but we're very encouraged by the recent report from the Broadband Commission which specifically recommends public access as a mechanism to increase connectivity.  When it comes to the specific actions of the DC we've been up to, we have been productive.  We developed principles on public access, a framework to catalyze discussion for everybody here within the IGF around moving towards universal access through public access.  We contributed to the intersessional IGF work for enabling the next billion and included case studies which we think is important to connect the policy and show you how it's done on the ground. 

We developed a public access policy toolkit which outlines the key policy elements and the steps we need to take to create this enabling environment which we think is a great place to start for understanding what it is that we need.

Several members of our Dynamic Coalition have also been engaged in something called the partnership for public access, or P4PA and there we've gone further and we have a project in Tunisia we've been working on focused on digital literacy and coding and we've been engaging with the Secretary‑General's High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation.  There are many other little bits and pieces but these are the High Level things I want to bring out here.

>> MICHAEL OGHIA:  Thank you.  And stayed well over time, yeah so thank you so much for that.  Tatiana, I'll hand the floor back over to you.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  With think I would like to make short break, if there are any questions we have here or any questions from the remote participants.  If no then we will continue with the same ‑‑ unless you have any questions to your Fellow Dynamic Coalition panelists about your work or collaboration or cooperation.  If not then we will move to the Dynamic Coalition on community connectivity.  And I know that Jane Coffin was going to be there.

>> MICHAEL OGHIA:  I can quickly introduce, this is Carlos Moreno so thank you so much for joining us Carlos and for being part of this.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  It got maybe confused, because I didn't see Jane in the room.  Your DC with your work comes closely to what we talked about, about connectivity and inclusion, but I know that you're working on achieving SDG in a bit of a different way because you're focused on the local communities, on this truly bottom‑up approach to connect via community shared network via alternative means.  I would like to ask you in general how do you think how does it contribute to achievement of Sustainable Development Goals?  How does it contribute to bottom‑up approach to inclusion and how is your work complementing the work of those Dynamic Coalitions and other groups who are working on connectivity as well?  Thank you.

>> CARLOS MORENO:  Thank you very much.  I'm obviously not Jane Coffin.  I was asked to replace her very last minute.  My name is Carlos Moreno.  I work for the Association for Communications, and I've been engaging with the Dynamic Coalition on community connectivity since their second year 2016 in Guadalajara.  Every year, ever since, there has been a publication coming out of the Dynamic Coalition where different members of the coalitions have been providing their input and publication that has become very meaningful to articulate some of the ideas and the bottom‑up approaches you were mentioning from all over the world.  Also this year and I also arrive late as Stuart because I our session just finished literally and maybe I request provided a significant synergies in between the Dynamic Coalition on public access and libraries a and the Dynamic Coalition on community connectivity including the partnership for P4PA, public access, which considers community networks as one of their three pillars.  It would be pleased to the MAG not to put them at the same time because then it's very difficult to build synergies in between the two Dynamic Coalitions as we have done in the previous years.  And in relation to that, and in relation to the SDGs, going back to the question that you asked me, and maybe also on the collaboration that in many years, but in particular this year we have had with the Dynamic Coalition on innovative approaches to connecting the unconnected, there was something that Professor Yoo said on his Dynamic Coalition around community connectivity that was many people thought that it was not possible and after several years, you've proved that community connectivity is just another alternative to connect the unconnected and here is what I want to link with the SDGs, if you think about SDG9, target 9C which talks about universal affordable access for everyone especially in the Least Developed Countries, and the way it's being measured that this connectivity or people connected to mobile by technology by the 2G, 3G, 4G, if you look at the statistics, everything is going up.  Every year there is more people connected which is great.  Every year there is more people connected per technology which is great.  But the rate at which that growth is taking place is plateauing very badly.  Even the ITU recognized it last month so alternatives are necessary.  Public libraries are necessary.  Innovative approaches are necessary, community networks are necessary because the model that we had up to now and the ITU, the Director Ms. Doreen Bogdan‑Martin in the opening of the introduction on digital inclusion said that we need new models, that we need new regulation and policy frameworks and that particularly where we have been the publication of this year is particularly on those policy and regulatory frameworks that are necessary and the changes within them to accommodate these innovative approaches like community networks in the policy and regulatory frameworks of the different countries.  Thank you very much.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  As we saved five minutes before the questions before we move to the next Dynamic Coalition I do want to ask a question, a question that in my mind connects several of you.  I've heard the words regulation, I've heard the words policy frameworks.  I heard the word investments and it strikes me like how much does your work on connectivity depends on investments, on enthusiasm, on existing tools.  Does it strictly depend on funding?  Because it does strike me that a lot of this depends on effort of people and on existing tools that you're just advancing, empowering people so can anyone comment on this?  I think this is a very interesting issue.  How much does it depend on money and on existing tools?  Or do you really needles to invest a lot in development of technology.

>> CHRISTOPHER YOO:  What's fascinating in the session I participated in earlier, Telefónica is cooperating with Facebook, in an extraordinary joint venture with the support of the Peruvian Government in reducing some regulatory barriers, to find out that they get better information that they can use to serve areas with conventional business models that they didn't previously know were actually potentially servable.  So that's one solution within the traditional mode.

There's community networks which have filled a gap where frankly many of the traditional network models will not work and many of them are completely self‑sustainable, in which case it's studying what they have an education of what works, what doesn't, how to build senses of communities, to build the real framework and to get more learning that way, and then we find out those areas which cannot exist under conventional models and need public or some other support, but understanding also where each of those lies becomes absolutely helpful to extend the limited money that we have.  To me, it's not really an either‑or question.  We need to do many things and there's stuff ‑‑ we will invent new technologies for as well, and we have to be openly experimental and you talk about the policy side, we've talked a lot about broadening, what's sometimes called regulatory sand boxes, changing flexible so people with experiment, whether in legacy regulation or spectrum policy but to try new things because that's how we learn.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you very much.  Stuart.

>> STUART HAMILTON:  A lot of our work depends on regular funding but often public libraries are part of existing Government machinery and there's advantages and disadvantages to that.  When it's a good time for public funding that's great.  When it's not so good in some countries my own the U.K. included it can have negative repercussions, the goal, goal 17 is an area where we leverage in the library community partnerships quite we'll.  We're quite promiscuous and that can lead to some of the sustainability that's needed to take the infrastructure projects or connectivity projects a little further forward so libraries are naturally quite good at partnering and we find ourselves falling back on them.  In the DC session we had, we had case studies from the use of universal service funds in Uganda and Kenya so we're keen on seeing more of that but when they run out you need that sustainability so we've had Microsoft coming in those cases, private sector and also some foundations so we really look to attract that so like Christopher said it's a mixture of both that we need.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you very much.

>> CARLOS MORENO:  They have elaborated significantly around funding.  For the next step forward into connecting the unconnected through at least community connectivity, people might not agree with me I don't think there's a problem.  I think there's enough people willing to, there's enough mechanisms to make money available to these type of projects, the people is there, the people are ready, the people are requesting to be able to set up these type of infrastructures by themselves.  The main limitation is the regulatory framework and in particular the spectrum.  The way the spectrum has been allocated up to now has worked for connecting people in wealthy urban areas but not in remote lower income sparse population.  Actually there is quite significant evidence that all operators combined are not using the spectrum in many areas of the countries, in Africa in particular so making the spectrum available.  We had a person from Ofcom who recently released a secondary use of spectrum regulation which is in all the IMT bands could be something that many other regulators could apply and could make much easier for these communities which are already ready where the technology is ready, where the funding is ready to deploy these type of initiatives and contribute to SDG9C.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you very much.  And the last intervention before we move to another Dynamic Coalition.

>> GUNELA ASTBRINK:  From a perspective of Accessibility and Disability we like to work with everyone, and so when it comes to the frameworks, we enjoy the importance of legislation and regulation to help us bring the message of accessibility within the private sector, so that the private sector understands, yes, sure, that there are some sticks, but there's also a number of carrots to ensure that products and services are being made available.

For example, this public procurement that incorporates accessibility criteria that's in the U.S., European Commission countries and also in Australia, and that will spread to a number of other areas, as well, so there's a benefit to developing accessible products to be able to supply governments.

But it's also from a perspective of ensuring that there are accessible products there.  When you're meeting a customer base that potentially is very large and so it's awareness raising, it's sometimes overcoming attitudinal barriers, to understanding the need for accessibility but also the potential for everyone to make sure their products and services are accessible.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you so much.  We're moving to the next Dynamic Coalition which approaches connectivity and inclusivity from a bit of a different angle and it is Youth Coalition on the Internet Governance, and I want to ask you why is youth engagement important for pursuing of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda?  What does youth inclusion look like to you and what would be your indicators of success.  Sorry, and the speaker is Virginija Balciunaite.

