IGF 2020 - Day 3 - DC Internet in Crisis Management and Renewal

The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the virtual Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), from 2 to 17 November 2020. 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. 



>> VINT CERF: It is Vint again.  We have to use human solutions to solve human problems.  The technology won't solve them for us, Alex makes that point very, very well.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you.  Thank you.

If there are no other comments or questions ‑‑ go ahead.

>> OLIVIER CREPIN‑LEBLOND: If you can see the participant list but I have put my hand up.  I didn't know whether to ‑‑

>> MODERATOR: There are two lists and I have to figure out which list I have to go with.  Sorry.

>> OLIVIER CREPIN‑LEBLOND: I was going to ask, Alejandro, this is ongoing work, he had presented already at the last of our meeting, and really it is easing into the next stage here, what has COVID‑19 changed in this framework, you know, has it had a massive impact?  Is it still ‑‑ you know, is there no change to it as such?

>> Alejandro:  I have to say that COVID‑19 has ‑‑ COVID‑19 has been a massive test for the internet in many ways.

I have a second presentation for this.

What we ‑‑ I'm presenting also at the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality, an analysis on the impact of internet openness, what we see, for example, there, it is the massive scaling affects have found some boundary, we have been ‑‑ the massive scaling, it is serious, the core of internet, it has held up very well in this scaling.  There were needs more likely ‑‑ it was not a parole call issue, but an operational issue for example when European operators came together with companies like Netflix, other streaming services, or alphabets, Google's YouTube services, in order to demand and to agree to have lower bandwidth requirements.  So for example, Netflix was shown at lower resolution in order to reduce ‑‑ avoiding the congestion.  The scalability, it has been very dramatically invested at the edge.  In countries like mine, in Mexico, the reports are the same in Latin America, South Asia, and they have not gotten details in African countries, but we think that 40% of the population doesn't have access at the edge and would have to remedy that when we have brought all of our schooling online this traffic increase has shown the value of the sustainability by the way, that impact, the scaling, international traffic, of course, it is there, and this is a very good way of scaling the network.  They're reporting increased traffic of 40%.  Almost everybody I know, students at the University, they have spent extra money in getting better connection and an increase in bandwidth or a change of technology to get fiber so that the latencies are diminishes and there was once a house that had a heavy use of internet for Netflix at night, now it has three people at school and two people at work at the same time with very high demands for latency because we went all on video.  These are the ways of the time and using the framework ‑‑ by using it, testing it, these factors, they're critical, and we have things like security and so on, they're ‑‑ I'm in the addressing them within the framework..

You have to see if these factor, if they're preinternet, online, post internet behavior, so complete, relevant, useful, these are three things to be tested, which is ongoing work which I'm inviting everybody to share or to invite to the projects and to share.

>> (Technology issue).

>> MODERATOR: Can anyone speak to that?  I will ask, if you have some comments on that, it will be something that we will discuss in the next session.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: There is a beautiful book, it captures mindsets that are coming together for creation of the internet and I'll leave that floor to Vint for his statement, it is built for all things.

The more ‑‑ some of the more technical sites were built for connections, assuming that there would be a lot of the work, network, it would be used for the computers, whereas another set of people were from the 1960s already, they were building the human to human collaboration that will be machine assisted.  These are both there together.

I think Vint has more to say.  

>> VINT CERF: Thank you very much.

Is it okay to take a moment to respond?

>> MODERATOR: Go ahead.  Please.

>> VINT CERF: Alex is right.  The internet was designed as collaboration among a bunch of engineers and in an academic setting and the ambition was, of course, to share computing resources and knowledge to advance the state‑of‑the‑art of commuter science and even in intelligence.  Believe it or not, that was a driver behind the original network implementations.  As it evolved and eventually spread to the general public, it was clear that it was simultaneously a platform which collaboration could occur and also a platform in which competition could occur.  We have seen plenty of both in this environment.  I like very much the point that was being made, the question that was being asked, what can we do, how do we use the internet to be collaborative in our response to COVID‑19? 

It is clear that there is heavy collaboration in the search for vaccine against the COVID‑19 disease, and I think also we're seeing efforts to use it to overcome the problem lack of proximity, we have not done a great job of using the internet in the educational setting yet, the tools are not quite right, teachers don't have the train, the students, they're often uncooperative or outright, you know, misbehaving.  We have a lot of work to do to learn to adapt this technology in a way that make it is more useful.

I'm still very optimistic that we can do that.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Vint.

I have a request for the floor.

>> Marianne Franklin:  If ‑‑ I don't know if you need the visual.  Anticipate happy for you to share the camera.