>> VIRGINIJA BALCIUNAITE:  Thank you, Tatiana.  So to commence my intervention, my short intervention, I want to start off with a super short story, and it will bring you all to Pakistan.  It brings you to a story of a young activist, an activist who works and tries to save the world by educating girls and empowering widows, and it's a funny ‑‑ it's not a sad story, spoiler alert.  Why I'm telling you the story because WiSig has worked a lot to help them in the application process and help them in the Visa process, so you can imagine how happy we were when the visa was accepted and when he finally got here to Berlin and he finally is here, activating ‑‑ advocating for young voice, for Pakistani young voice, and addressing young people here, addressing stakeholders here, and also we managed to connect him with different stakeholders who potentially could help him out in the future, who gave valuable advice for his work, and this story shows the activities of WiSig because it represents the four key activities I want to talk about so basically it's the outreach, the leadership, the representation of youth and partnership so first of all, the outreach.  We start off by giving the young people information about what is happening, by advocating about IGF, about Internet Governance, about other Regional events that are happening here and around young people but simply they're not aware of them.  And it usually happens in formal and informal settings.  We have a big mailing list where people are also talking to each other and we also engage in peer to peer learning and peer to peer education, when for example a lost person comes to Internet Governance Forum, and he or she doesn't understand what's happening, and then we engage with telling them what's happening, where to engage, with whom to talk.

And then leadership building includes a lot of trainings, mostly informal trainings, talking and giving them access to different stakeholders.  Also another important aspect is representation of young voice because WiSig provides IGF also with the young people, young voices, and we give the youth voice to these kind of policy forums.  We are sitting in the sessions because of WiSig.  We represent the young voice because of Youth Coalition of Internet Governance.  So it's a valuable experience also to share the ADS and for other young people to share their expertise and insights in these kind of sessions.

And finally the partnership aspect is particularly important because for example in lunch breaks we connect young people with stakeholders for example with the Academia, with the tech industry, with various types of people who are here, but the young people would not be able to know because they simply don't have a network yet to WiSig is here to support the young people in all these four main activities that I wanted to share with you today.  Thank you.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you very much, and before we move to another Dynamic Coalition, are there any questions or questions from remote participants?  Seeing none, this youth Dynamic Coalition was a perfect bridge to our next block of Dynamic Coalitions which work on such issues as inclusion from perspective of gender equality, from health and well-being, from the point of view of protecting vulnerable targets for example child safety, but I would like first to start with the Dynamic Coalition on gender, and Smita, I have a question for you.  I know gender equality is one of these big Development Goals, Sustainable Development Goals we're trying to achieve.  In the recent years there was a growing awareness about harassment and a big movement to uncover it and tackle it.  How does your Dynamic Coalition contribute to tackling this problem both online and offline?  Thank you.

>> SMITA VANNIYAR:  Thank you for the question.  One thing which we have to firstly recognize is that when we talk about online harassment and particularly gender based violence online, it is never a one‑step solution.  It's ‑‑ because the violence is never one step.  You have violence on different levels.  Sometimes it is the access itself which is not possible without violence.  Once you get online then what happens there?  Right?  When we speak about access is it just, should we just speak about access or should we be actually talking about meaningful access?  Because in India for example what happens is that it's not that the women and girls don't have phones, but the fact is that they are surveilled heavily, right?  And they may be using a shared phone with their family.  Any of the activities online we will be severely monitored.  They may not be allowed to put up photos and anyone who speaks up online again faces trolling and harassment.  The very nature of trolling against people who speak up is very gendered because it's different from what men face or male presenting persons face, and which is why the solutions for this has to be at multiple levels.

One is of course online ‑‑ on‑groundwork with women and girls themselves, empowering them, building capacities but it's also important we don't put the full onus of this on the persons who are attacked and surviving, on the persons who are already facing the violence because if we do that, then it's not a feminist approach to dealing with online violence and sexual harassment.  It is important that we put the onus, we put the burden of solving this problem where the responsibility lies, which is not just women and girls but also intermediaries, platforms, Governments because in many places there are no laws to deal with certain kinds of online harassment.

In many countries for example, non‑consensual sharing of images and especially of intimate images are seen as data protection violations, whereas in actuality it's an assault, it's sexual assault and it needs to be treated as that.  When we don't speak about it what we're doing is that we're separating the violence which happens from the bodies which are facing the violence and it's very important that we don't do that, and we address violence as a continuum, what happens online does not just stay online.  It also moves offline.

The reason, some of the things that the gender Dynamic Coalition does is also bring in gender very actively into the space of the IGF, because Internet Governance Forum is not only for discussing issues which are now and current but also emerging issues.  Online harassment is one of the topics which has been going on, the conversation around this has been going on for a while but it's also important that we evolve this conversation to anticipate what are the future problems that will come?  Especially machine learning with algorithmic decision‑making.  How are people of different genders affected?  This is another important element when we speak about gender.  Our conversation often remains limited to women, but gender is not just men or women, and if we don't go beyond the binary when we speak about gender, then it will be too late to address the spectrum which exists.

And I think one of the important things that the Dynamic Coalition on gender and Internet Governance does is also bring in gender into the supposedly technical panels which often are viewed as neutral and not influenced by gender and other social factors which is very, very, very far from the truth and I would stop here with this answer and I hope to continue it in the next Section.  Thank you.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you very much for such a powerful message.

>> MICHAEL OGHIA:  It's also about how the lack of women online because of for instance harassment and not just women but other Marginalized Groups, it's like we're trying to build all of these technologies and this inclusive Internet but yet so many people are facing the problem of then not being able to participate, because of what's online.  So thank you for that.

And so aside from gender and diversity issues, one of the most ‑‑ one of the more excluded groups online is easily children, because children aren't necessarily involved and are obviously usually not involved in the policymaking process so I want to move to Marie‑Laure and talk about what's going on not just with young people and youth in general but specifically on gaming platforms and online gaming in general.  I've long actually thought to myself:  Gaming is such a huge industry and it relies so much on Internet technologies, and yet gaming platforms aren't here.  Gaming is not really something we hear about very much.

So I really want to just address what are some of the fundamental challenges to your work, and how do they reflect challenges to achieving the SDGs, specifically those related to inclusion?  And not to mention good health and well‑being as I'm sure you'll address, the quality of education and obviously partnership for the goals.

>> MARIE-LAURE LEMINEUR:  Thank you.  Yes, so this year we had the dedicated session to the gaming platforms and so did we last year actually because we felt that we had not spent enough time and we needed to develop and go deeper this year.

On both occasions, we tried to convene sort of a balanced panel where we would have different Sectors represented, including the voices of gamers, young gamers, and I'm pleased to say that I think we reached objective this year, and we also didn't want to focus the topic from our anxiety and our fears because this is where most parents and perhaps as, you know, citizens, we sort of react when we talked about those topics.

And it was very interesting because we sort of mentioned the fact that indeed, there is a level of anxiety and there are dangers and there are risks, but also there are many opportunities, and as a matter of fact, this morning, the Global Kids Online report was launched by Dr. Sonia Livingston and her team, and one of the findings and the sort of the methodology, developed at European level and took it outside of European Region and applying it in more than 10 countries outside of the Europe and they found very young children engage with games in the range of 8 to 12 years old, and that's actually a way of developing social skills and enhancing the collaborative skills, and they call it the first step to ‑‑ in the ladder towards youth participation and engagement, so that's the positive side of it but of course we also discussed other topics such as companies collecting data, profiling children so that they turn them into consumers and get them perhaps draw them to towards gaming and gambling platforms which that would be the harmful bit and the risky part of it.

We also discussed the fact that self‑regulatory models on the online space in general, we had a feeling that it doesn't really work, so there was a consensus that we needed to enforce some kind of legal framework to force companies to set up some basic standards, so some of ‑‑ those are some of the issues we discussed.

>> MICHAEL OGHIA:  Is it okay Tatiana if I ask more?

In all transparency I'm and much to the ‑‑ for all transparency I'm a gamer much to the display.

>> MARIE-LAURE LEMINEUR:  Gamer or gambler?

>> MICHAEL OGHIA:  I'm a gamer much to the dismay of my wife, and something that I've long noticed is because I have a very good friend that works for Blizzard Activision, and I've long asked him:  Why don't you come to the IGF?  He's like why should we be there, a good question is if we're exploring this fur further in the future how do we engage in gaming platforms?  How do we get gaming to the IGF?

>> MARIE-LAURE LEMINEUR:  That's a good point.  Last year we had somebody from a company who came from London.  Like most Dynamic Coalitions, we don't have the budget, so we were trying to be creative and invite someone who would be willing to be self‑funded and we found someone from London and they came and they were not threatened by sorted of a group of people who were going to ask very challenging questions about corporate social responsibilities, safety standards, et cetera but you have a good point and actually yesterday we had a meeting of our members and we did discuss we need to engage more generally speaking gaming companies but also more tech companies within our own Dynamic Coalition.

>> MICHAEL OGHIA:  Thank you very much.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you very much.  And are there any questions?  There are.

>> We have one question, and the question is from Jean Philippe in Rubin, and he asks:  What does the panel think about the U.S. Children's Internet Protection Act, short CIPA, which addresses concerns about children's access to obscene or harmful content over the Internet?  It actually requires some schools and libraries to use Internet photos and implement other measures to protect children from harmful online content and they have to do it to get some Federal funding.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Yes, Stuart, please.

>> STUART HAMILTON:  I'll take this one I guess.  CIPA so American colleagues, yeah, have been working within the boundaries of CIPA for many years.  If I remember correctly, it ties Federal funding is tied to it, which could mean that libraries would have to Institute filtering on their public access computers and when the librarians found that that would actually extend beyond children to adults, the vast majority of libraries found ways wherever they could to forego the funding.

So I think it's an example of something that perhaps was well intentioned but has consequences that go beyond what it set out to achieve.  And the library community more generally is against sort of filtering of the Internet kind of more fundamentally.  We believe in education and we believe in sort of ‑‑ we use policies rather than mandating strict filtering.  You can still find it in places but the CIPA has some flaws which the community and U.S. has tried to work around.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you very much.

>> SMITA VANNIYAR:  Hi, one of the things that is a concern when addressing children's rights online especially is that very concerningly in many, many countries it often becomes protectionist and not a rights‑based approach to addressing children's rights online and that's a trap we need to be very wary of.  When we speak about harmful content we're protecting children from and it inevitably becomes women and children, it's never men and children and when we talk about harmful content it's important to deconstruct what is the harmful content.  They're rarely referring to videos of burglary.  It's often about sexuality.  When it becomes a protectionist approach to sexuality it becomes concerning.  In many cases sexuality what it creates is it makes sexuality seem like a shameful thing which everyone needs to be silent about and that is a very dangerous precedent to set, because if you don't understand sexuality, then you will not be able to understand when your consent is being violated.  You will not be able to understand sexuality in a healthy and holistic manner, and I think this is something we need to talk about more openly.  Thank you.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  I wonder if Dynamic Coalition on child safety with talk about the balanced approach.

>> MARIE-LAURE LEMINEUR:  Of course I don't think anyone wants to criminalize ‑‑ some people do actually ‑‑ want to criminalize sexuality among let's say above the age of sexual consent where it's legal but we also have to distinguish when we discuss ‑‑ we have to acknowledge that there are harmful contents and we have to provide rules around that and also discuss with platforms, there are a number of tools where that can be used for age verification et cetera.  There are studies showing overexposure or exposure to adult pornography is harmful to children.  In Australia, and perhaps overexposure.  It's quite a complex topic.

Also, we know that in some countries this is an excuse for indeed sort of blocking access for children and for adolescents to some online sites.  This is kind of a discourse to actually practice censorship and there are cultural factors, religious factors.  You go and visit some countries and they use this as a ‑‑ that's their main fear is not actually the children as victims but it's the exposure of children to those contents and depending on the level of maturity and knowledge and awareness of the policymakers it's sometimes quite difficult to engage in meaningful discussion with them.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you very much.  I'm sure this discussion really deserve the entire session.  If there is a quick response to that I will be happy to take one and then we'll move to other Dynamic Coalitions but maybe we will have time for more discussion later.

>> SMITA VANNIYAR:  I completely agree with you.  If there is a reason why there is an age of consent and these are definitely not uniform across the world.  I completely agree with you that there are harms to being exposed to violent content and other harmful content.  And I think we're coming from the same space that you involve the children in the discussion around this as well.  We're on the same page on that.  Thank you.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you very much.  We're moving to the next block, which is focusing, Dynamic Coalitions which are focusing mostly on the issues of innovation, infrastructure, but which feeds other Sustainable Development Goals like Smart Cities or zero hunger, because it's all based on technologies.

And the first Dynamic Coalition I want to ask a question is Dynamic Coalition on DNS issues.  DNS issues are very close to my heart.  I think that we have speaker Nikolis Smith, right?  First of all, Nikolis, congratulations.  I know that your Dynamic Coalition is one year old exactly at this IGF.  I saw from your submission that you focused a lot on the universal acceptance.  How does this feed into the Sustainable Development Goals?  What are your plans for the future as well?  Because I know that one year for the Dynamic Coalition it is a lot but at the same time it is not a lot of time, so if you could update us on your work and your future goals, thank you.

>> NIKOLIS SMITH:  Well, first, thank you, Tatiana, thank you, Michael.  It's an honor as you said, a year in the making.  Walking out of a session that we had yesterday, the room was quite full so I think there's an even greater expectations going forward in 2020.

But how this all ties together really starts with a simple premise about the multilingual Internet.  When we think about where we want to take aspects of the DNS and how we really want to make it a universal acceptance piece.

One of the things that our DCs focused on this year really was that idea of universal acceptance and we wanted to strike it with looking at kind of the prime topic of where could we go to process this information?  We started looking at a survey that we conducted earlier this year on bringing kind of the public sphere into the space, with Governments, which ultimately would tie back into SDG9 which is talking about innovation, resilience and infrastructure.  But what we came out through exercises whether it was a surveyor through our membership is that there was different approaches to how to get there, right?  But we all agreed on the simple premise that a multilingual Internet is where we need to be.  That's the future.

So one of the things that we try to stress throughout this year is we were on a huge campaign basically.  We started in Paris last year.  We spent most of this year having consultations at the MAG meetings in Geneva.  We were at EuroDIG earlier this year in the Hague, ICANN meetings, so I think one of the key pieces here is how we work collaboratively to address these issues but at the same time we don't want to duplicate some of the great work, some of the issues that ICANN is also facing as well.

So that's something that we're taking very seriously.  Just kind of going back to the innovation piece, and where we want to go, so far, right now, as I mentioned earlier at the outset, we did have an initial survey.  Where we want to go next year is we want to have maybe a comprehensive survey where we have different languages in that aspect.

One of the things that we continuously try to address is:  How do we get the influencers in these conversations?  Where do we go?  Is it at the State Government?  Is it at the Federal level?  Where are the penetration points where we could have the greatest success in achieving the multilingual Internet.

I'll stop there.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you very much.  And I have a quick question because you haven't exceeded your time.  Do you collaborate with ICANN community on such very technical issues as for example IDNs?

>> NIKOLIS SMITH:  So that's one piece of it.  We leave a lot of the technical aspects to ICANN, where we found this unique space within the IGF to talk about these issues with governments, as well, right?

As I said we don't want to interfere with what the UASG is already doing and what they've been doing and also too with IETF that's a whole separate entity but at the same time we want to complement what they're doing in that process.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  So translating technical work into policy work and vice versa.

>> NIKOLIS SMITH:  That's correct.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you very much.

>> MICHAEL OGHIA:  Moving to the next one we'll come to Carla Reyes with the DC on blockchain.  Regardless of how one feels about this technology it is definitely here to stay and it is very much connected to SDG9.  And so a lot of the work that your DC has been doing recently is specifically on the tension between decentralized autonomous systems which for anyone not familiar is another name for a network, let's say these decentralized networks, decentralized ASs and the current legal and social frameworks.  How do you foresee our ability as the Internet Community going forward to unlock the potential for this innovation of decentralized structures assuming it can be?  And how does your DC contribute to this?

>> CARLA REYES:  Yes, so I've been involved since Guadalajara as someone else mentioned and since that time and even through this year's focus although the focus has been slightly different to look at decentralized autonomous organizations, the entire time the focus is on capacity‑building, so it's a little different for us, whether we're looking at the SDGs and how we can advance those as a Coalition or whether we're just looking at blockchain technology as it relates to Internet Governance more broadly there's a temptation always to think of specific use cases but as you do that, you both become the blockchain, blockchain, blockchain group which we are not and you run the risk of preferencing one instantiation of the technology over another which we absolutely do not do so our goals have long been and continue to be capacity‑building in one of several ways.