>> MODERATOR: It is complicated.  It is better if you go ahead, we're at the end of the ‑‑

>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN: Two points, I'm here on behalf of the Internet Principal Rights and Coalition as we're close allies with the core internet coalition, core internet values.  So just want to underscore a support for your efforts in this domain. 

Secondly, COVID and this pandemic, it is a gamechanger.  It behooves us to be even stronger on recognizing it as a gamechanger.  For all sorts of reasons.  I think, Alejandro, you mentioned teaching and learning, it underscores the digital divide on the most basic level, the bandwidth package that you have, whether your laptop is compatible and then we have students with shared accommodation, going to cafes, so it is a gamechanger in terms of revealing the very sort of forms of digital divides within privileged areas.  On the other hand, just to also underscore ‑‑ I have been amazed at the adaptability and the inventiveness of this generation of what we call digital native, of deploying, repurposing, and rejigging of the off of the shelf and particularly peer to peer, opensource applications and so in that sense, there is a lot of hope.

I think that the real issue is to do with top‑down management decisions that are based on ignorance from the point of view of managements, and top‑down, middle management decisions, they're based on the hard sell that they get from certain large internet providers, so I think the huge outreach dimension that would perhaps be good to consider from a point of view of cross Dynamic Coalition work.  We have got to realize, this is the generation that learning online, they're 100%, my students are from China, Austria, North London, South London, you name it and if it weren't for these applications, we wouldn't be able to do our job and they wouldn't be able to continue their degrees.  The potentials are enormous.  I think the technical expertise is needed to sort of keep the options open, free and opensource, affordable, apps that don't force you to upgrade your equipment which I have had to do because of age‑old, decade‑old rivalries between large corporates, that's a thing that coordinates from the technical expertise that you bring to the table, it is really important to hear this from the technical experts and formative influencers and how the infrastructure operates.  It is a resilient infrastructure on the whole.


Still learning a lot.  I just wanted to endorse your efforts here and hope that we can keep the conversation across our sectors and agree to disagree, variety is the spice of life and the internet is not a thing, it is a composition of technology, humans, lots of accidents!  That's all I want to say.  Thank you so much.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: If I could briefly respond.

The first comment, something that I often say, I quote an economist from 2008, the quote goes when the tide goes out, you see who went swimming without trunks.  That's what we have seen in COVID.  If your company hasn't prepared for teleworking, let's say if they didn't have a password base system for crossing the firewall or working from home and they have to tear it down or they didn't have expertise for collaboration, but also the rules.  In many countries, the courts are stuffed with every type of litigation or for example real property purchasing, it is stopped because people don't have the offices in place to work from home.

You can't sell a house, you can't continue litigation, people are stuck in jail because litigation can't go on because of the courts.  That's one.

The other, complementary, the cost of not doing.  The governments that didn't enact digital transformation policy or national digital strategy, now they have made their citizens incur a very high cost.  It was expensive to connect, it is more expensive not to connect.  The expense ‑‑ the savings was on the government side and the spending, it os ‑‑ this is what's been revealed, this is how COVID and the internet have become an x‑ray of society.

Thank you.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Alejandro.

Thank you for this session.  Thank you for all of the questions.

I will give now the floor to Olivier to introduce the next session and to share it also.

Go ahead, please.

>> OLIVIER CREPIN‑LEBLOND: Of course, the next session that we have it is regarding the consequences of COVID‑19 on core internet values.

On this, we had some discussion on this as I mentioned earlier for those people that joined us recently, there are a lot more people than in the beginning of the session, there is a discussion on the internet successes and failure to support the world living under COVID‑19 lockdown.  There is a link in the agenda that will take you to that wiki page with a link to the video recording of this session that took place in June.  There we discussed on whether the internet was fit for purpose with all of the things that's been put through because of COVID‑19, was there a need for a new network.  It was a heated discussion and we won't reiterate it here.  One thing that might have not been totally clear back then, it is really what were the real ‑‑ the real consequences of the internet being used differently with more people working at home and a lot more people resorting to teleworking, plus games, plus doing all sorts of other things on the internet.

We have the luck, the pleasure to have on this occasion Olga Makarova joining us from MTS, they're the largest provider of telecommunication communications of mobile communications, the largest mobile operator ‑‑ I will get it right ‑‑ in Russia.  She's got some real interesting data there to take us through our next discussion, which is the consequences of the COVID‑19 pandemic on the internet, of course on the core internet values. 

Over to you, Olga.  I gather you have some great things to share with us.

>> OLGA MAKAROVA:  Is this all right?  Thank you to let me take part in this discussion as a speaker.