One is capacity‑building initially was to remind the innovators that they weren't innovating in a vacuum.  We sort of started over with the "regulations don't touch us" discussion, from the '90s and the Internet, and then similarly, we work on capacity‑building with the general public to remind them that this is just another technology, it's an innovative one but any innovative technology does not mean it will be used to further innovation.  You may just end up using it to reinvent centralized old structures if you're not careful because humans are humans and humans are behind it after all.

When it comes to decentralized autonomous organizations in particular both lawyers and regulators, academics and the technologists in the space have become quite sophisticated so there's been an emerging literature asking whether DAOs can be legally formalize entities and the problem becomes there are entities that exist across the world literally because they're decentralized systems.  Which laws would apply?  What does that look like?

And to what extent do folks building them have to interact with the specific jurisdiction or can they continue to remain essentially decentralized?  Because interacting may require some kind of centralization so the goal has been both again capacity‑building, understanding when we use that term we're not talking about one specific thing but rather a spectrum as I've heard many of my colleagues mention, everything is on a spectrum and there's a spectrum of things that count when people are using that term, and then trying to build in a multistakeholder fashion frameworks to help regulators and lawyers and technologists both speak about these things in a way that everybody in the room understands which is actually quite difficult, and also to think about just the principles that you would want in this example in regulation that formalizes or allows for formalized representation of decentralized autonomous organizations.  We do that similarly and have done that similarly in other areas of innovation as the community becomes particularly interested in one thing or another.  Before for example it was in capital raising via decentralized means and going forward given the work that we've done this week in designing the work program going forward there's interest in understanding data protection in blockchain contexts and decentralized autonomous organization contexts and there's interest in not forgetting to continue to do the basic capacity‑building with the public of, this is not blockchain, blockchain, blockchain land.  We need to talk about what does it all mean?  How do you separate hype from reality so that we are talking about real things and not say sky net, right?  So okay that's what we're up to.

>> MICHAEL OGHIA:  Thank you for that very pragmatic approach.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you very much.  And I want to move to another Dynamic Coalition, Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things.  And see how we can separate hype from reality here, because we know that Internet of Things is everywhere, every eye is on it and we know that it contributes a lot to achievement of Sustainable Development Goals, like from pacemakers that someone can have to Smart Cities everywhere.

But at the same time, as the cybersecurity researcher, I open the newspapers and media and I see a lot of headlines which use almost military language that IoT can be weaponized as a tool for a major cyberattack so Marten Botterman, who is the Representative of the Dynamic Coalition on IoT, I want to ask you a question:  How do we make those devices secure and safe from two perspectives:  End users, who are mostly more irrational than rational but also complex security measures on the industry side?  How can we separate this hype from reality?  And how can we bring industry and users perspective together?  I know for me it's not a long time but please try.

>> MARTEN BOTTERMAN:  I'll try to do it in three, then.  Basically the points you make are very good and IoT is just part of that Internet, and it's perpetrating a life.  It's everywhere.  You mentioned even in the event but also particularly if you see about eradicating hunger.  These technologies are so important, and increasingly so, also for crop management and things like that.  They make a big difference.  There's no doubt about it, we need it, so how do we prevent it from being abused?

Or being used for other purposes?  There's two sides.  One is that you could use these devices to launch massive DDoS attacks against targets so you use them basically to reflect and send out a lot of things, at the moment you think that's useful and it's possible because many of those devices out there today are very poorly protected.

So that's one thing.  The other thing is that you can use the device to attack the user itself.  It's clear how you can destroy crops which in wars may be a useful thing or terrorism may be a useful thing.  It's clear how you can use those things that are connected to the body to attack the body directly, or just to tease somebody, your former spouse, by raising the temperature in his house to above normal temperatures.

It may sound ridiculous, but because of the market and the world developing, you can buy these services.  The bad services as well.  So it's clear that we need to do something about it.

And in that I very much agree there is a distinction between who is using it.  From professional users, from companies, from Governments who use it to measure traffic density or whatever, you can expect that they take the appropriate measures, they have the ability to hire the right capacity, et cetera in‑house.

Consumers don't have that, so we need to help consumers.  We need to help by raising awareness.  These newspaper articles in a way help to sensitize, to be more curious like how can I do this in a responsible way?  But also by grading services and devices, certifying them in a way, of how well they are to be secured, how well they're using data and protect the data that may be private.  So raising awareness, making sure that users per product per service are aware of the risks is an important step will and it's not enough.  We need to help more.  Not only because already are already many devices out there that are not protected or not fulfilling any criteria but also of course new devices will be made that will not fulfill this criteria but may be cheap or fun so one of the things you can do is offer consumers front door lock just like they may keep their money in a drawer that is not unlocked and their keys in another drawer that's not unlocked.  As soon as you get through the front door you can find it and take it.  Electronic locks accessed as well.

The other thing is that you cannot leave it to the consumers alone.  Stronger, you can't even leave it to the suppliers of tools and services alone.  We need to all be involved, it means that also the access provider needs to be aware what's coming from that?  Should I transfer it?  And that means you need a systems approach to really secure the whole network and that's the only way forward.  We're working on it.  We're beginning with it and we're not there yet but will be.  It needs to happen.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you very much, Marten.  Do we have any interventions or questions?

>> MARIE-LAURE LEMINEUR:  Yes, actually, can I spend a little bit?  As an example of collaboration among DCs two years ago we had, our DC organized a session thematic session on Internet of Things related to toys and devices that children use and that this broad category that Marten just mentioned I think there is this subcategory where you have children as users of those devices, consumers/users, and I know Marten agrees and everyone does that when we talk about children as users/consumers, we shouldn't think of them as users being responsible for whatever, you know, misuse is happening, because of the age range, number one.

And, number two, companies should be implementing higher standards in terms of safety and protection and we do know that data is being collected about children, not necessarily encrypted.  We don't really know what happens.  This is of users who are less than 18 years old.  There are also other issues.  For example there is a doll, a toy that is engaging in a conversation, sort of AI based tool with the children, and one company enabled the toy to detect signals of abuse or some kind of grooming context so engaging in a conversation with the child.

And so we have to discuss issues around liability, because the response of the toy to the child, oh, this sounds like something important.  You should talk to a grownup about that.  So what happens if the grownup is actually the one who is abusing the child?  What happens if the child doesn't act on this, or the company doesn't have an alert system that is uploading this and does nothing.  Where does the liability lie?  So there are more questions than answers but I think those are very relevant.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you very much.  It also shows us how these different Dynamic Coalitions are actually connected to each other in their work.

Are there any questions?  Because I do want to ask Marten and Carla a question.  Oh, I'm sorry.  Yes, please.

>> GUNELA ASTBRINK:  That's all right.  I just wanted to also mention the liaison between the disability and accessibility DC and the DC on IoT.  Two years ago we organized a Workshop on IoT and accessibility and Marten participated in that and Vint Cerf did as well and we had a broad cross‑section of panelists and there were a number of issues that came up.  Interoperability was very important for us in regard to people, say, with physical disability who have some assistive technology and how does that work with a smart device and a smart home?

Also, it was about user interfaces, that the user interfaces in IoT devices are going to be accessible for a person with a disability, so they were just two aspects that came out, and we look forward to a continuing liaison with the DC on IoT.  Thanks.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you very much.  Anyone else?  Here comes my question.  You don't have to answer it, but both blockchain and IoT come up frequently with the issues of regulation.  If you could implement one regulation which would enable or restrict something, what this should be?  Or would you tell me that no, leave us alone?  We don't need regulation.  We will fix ourselves.  Thank you.

>> CARLA REYES:  So at this point I'm speaking for me.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Only for you in a personal capacity.

>> CARLA REYES:  I would say the answer can't be leave us alone.  We lost that battle a long time ago.  But we would call for technology neutral rules because the risk you run when you make something specific to say blockchain technology is either that you defined the law poorly and it doesn't actually cover blockchain technology because you made something up or that you've defined or targeted what exists now and tomorrow that's not what will exist, and so we would encourage technology‑neutral rules that cover activities that you conduct through the technology and not the technology itself.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you.  Marten?

>> MARTEN BOTTERMAN:  Just to complete actually also we also work with the Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values and tomorrow we'll even have a combined session starting at 9:30.  Advertising the slot.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you very much.

>> MARTEN BOTTERMAN:  On legislation, let's not forget a lot is already out there.  For instance planes, cars, they're all full with IoT devices and they are regulated.  They need to have a certain safety so that's key.  But if there would be one regulation that I would like, then that would be the regulation of responsible behavior, act responsibly, and good practice or best practice examples allow to set a standard there that will grow over the years.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you very much.  I see a couple of hands.

>> MARIE-LAURE LEMINEUR:  Thank you.  So interesting debate.  Technology neutral rules we are in favor that allows to train judges and prosecutors so they understand how to interpret the law in light of new trends and this is actually happening for example for remote abuse of children and the laws are defined let's say rape, you need hands‑on sort of sexual contact to define ‑‑ to have a rape as a criminal context, so in some countries they already determine on sexual grooming, remote qualifies as rape but the Judge has a very forward‑thinking way of approaching the topic, and it's not happening everywhere, but I think the step of jurisprudence can take the lead and show an example of good practice for other jurisdictions.

>> MICHAEL OGHIA:  Smita, did you want to say something?

>> SMITA VANNIYAR:  One of the ideas of this has been Internet Governance.  There have been several parts of devices which are part of the IoT world collecting data and information and about the users without prior consent, and explicit consent.  I was wondering if you would have any comments on that as well, because it is a growing world, and the Governments aren't actually matching up regulations or laws in that, and my question is also not for more regulations really but what are some things which we can work around that, some sort of privacy by design rules of some sort?  Just like a comment or a question.

>> MARTEN BOTTERMAN:  I think you strike an important point.  We talk about values and ethics that are not everywhere the same in the world.  For instance where Google Glasses by the Chinese police are accepted as something very useful, other countries may frown upon such use of devices.  That's just one example and there's many more of those, and actually tomorrow the focus will be on discussing those differences, because they're crucial.  We cannot, because most of us are still from Western Europe, or North America, we cannot impose our values on the world.  We need to open up so this technology needs to facilitate the values in the regions where they are exercised.

So it's a very good point and we're not there yet either, I would say.

>> CARLA REYES:  A quick comment on the technology neutral which is why we focus on capacity‑building in the Dynamic Coalition because not just the judges that have to be educated but the technologists too, that the point from Marten about existing rules, there's actually quite a lot that apply to activity on blockchain and often technologists don't realize that until after they've built their thing so it's really education for everyone and I would say maybe as a qualifier technology neutral rules would be we hope the default position unless and until you can evidence there's some sort of exceptional characteristic about the technology that requires something very specific but that's a pretty high Bar to set.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you very much for such an interesting and lively discussion.

>> MICHAEL OGHIA:  Before we move on I had a question as well, Tatiana.  Do you mind if I jump in?

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Yes, you have 30 seconds.

>> MICHAEL OGHIA:  I'll be very quick then.  One of the unfortunate shortcomings in my opinion of the SDGs especially when it comes to SDG9 is there's not as many connections between infrastructure, between infrastructure and then for instance climate action, sustainable production and consumption especially clean energy and these kinds of new energy technologies we need especially when it comes to blockchain and IoT.  One of the biggest I don't know if you're smiling because you know where I'm going, one of the biggest criticisms of the both is the energy intensiveness of both of these, the lack of necessarily sustainability integrated into the design especially of IoT, and so I really would like for you to explore because this is really something we do not talk about enough especially considering the crisis we're in.  What do you recommend or how do you think we should go forward in this engaging with this when it relates to ensuring that sustainability is built into these technologies that we're creating technology in such a way that it respects the planet we're living on and how can we go forward in this, with this in mind?

>> MARTEN BOTTERMAN:  It's two different problems between blockchain, Bitcoin and that kind of generating a lot of computer activity.  But for IoT, I would say two things:  Without IoT we cannot keep track of that and manage our landscape.  For instance air quality snuffers will automatically be connected to ring road traffic indications that will reduce the speed obligatory if the amount of ozone polluters gets too high.  That's one example where you see it's intricately connected and you need IoT for that purpose, so it's not only using energy, but it's also giving that what we need.  It can measure pollution in oceans, salinization in water, temperature rise, et cetera.  That's one thing.  The good news is many of the devices that are not connected to the grid, they are built to be as energy efficient as they can be, because it's very difficult to keep them loaded.  Examples range from solar powered devices, because then you don't need to renew that, till very light use of batteries.

And there's an incentive in the way we use them to reduce the energy use, so that's the advantage.  But otherwise, a good point.

>> CARLA REYES:  So for us, it's a little bit more difficult to make a definitive statement because we come pretty close, we would come pretty close to advocating for one instantiation of the consensus mechanism over another which we do not want to do but we can point out tradeoffs.  When you make choices about the consensus mechanism you use in a protocol versus so in terms of energy or sustainability right versus a security and what those tradeoffs might look like and the principles you think through when designing a protocol we think maybe that's a better role for the Dynamic Coalition than saying this one is good and this one is bad because of energy intensivity or something, right?  And maybe that's all I'll say on that.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you very much.  Great question and great discussion, thank you.

Now, unless we have more questions, I'm very keen to move to the last block.  We have four more Dynamic Coalitions.  And they are working on peace, security, strong institutions, but their work is also related directly to reducing inequality, and to industry innovation and infrastructure, and to many other goals.

And I would like to start with the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles, with their representative Minda Moreira.  I think you're most like the Coalition for Internet Rights and Principles directly is connected to Sustainable Development Number 13, peace, justice and strong institutions but also see from your submission that you work on reducing inequality, and access to the Internet for Marginalized Groups and minorities such as refugees.  I would like you to tell us a bit more about this work and I also know that for years you have been working on implementation on the Charter on Human Rights and Principles on the Internet.  How do these two come together?  How is your work going?  What are your plans in this regard?  Thank you.

>> MINDA MOREIRA:  Thank you.  It's a very good question, and refugees' rights is something that we have been working and focusing on over the last past years, and it has directly to do with the Charter, because basically we have the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet, that has 21 rights, and 10 broad principles, and so our work is mainly outreach through the Charter.

So what we did is to look at those rights, and to see which groups need to have their human rights protected in the online environment, and the refugees and migrants were one of those groups, so we looked firstly on the right to access to Internet and that was one of the things that we notice is when we come to refugees, not this simple right to access is not as black and white as it seems to not everyone who is a refugee has the right to access, and if they are in detention centers, they might be very monitored and the access that they have is very reduced indeed.

We also talked about other groups for instance, the homeless people, like for instance in U.K., that if you don't have an address, it is very difficult to then get online, on a library, on anywhere, so the right to access was something that was definitely to look into.

But then we went to also the right of non‑discrimination and Internet access using governance, directly linked to these minority groups, the right to privacy on the Internet, and the right to digital data protection so all these are rights that we have inside the Charter.

And for instance in the case of refugees, we thought that it was really important to address the right to privacy, sorry to privacy on the Internet because this was not happening in detention centers, or even when they have to have their basic access ‑‑ basic needs to access the Internet, to deal with their families, to look for information, even to keep safe, and so we thought it was really important to look into that and the right to digital data protection, so last year we focused on the refugees and also artificial intelligence, emerging technologies, blockchain technologies and one of the concerns was the use of emerging technologies or artificial intelligence in refugee camps sometimes as an experiment, and our question is:  Who is accountable?  Where does the data go?  Where is the rights of these refugees being protected?  Is there any transparency?  Is there any groups working together, Government, Civil Society, the refugees themselves?  So these were all very important questions that we wanted to address through the Charter and the work that we have been doing.

I hope I responded.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you very much for showing us yet another angle of connecting the unconnected in a way of inclusion of those who are excluded for now, but another angle not from the technology point of view but from the point of view of human rights.

And I will ‑‑

>> MICHAEL OGHIA:  Of human rights but also especially as it relates to accountability.  Accountability with massive datasets we're generating that are being generated in the digital age and with that I think it's a really good segue actually into this idea of responsibility.  And so I want to go over to Nicolo Zingales now and I want to bring you into this to talk a little more about what we've all been hearing on the agenda lately as it relates to platform responsibility.  We see these, we hear some variation of this, in one way or another coming up on the agenda, but mostly it's in a worrying way.  It tends to focus on content regulation.  It tends to focus on restrictions and it doesn't often include for instance market failure so I really want you to address something at least from the point of view of the work you've been doing over the past year and over the past five years.  Congratulations on celebrating your fifth year anniversary at the IGF and what is your work focusing on how?  And how has it evolved over those years especially seeing you explore this issue from the perspective of collective governance.  And kind of how does that contribute to achieving the SDGs.

>> NICOLO ZINGALES:  Thank you, Michael.  Our work over the past five years is mainly trying to move on from some principles, the UN Guiding Principles on human rights, business and human rights and try to come to a shared understanding of how responsibility is to be implemented by online platforms and it really linked to the concept of responsibility itself which is in one way it is about being responsive to a community so it's not just an individual implementation by a specific platform but is about how we understand as a community the responsibility of online platforms and secondly is about responding in a way that's commensurate to your power in society.  That touches on a point the other issue you mentioned which is the market failures so in the first part of our activities we define what the concept of responsibility means and then we have tried to openly analyze it in the context of the right to remedy so try to understand how the mechanism could help platforms fulfill their obligations to respect human rights.