No one can easily accept changes, most people are afraid of changes, especially global changes.  Changes never come as something we want, we have faced changes.  Has had a huge impact on I'm lives and made huge changes in them.

With respect to people's view of changes, it is always the same, many say no, you can't, it is upsetting to them, well, need to accept the changes and still live in a new way.

Just a moment.  Okay.

The change curve, you see 7 major changes in coping with and accepting changes.  Denial, frustration, depression, experiment, decision, integration, this affects many roles and how.  Let's take a look at this picture on the right.

The shock and denial, it probably starts in February of this year and ended by April of this year.  The growth has been 65%.  In the same month of last year, the year before, we recorded an increase of no more than 15%.  The stages of shock and denial left to a huge increase in video traffic, we saw overwhelming video after the first few weeks in lockdown.  When it started, many people believed that they would be able to return to their real formal lives soon.  That didn't happen.

We're expecting an increase internet traffic in May, during the holidays, along the holidays in May, in terms of people, they are used to spend this time traveling around the globe.  The pandemic has made it impossible for people to travel, people had to stay at home, but the internet traffic that was supposed to grow kept going.  You have seen the frustration stage and then the denial.

The traffic increase and it was distributed between the number of resources.  Video traffic dropped significantly, people stopped watching video.  Social media, decrease decreased slightly.  Our lockdown ended in June.  Today traffic's volume has returned to those of March this year.  There's an increase in traffic of 65% by the end of this year.  Last year and year before we saw an increase in traffic at the level of 12 to 35%.

I'm afraid this may be nearly impossible, if we look at our policy, as precisely as we used to do.  Now a clear understanding of the reasons for the traffic grows this fall, perhaps this is the start of a transmission to a new staged experience.

In this case, it will be very positive news, but perhaps we have just returned to the beginning of when new changes come, caused by COVID, now you keep the precise answer, if they exist, of course, and therefore we must prepare our networks for the changes.  There's some positive news.

The pandemic has had IpV6 to grow faster than ever.  On the importance of being responsible, by mid‑may, it was up.  We saw a rise in traffic from various game services.  In mid-May we witnessed a short‑term significant growth on connections.  This was because of a distribution of game content launched by a global online integrated, this led to several growth, and it was on this viral network, networks.  The action didn't affect our customers but some stakeholders have experienced it, congestion on their external connections.  This case demonstrates the urgent need for great responsibility of each stakeholder, especially now.

On the possibility of improvement, we have started the development of our connectivity much earlier than the pandemic came, at the start of the pandemic, the network had been stable and protected connectivity with plenty of high speeds and service providers.

Almost 19% of traffic from our private peer to peer connections, the connections from our own resources, et cetera, and also our customers, those of our customers.  Before the lockdown, we had received a call from a major partner, it is one of the most famous social company in the Russian market, that's right picture.

It proposed to increase the connections and improve despite the almost ideal connections ‑‑ left picture.

What's done, it is better.  What is done is better but sometimes you do need to do better.  On quality of service, the parameters, it is the page load time, we measured it with 200 websites.  By June of this year, we discovered that over 70% of the problems associated with long page load, associated with long page load, they were related to the sites themselves, not our network.  We decided to partner with content providers to solve the problems together.  We managed to improve the quality of this during the pandemic despite the pandemic.

The benefits of concise and transparent documents rely on the Network Neutrality framework for the negotiations and agreements.  It is a short, concise, transparent document.  It is two pages and everybody can read it.  It was developed by a Working Group of Russian stakeholder, informs December of 2015.  The recommended applications by all stakeholders, allow bringing content closer to consumers by establishing Telecoms, nationals, global content providers, optimizing traffic roles and creating condition for rapid expansions of bandwidth, in particular, in the case of a significant growth of internet traffic.  Perhaps our regional experience might be interesting to start.

In this regard, in this regard, I want to thank all our partners for the contribution during the pandemic.  The development of 5G networks is leading to new changes and these changes will affect not only telecoms but all stakeholders.  We should be ready.

Thank you for your attention.  We can ask for your interventions.  Thank you.

>> OLIVIER CREPIN‑LEBLOND: We will follow-through immediately with Sebastien, there are a number of questions in the pod and the Q&A.  I hand the floor over to Sebastien for the link to our core policies. 

Thank you.

>> SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET: Thank you very much.

I want to talk to you, to take the other side of the situation.  I am an end user.  As an end user, what was the situation with COVID‑19?  I want to talk earlier, some people were able to have the network, I'm in the middle here, it is not a poor country we don't have fiber, we have ‑‑ it is just not a possibility here.  Therefore, when people went to work from home, they discovered ‑‑ we discovered ‑‑ it was quite complicated.  I'm in charge of a local organization here to take care of all types of people, helping children, helping senior people, so on, and all of the families and we put staff to work at home.