We've done a survey of the mechanisms available in different platforms and we have in doing that come up with some best practices identified, what are the best ways of providing for right to remedy but at the same time we understood in doing that that there are very different approaches which are informed in fact by different values that are promoted by all these platforms.

So in the last year, we have gathered some contributions by our members on what are the values that should be promoted in platform regulations, both by regulators and the platforms themselves?  And in doing that we have tried to connect the two issues of social values in one way, on one hand, and on the other hand, the economic value, so how much is value produced by platforms?  How much is being extracted by other players who are relying on their systems?  And how can we reconceptualize regulation in a way that ensures a harmonious development between the production of value on the one hand and the respect for social values that we all care about, so values like Democracy, the production of environment, fundamental rights, labor standards?  So I think that now we have identified the need to not only understand what these values are but also have some sort of shared understanding that can inform regulators in the future so with regard to your more future‑oriented question what we are going to do, we identified the need to come up with some definitions, principles, that can be used by regulators in harnesses value and helping platforms to generate value in a way that is socially beneficial.

So for the next year, we want to create a glossary of terms that are key for platform regulation and perhaps a handbook that helps regulators implement those principles.

>> MICHAEL OGHIA:  Perfect.  Thank you very much.  Tatiana.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Do we have any questions?  We don't have any questions from remote participants.  I have a question.

When we are talking about platform regulation I would say five years ago it was almost an unthinkable term.  Why would we regulate platforms?  They should prosper.  They should flourish and go their own way so do you think regulation and maybe this is a question for both of you, because you're both working in the Human Rights and Principles and accountability, do you think that regulation could be instilled or developed in such a human rights centric way that they will already be there?  Should it come from the Governments because platforms or societies failed to preserve these or to adhere these?  Do you think regulation will fix and can it be developed in such a rights respecting way that it will?  I know this is a complex question but yes.      

>> MINDA MOREIRA:  Yeah, it's a very complex question but I think that what we are advocating for is for human rights by design so that human rights are there and everything that is worth is worked upon it so the frameworks are there and the other way that companies and organizations have other ways to access as well, to see if those human rights are being followed and this assessment cannot be done just by the companies themselves.  It has to be externally so to make sure that actually it works.

So for me human rights by design is a very important one.

>> NICOLO ZINGALES:  I agree with that.  I will say there's a positive duty for states to ensure that human rights are respected, so you can in principle leave the market to fix the problem but the State cannot fail to monitor the situation so to the extent that self‑regulation is not working then we will need the State to come in.

And I think it also is important in that regard to recognize that in a platform based society, there is not one state, but I think the whole Internet Community needs to coordinate and ensure these problems are solved.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you very much.  And the very last question, maybe to both of you but mainly to Nicolo.  How do you think, how much share or part in negotiating this regulation or developing this regulation those platforms should take?  Should they sit with the Governments and develop them together?  Or should Governments be on their own in regulating the platforms?

>> NICOLO ZINGALES:  This is a million dollar question.  I think it will depend on the issue we're looking at.  As we know from intergovernance context the roles and responsibility of stakeholders are different depending on what we're trying to regulate so again we need to I think for any lighter regulation what we need to do is first of all understand what are the value we want to promote?  And then think about what are the best strategies to achieve those values?  And often we fail to do the first task which is quite important to make sure we're actually fixing the problem and not creating new ones and in our special issue that we ‑‑ so I should have mentioned we produced a special issue of a journal that we distributed yesterday and is available on open access.  We also provided some examples of regulation that failed to understand what the real production of value was as opposed to extraction of value and by failing to do that it has created some unintended consequences.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Just to be crystal clear why I ask these questions because I know in the past one or two years many stakeholders felt extremely uncomfortable when there were calls for regulation of social platforms.  There were sometimes activities with Governments and social platforms, hiding behind the closed doors and drafting this regulation on their own.  And this is one of the reasons why did I actually asked how much comfort, how much comfortable we're feeling with this kind of setting.  There will be regulation, but developed together.

Yes, please, Minda.

>> MINDA MOREIRA:  Yes, so it is important that there is regulation.  If as we were talking before, if you do it together, or separately, really depends on the issue but I think that is always important that there are a group of different stakeholders working together on issues.  One thing that we were discussing yesterday on the Workshop of data governance by AI and human rights, was about exactly this, because sometimes regulators are not completely aware of the issues of artificial intelligence, so you need a group of people working together, so that everyone knows what we are regulating about and what outcomes we want to achieve.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you very much.  And I see Christopher has an intervention but I want to ask do we have Dynamic Coalition on AI?  Not yet.

>> MICHAEL OGHIA:  Not yet.

>> CHRISTOPHER YOO:  So I love the question and we're fortunate to have it because one of the world's experts on this approach called co‑regulation is with us which is Chris Marsden.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  I know I cited him in many of my articles basically in every.

>> CHRISTOPHER YOO:  You're getting at what is a very controversial question in the academic literature which is the entire IGF is based on a multistakeholder approach which means engaging everybody in the belief that will improve outcomes.  And there's a wide range of regulatory techniques where it's not just the Government acting unilaterally but you engage and work together.  There's some criticism of that approach that it gives the regulated companies too much influence of the outcome and we're struggling to develop boundaries about how that works but I would have to admit, they're not very well developed as of yet, and it's more ad hoc analysis, feeling your way through it, but I do think that there's probably merit on both sides to this.  And it's a very difficult balance to strike.

>> MICHAEL OGHIA:  I want to jump in here real quick because we're talking about platforms and I want to kind of address a somewhat uncomfortable question is probably controversial.  Maybe I shouldn't be asking this but I feel like it's something we need to raise because to me the elephant in the room when it comes to platform responsibility is the business model.  I'm sorry but the fact is, the paradigm of surveillance capitalism has been shown time and time again that that is what we're dealing with, and so when it comes to platform responsibility, how are we supposed to hold companies responsible when their business model directly undermines potentially anyways, if I'm trying to be more diplomatic, this entire endeavor?  And I open that to anyone, especially you, Nico, or anyone who can address this.  Sorry again.  Sorry, not sorry.

>> NICOLO ZINGALES:  I would say change the business model if it's not compatible with the law.  Of course, there are different ways of fitting into this surveillance capitalism definition so there's a way to collect data and use data that is compatible with data protection law, so the fact that you have two masters so users on one hand and advertisers on the other does not mean that you maximize the collection of personal data to optimize for forcing the user to spend as much time as possible on the platform to collect data.  You can do that in a responsible way which is what our SDG was, responsible production and consumption.  I think there's multiple ways and the fact that we don't have a definition of what value means in a platform based society is precisely what creates a very wide range of opportunities to escape the responsible way of implementing this business.

So if you can define clearly what value is, and how it should be implemented, then we won't have all the excesses we are witnessing and that were criticized as part of that book.


>> MIRA MILOSEVIC:  If I may I was waiting for my turn to give my intervention but we know what the value is in a platform society it's an advertising value.  That's the only recognized incentive that platforms have at the moment and in the programmatic advertising world that means one second view of an ad on online, and so what happens is that a whole architecture of the platted forms is optimized for had that advertising economy of scale which I will say in my intervention later has let led us to the whole black market of troll factories, content farms and clicks, shares and followers which are now dictating our elections and so one of our members organized crime and corruption reporting project has published just yesterday an article about another troll farm in Ukraine that has worked with almost all layers of politicians during the elections.

And if you look and Google troll farms, India, Serbia, other countries, you will see that this is becoming one of the very profitable businesses for developing countries.  And I can give you some numbers but I'm not going to take more of your time.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  If I may introduce you to Mira Milosevic, Representative of the Dynamic Coalition on Sustainability of Journalism and News Media.  We will come to this Coalition a bit later.  I see that we have three more interventions.  Please keep them as brief as possible and then we'll move to the last two Dynamic Coalitions.  Thank you.

>> NICOLO ZINGALES:  I want to respond quickly to say I share your concerns and I see why you're mentioning that.  I don't disagree that advertising, the advertising model is one type of value that is being promoted by the platforms, but I don't think it is the only value, at least when you look at the terms and conditions, their marketing material, their statements, they certainly recognize other values.  The problem is we don't know how those values are balanced, and there should be more transparency, more accountability in that kind of operation, that kind of balancing exercise.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Three more interventions starting with Christopher.

>> CHRISTOPHER YOO:  Very quickly, Nico I really commend you for the balanced approach to try to make this work.  There is actually work I've done, there is an old economics of advertising mostly from broadcast television which has largely been lost in the Internet debates which is very influential that shows the flaws but on the other hand, there's the main thing which is consumer interests strongly favor advertising support and this is the hard part of balancing.  We could turn to a different business model and there's very good economic arguments for doing it but consumers largely reject that and they like a hybrid option of different things, and it's quite difficult to find that balance, particularly because it's not a uniform balance.  What you care about for your health care information or your elections is different, or your financial information is different than what you care about your travel recommendations and so finding a unified approach will actually require a great deal of detailed work.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you very much.

>> MARIE-LAURE LEMINEUR:  So if you think of platforms like YouTube kids, business model is to turn the kids into video consumers and advertisements so the algorithm is being fed by that and influenced and there's no, the approach should be the educational value, if you think in terms of protection of children, it should be the educational value of the content that they are looking at, not how much this will turn them into video consumers.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you very much.  Minda, did you have also an intervention?

>> MINDA MOREIRA:  Not specifically for this so I will let the other coalitions speak and then we'll come back.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you very much.  Oh, you do.

>> CHRISTOPHER MARSDEN:  Hi, I'm Chris.  It's really important I think to think about the way in which platforms operate in these areas, and I think that it is worth just flagging up, tomorrow morning 9:30, room 1, there's a discussion about the way in which platforms have influenced elections in Brazil, the United States and the Brexit referendum in the U.K. organized by a Brazilian Serbian group.  I would urge people to come along tomorrow morning 9:30.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you very much.  And I'm very happy that the two last but not least Dynamic Coalitions do not need much introductions anymore, at least in terms of who the speakers are, who the representatives are.

So I want to move to the Dynamic Coalition on Sustainability of Journalism and News Media, and Mira Milosevic.  I think that you're the newest Dynamic Coalition here, but I see that you're doing a lot already, a lot of work on access to information, as one of the goals for Sustainable Development Goals peace, justice and strong institutions and as you're the newest one what has been achieved so far?  Which work have you done and what are the plans for the future?

>> MIRA MILOSEVIC:  Good afternoon everyone and apologies for my passionate intervention.  Thank you for being here.  It's very difficult for us to talk about what we've achieved since we have formally been launched yesterday.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Congratulations.

>> MIRA MILOSEVIC:  However, the community that has ‑‑ thank you very much.  The community that has worked with the IGF Secretariat and MAG over the last couple of years to set up this Coalition has been very active in the Sustainable Development Goals sphere so a Global Forum for media development where Michael and I come from has been working since 2014 even when the SDGs were formulated and so we have been advocating for a long time for introduction of freedom of expression and access to information into SDGs and we succeeded so SDG16.10, 10.1 and 10.2 are bringing access to information, freedom of expression and other fundamental rights to the SDG framework and we're happy to report that recently the indicator on access to information SDG16.10.1 thanks to our members and partners such as UNESCO has been promoted to tier 1 so we have a lot of data on the progress on access to information.  We also have a lot of data and progress on SDG16.10.1 which is safety of journalists however it's part of a wider SDG16 goal on inclusive, just and peaceful societies, and if you look at the very interesting report from UNDP on Goal 16 plus as they call it from this summer, they identify some very worrying trends, and one of the trends they identify is rising violence, that about a million that we want to raise up from inequality actually lives ‑‑ 80% of them live in situations where they face conflict and violence.  There are many negative trends and the community where we come from is also seeing increased impact of disinformation and misinformation especially on information ecosystem in the periods of elections, which Christopher will talk about tomorrow.

So what we were looking at, when we were looking at the SDG system, we saw that there is a little space for true Multistakeholder Cooperation, and also some of the problems that our journalists and colleagues are facing:  Security, trolling, cyberattacks, also pressures from Governments, but also existence of journalism professional news in the platform ecosystem is something that's we should be addressing in a different fora and that's why we thought that working with the different Dynamic Coalitions and working within the IGF system is the right thing to do and thank you very much for welcoming us, and as you can see there is a lot that we need to learn, and a lot that we still need to achieve.

We're already cooperating with our partners to be present at the EuroDIG.  We've done that this year, at the RightsCon.  We're also working with UNESCO and other partners to bring information Democracy Commission, media freedom conferences, to bring our research and the voices of journalism, news media, freedom of expression and media freedom community to this fora.  It is because we believe that the regulation of the content layer of Internet really needs to take into consideration not only fighting negative aspects, but also promoting the information and the Internet that we would like to see for tomorrow.  Thank you.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you very much, and I feel like every topic that we're touching here deserves actually not only a two‑hour session but probably a day of a Conference or several days but I also would like to say that it makes me so happy to see how your work is relating to each other.

And I will pass the floor to Michael for the next question.

>> MICHAEL OGHIA:  Absolutely, and thank you so much and I think it's ‑‑ I'm actually trying to make the connection here to our last but definitely as we said not least speaker, Christopher Marsden, because from what I hear kind of a similar thread through all of this is accountability, it's taking a rights‑based approach to connectivity, and so, Christopher is part of the DC for network neutrality, and recently, recently over the past year, you've really been focusing on the compatibility of new technologies with network neutrality which of course relates to SDG 9 but it's about infrastructure and innovation but it also connects to like I said to human rights and to essentially the right to access freely.

So what would you describe are some of let's say the negative impacts of new technologies such as 5G, Internet of Things, obviously and others, unfortunately Marten is not here to potentially respond and what can be done about these negative effects especially in the context of your DC's work as well as within the larger framework of the SDGs?

>> CHRISTOPHER MARSDEN:  Thank you.  I must say I want to acknowledge three groups of heroes.  First our Moderators who have gone through two hours of interlacing 12 of us.  Secondly to the audience here in the room, thank you for being here, please ask questions in the couple of minutes we have at the end.  Otherwise we'll wonder why you were here other than a quiet room to do email, and also to acknowledge the online audience some of whom have stuck with us right until 6:23 in the evening.  I'm here actually as Luca Belli, the Coordinator of the Dynamic Coalition on net neutrality which has been around for 7 years from 2013.  We're one of the originals.  I guess we're the trouble one, because we're the one which has looked a lot at real world effects of policies which is a slightly UNIGF thing to be doing for which we've been fairly unapologetic and I also want ting a knowledge one more thing which is that I'm a law Professor in the United Kingdom and I want ting a knowledge my colleagues in the United Kingdom are on strike at the moment nationally in order to avoid the erosion of our pension.  Were I not here I would be on strike in the United Kingdom.  So I now have 2 minutes, 48 seconds.  I will ignore the clock in front of me, the Dynamic Coalition has been constantly working towards free and open Internet access.  For many of you in a country you'll have a law that's not called network neutrality but the open Internet law so I want to acknowledge it could be called that and we've been developing proposal since 2013.  Luca is the driving force.  We are following behind.  We need to clone Luca because he does so much at IGF.

And most notably we've been working with the model framework on net neutrality which the Dynamic Coalition worked towards which is directly inspired the Council of Europe recommendation on net neutrality, one of the early successes which became controversial of the Dynamic Coalition.

In 2019 as Michael said we're working now on looking at the compatibility or otherwise, we don't want to pre‑judge, between net neutrality principle and development and Internet access technologies and business models like 5G, like what's erroneously called the fourth industrial revolution, which is the fifth, and also the IoT.  One thing we produced as an outcome from this year is a map of zero rating around the world, so if you go to zero rating.info, you'll get access to that map.  It shows you where subsidized offices are available.  If you go to networkneutrality.info, you'll see our previous outputs and I'll say the outputs for the first three years Luca was working with Primavera, and we produced prodigious outputs, four books in the first three which is extraordinary with forewords with people like Vint Cerf, contributions from Louis Puzan.  There are many Fathers of the Internet that do not include Tim Berners‑Lee.  He's the father of the Web but they include Vint and others, so we've been producing a huge amount of work and I just really want to acknowledge the contribution of everybody who's been helping us along the way including of course the work of Christopher.  We need to acknowledge each other.  He mentions me on regulation.  I want to mention his work on net neutrality and the regulations that may have perverse consequences as well as those that might be helpful.  I also want to acknowledge what I feel is the real elephant in the room so you mentioned surveillance capitalism and I want to say we have a lack of engagement from industry, and we would want more and more engagement from industry.

People might say it's your fault, you're the Dynamic Coalition on net neutrality, you'll ignore the companies because you're talking about regulating what they do, but we want more engagement with industry.  One of the things we can help towards our work with the SDGs is working across Dynamic Coalitions as much as possible.