They were unable to work from home because of the question of the bandwidth.  When they went home, there was just a connection with satellite, therefore, we don't have the possibility ‑‑ at the same time, if we look at the information system we discover that the system was built to be working on the local network, but not at all to be working from outside.  Fortunately, just before we set up a private network, therefore we ‑‑ part of the work was able to be done from home and it was good coincidence, good planning.  The fact that we don't have enough bandwidth, it is real trouble, both from the user side and from the company's side and we have to wait a few years before we get to some fiber.

At the same time, we try to keep with especially the senior people who are spread among the country, how to help them to be connected, to stay connected.

Fortunately, here again, we have helped 20 of those persons to learn about internet, how to use their laptop, how to use their phone and it was really first time they accessed, learned about internet, how to use it.  It was good that we have done that the year before.  During the situation of lockdown, it was the only way to be able done next.  Even it was a way that they use it to make ‑‑ to get food from outside and to deliver and that's the experience and it is where we need to take that into account, both sides.  Yes, Olga shows us about the networks she's working with, how it was a great tool and was helping people to still work.  That's not the case here.  We need to wait either for the fiber of 5G but we hope it will be something that we'll be able to face but for the second lockdown as we are in today, we have the same trouble, the same question, and I want it take one additional example, my son decided ‑‑ we take him here and he had a good connection in Paris region, here it is not the case, so therefore he can't do what he was supposed to do, his work.

  That's a problem we have to take into account..  That's the same situation in a lot of countries, we'll say in Latin America, Africa, Asia‑Pacific, not just because we are in France and so‑called developed country, we don't have the same type of problem.

That's an idea I wanted to share with you.  We want to have internet as a Human Rights base, it is I guess important but it starts with infrastructure and how we use it on top of that, but having a good cop next, it is something that's absolutely necessary.

I will stop here.  It was just for the sake of time.  If there is a question, I would be happy to answer.

Back to you.  Thank you.

>> OLIVIER CREPIN‑LEBLOND: Thank you for that.

Alejandro, you typed a question in the chat for Olga, I wondered whether you wanted to say it rather than reading it?

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I was wondering if there is a seasonality adjusted results, the percentages of the growth and the decrease in traffic, they're month‑to‑month or compared to the year before because for example if the data is for the summer, when school was out, you would expect less traffic from school‑related activities and more traffic for gaming, young people have more time left.

Congratulations for this.  It is a great presentation, the point of view, it was fantastic.  I loved it.

>> Olga Makarova:  Could you please repeat your question?

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Yes.  The percentage ‑‑ you say you have a 12% increase in traffic from June to July.  Is that compared from June 2020 to July 2020?  Or is it comparing ‑‑

>> OLGA MAKAROVA: No.  No.  No.  In June and July, we have decrease.  We have decreased our ‑‑ we have our traffic decreased.  Decreased.  Just a moment.  Just a moment.  Let me ‑‑ I think traffic has decreased.  It decreased 20, maybe 30, 45%.  It was dramatic but not for us.

That is a traffic decrease, but we would ‑‑ we would have had today, we have the traffic ‑‑ if we ‑‑ if we have had ‑‑ if we have had traffic increase, yes, by June, 60, 65%.  We have today the traffic decrease by ‑‑ I can't ‑‑ I'm afraid ‑‑ I'm afraid to think about it.  I think maybe 100 to 20%, maybe 100 ‑‑ 150%, it is ‑‑ it would have been very dramatic for us.

>> OLIVIER CREPIN‑LEBLOND: Thank you for that. 

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY:  I would like to show you a slide for a further comparison when others have asked all other questions.

>> OLIVIER CREPIN‑LEBLOND:  Has there been a situation where the network couldn't cope with the change in traffic, where you saw it, you said, well, your company, you said, well, you know what, we're not ready for this sort of thing and I wonder, the typical internet service provider ‑‑

>> OLGA MAKAROVA:  A big story: 

We were coping with traffic increase.  I decided that it had been well done and I told my technical guys oh, we have ‑‑ we have done great, we have everything very well, but we are ‑‑ we were wrong.  We are not so clever, we are only very lucky.

Of course, there was some participants in our market who had troubles during the pandemic, especially March, especially ‑‑ March and April, especially March and April.  We ‑‑ we received calls for this participant, with the proposal to increase our connections, to increase our connections.  Yes.  Of course.