So not just coming together in this assembly at the end of the IGF but working together with, I know the Youth IGF gets fired up by net neutrality.  It's a mass participation Democratic area which comes as a huge shock to those of us who worked in Telecom regulation when there were about 12 of us who used to work in it but now it's millions and millions and millions, but also I was about to suggest we should have a Dynamic Coalition on disinformation, we don't need it because Mira already leads what will deal with those issues as well as with human rights and fundamental values as well as gender because this is a gender issue as well as those working on privacy by design and other things.  The more we work together across the Dynamic Coalitions, the more effect I think we can have and the more we can remember that what we're working towards is an open and inclusive Internet that will serve I think most of our purposes.  I also want to acknowledge and call him by his formal title Professor Zingales work on this.  There's been huge interaction between the Dynamic Coalition on network neutrality and community networking, and, and, and we want to do more in the future so let's make this something which can be really, let's coin the word, dynamic in the future.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you very much, Chris, and we forgive you for running overtime in your intervention because you're the last but not least Coalition.

We still have two minutes left.  I think we might go a couple of minutes overtime.  Are there any questions from remote participants?  Seeing none, are there any questions from the audience?  After Chris issued a plea.  There is.  Please come forward.  Do you need a microphone?

[ Applause ]

>> MICHAEL OGHIA:  There's also many mothers of the Internet, as well.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  You can come to the table.  Thank you.

>> Yeah, yeah, thank you very much.  I'm Jennifer Boucher from R and W Media.  My question is for Mira.  Congratulations, first of all, on launching the new Dynamic Coalition, one day old, officially, right?

So a really broad question to which there's no easy answer, but easy to pose, I think:  What would be your comment on state regulation when we know that the media are not always in good company when it comes to Governments?

>> MIRA MILOSEVIC:  Yes.  It's a good question, thank you very much.  Journalists and media don't like regulation and of course we had broadcast regulation because of the spectrum frequency limitations, and there need to be some allocated when in the press traditionally self‑regulation was something that was preferred.

And in general, when we speak about freedom of expression it would be the best for industry to regulate itself and there was the big hope that that will happen with platforms, as well, and other spaces for expression online.

Unfortunately we are seeing that some of the attempts at establishing codes of practices and self‑regulatory mechanisms are not working.  I'm not saying we should abandon them.  I'm not saying we shouldn't be working on platforms to see what exactly those values should be for everyone.

But it seems that there is a need for states to start looking into regulating less content, more of the marketplace probably.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you very much.  And, yeah, the intervention on this question and do we have more?  Because we are exactly at 6:30, so that's when the session is supposed to end.  And it's not like I really want to wrap it up right now, but if there are questions to interventions, we will accept them.  Yes, please.

>> STUART HAMILTON:  I want to commend Michael, and Tatiana.  This was a great session and as Chris says thank you for waiting with us and hearing our thoughts.  We're kind of in between the food that outs side.  I kind of just ‑‑ it's somewhat a rhetorical question but thinking about we've heard great stories tonight and a lot of the achievements the DCs are doing.  Kind of a level setting question:  Are there vehicles that the DCs within the UN or outside of the UN we could be doing to strengthen to get to the goals of the SDGs?  Just maybe a lightning round or any thoughts on that?

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you.  And I think we have a question, as well.

>> If I may, yeah, very briefly.  Nigel Hickson ICANN.  The talk on regulation, I suppose some of us have been in this business for 25 or 30 years to try and not have platform regulation, but what I wanted to ask the panel really is and really this has been spread by Chris's intervention and Chris and I go back a long time, perhaps me further but the net neutrality approach was positive.  It was positive in that it was regulation to open up the Internet.  Some of the talk of platform regulation can be viewed as negative.  Should we not be looking at some holistic positive regulation that enshrines the openness and the singularity of the Internet and at the same time does something about competition?  Thank you.

>> CHRISTOPHER MARSDEN:  Great question, and a question I noted at 6:30 so I'm not sure how much we can answer it.  So yes it's very true that obviously those who have been working in this area a long time are aware of the historical precedence for things we're trying to do.  One of the things about what's actually come out of the debate is that it's effectively light touch regulation saying to telcos don't be evil.  Don't block apps.  Don't do things which are obviously harmful.  Frankly there's maybe little more that can be done in terms of net neutrality regulation any because of the huge imbalance in terms of trying to achieve balance in the area.  I think it was seen as a giant problem and I think is probably seen as something which can be regulated with a fairly light touch.  Do come to the session tomorrow morning at 9:30.  The things you hear will illuminate some of the problems with platforms.  I'll say one thing which I mentioned in the Dynamic Coalition on platform responsibility is that electoral law is so inadequate in so many countries.  I've been doing work for the European Parliament and for the Commonwealth, so in Asia Pacific and in Africa and the Caribbean, it is shocking the degree to which we are unable to regulate particularly election periods.

And I think this is something which our political lords and Masters and mistresses will be incredibly closely focused on, because it's their jobs, right?  If elections go wrong, that's how they get reelected.  And I will also say that on that is the specific problem which is that we often talk in the IGF about the lack of technical ability.  This is one area where actually politicians are very strongly motivated to understand what's going on.  But I would just say that the laws around disinformation online that are made are made after elections by the winners, so they're not always quite as rounded as we might hope they are.  But as I say more tomorrow morning 9:30 in the Workshop.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you very much, and unless there is any pressing need for intervention ‑‑ yes, Minda, you can go.  And Mira, okay, two more and then we will need to wrap it up.

>> MINDA MOREIRA:  Thank you.  So one question that is not a question but maybe is a call for action is that I thought that another Sustainable Development goal would be addressed in the session, that is the SDG13 climate action.  It was not.  But I think it's a very important one and I think all the Dynamic Coalitions should work together on this.  There is a climate emergency, climate crisis so climate action is a very, very important one.  We have been addressing this one this year through our Article 4, and we would welcome anyone that would like to work with us for the next IGF to bring it not to our annual meeting but to a proper main session.

So if you like to come and talk to me and talk to any one of our Coalition, we would very much welcome this discussion for the next year, or the next National IGF too.  So it's really important, young people are very dynamic on this.  That's one of the things that they want to see the IGF community to address, and unfortunately, we are not talking about that enough.  Thank you.

>> MICHAEL OGHIA:  I always say we can't legitimately discuss access unless we also address sustainability so thank you so much for that, Minda.  Mira?

>> MIRA MILOSEVIC:  That was very similar to what I wanted to say.  If we don't address all these issues especially how we choose our representatives in elections, and how they make their decisions, we will never be able to reach goals defined by the Agenda 2030 and especially we won't be able to address climate change so Dynamic Coalitions in this IGF structure is crucial and critical for addressing and achieving some of the SDGs.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Thank you very much, and I want to say that I think that we made something impossible, possible.  14 speakers in two hours, every voice heard but I know there was a suggestion for the wrap‑up.  As a compromise solution because we're running 7 minutes overtime why don't you Tweet it?  It will reach the wider audience.  Of course, depends on you but if you want to say briefly as a wrap‑up how your Dynamic Coalition, or Dynamic Coalitions in general, can be a vehicle to achieving Sustainable Development goal, Tweet it.  And I will pass it to Michael to wrap it up.

>> MICHAEL OGHIA:  Thank you.  Chris said it very well earlier, I really see the DCs as being such a cohesive glue that in many ways can keep, can hold the IGF together, so I really challenge us going forward over the next year and beyond to work together more cohesively even more cohesively as a positive call to action not a negative one to work together more cohesively for instance inviting each other to join sessions even more so, since especially we know all of these interlinkages and with that said I want to thank all of you obviously for being here, for taking the time to be here.  You've really been amazing.  Thank you all, the audience, for listening, for being here.

I also just want to quickly thank Jutta and Markus who are the DC coordination group kind of ‑‑ they're the ones that herd these cats together and make sure we're all on time and do everything right.  Thanks Lima and Eleonora at the Secretariat who put in so many countless hours to making sure we can operate as we do.  Of course and then lastly thank you to the staff here at the Estrel center especially dealing with us going over time and making this happen and as always, thank you very much to our captioner who is a faceless person who makes ‑‑ if you please could captioner please just write your name so we know to thank you correctly, properly, not just a random person.

[ Heidi Thomas, and I'm right upstairs ]

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  Heidi Thomas, thank you so much.

>> MICHAEL OGHIA:  Thank you so much, thank you Heidi.  Thank you too Tatiana she's done so much of the work getting this together as well and so with that I'll hand it back to you.

>> TATIANA TROPINA:  No, first, let me thank you as well because you're the last but not least person to thank in this wrap‑up.  Please give the panel a big round of applause.  And thank you.

[ Applause ]

>> MICHAEL OGHIA:  See you next year.