>> OLIVIER CREPIN‑LEBLOND: I'm looking at the chat.  I don't see any questions in the Q&A.  I wonder if ‑‑ I know there are quite a few comments made in the chat.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: There are some questions by Vint Cerf, it is whether our house places, where we live, will have to change in order for several people to be able to work at the same time.  I'm answering that it is a very, very important question.

I have a case among one of my ‑‑ among my students, one of them has three brothers, they're all studying at the same time.  The parents, they're working.  Their father is a physical education teacher.  He's teaching people physical education, they have to jump, shout, move around, he as to do a lot of shouting.  We'll have to make changes in lighting, soundproof, just the ability to share space and when people live in very small homes, apartment blocks, 65 square meters, that's not a lot of space.  You have less than 2 meters on one side of the room, it is a bed probably with two, three beds piled up.  When you live in these conditions, you're not ‑‑ this is another big divide in our society that's highlighted by the COVID epidemic and if we look at the way, the principles, the way they're being challenged, you see the best effort, for example, it has been broken at the edge of the networks and major adjustments were made by the providers like ‑‑ exactly ‑‑ all this shows us here, it is exactly the way that major adjustments are made by the operators, it is not only the metric solution, but it is asking the gamer, so the interoperability have been working well, the device, they're tested, some are not working well.  National border, surveillance, tracking applications, they have challenged the end‑to‑end, as to the network, to do more.  The European Union, for example, the operators there, they're very happy that the way that they manage the neutrality to use end‑to‑end to sustain best efforts and you can see something like this mostly okay but for the universal reach.  This is the way that I see COVID‑19 effecting the core principles and the second framework when used for value.

Thank you.

>> OLIVIER CREPIN‑LEBLOND: Thank you for sharing this.

That's particularly important as it relates directly to the work.

I was going to mention actually there might be some room for creation of a Dynamic Coalition on working from home cohabitation or something to that extent since it seems to be that we're not in this working from home environment for the short‑term, but rather more the longer term than we currently are in.

I'm seeing more discussion in the chat, but no outright comment.  Does anybody else wish to intervene on this.

>> MARIANE FRANKLIN:  The access is based on shared devices if a family has a decent laptop or PC, first of all, it is a presumption rather than a fact, and some people, they're having to share phones, living in family units, so at home, it is much defined by access to equipment and the income you need to buy separate pieces of equipment.  It is not immediately on the radar in this discussion but it is crucial, you know, students who have to share the computer because parents and sisters, brother, they're on class at the same time and they don't have enough actual hardware, let alone enough bandwidth coming in the home, we really need to drill down, getting a 360º in picture of how this actually works at the point of accessing as an individual user who may, in fact, have to share equipment.  We're not all as well off ‑‑ people are not always as well off as some of us are in terms of those options.  I want to add that currently to the discussion.  Thank you.

>> SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET: Definitely, there are different layers here.

The first ‑‑ I don't know if it is first ‑‑ but how we connect to the internet, what are the tools to use our devices and how we need to share or not share.  There is how we're organizing and the example, the example, it is quite interesting and just to take one example here, my son, he's working during night ‑‑ now he's sleeping in the next room and I have to make this conference call and we are in trouble because we are not living at the same time, but we're sharing the same house.  Fortunately, we have plenty of space, but internet is impacting other places.  Then you add to that, how people know about how to use those tools and how we help them to learn.  It is not the same thing when you send somebody home and say now you have to work from home or you have to learn from home and they know how do it and with that tool, now we're all used with Zoom, Zoom, it is quite complicated too when you don't know how to really use well your mouse.  It is all of those elements we need to take into account in the future.

Thank you.

>> OLIVIER CREPIN‑LEBLOND: I think you wanted to answer one of Vint's comments in the Q&A.

>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN: It was talking about the economics, and we're talking about the laws of physics, get you there.  There is a cultural ‑‑ there are cultural aspects as well and the COVID crisis and the need for us to be online, it is as individuals but as communities or as classes, groups, it is bringing forth the cultural, psycho, emotional dimensions of how people, communities, groups, extended family, family members presume to use this equipment and I think it makes more powerful this discussion to remember the cultural aspect, there are different ways of using these portals and devices.  I'm reminded of my privilege when my students knock on the door, I can't get to class, I can't actually get to the computer.  You know, it is my dad is using it, for instance, and he's got to work.

These sorts of things, they're subtle but very concrete in consequences.  Point taken, Vint, Robert.  Too, wanted to add that cultural aspect as part of the critical data.  Thank you.

>> OLIVIER CREPIN‑LEBLOND: Time is going fast.  We will closeout on this topic after Sivas.

You may be muted.

>> SIVASUBRAMANIAN MUTHUSAMY:  I'm sorry.  I wanted to recount some of the observations made by participants in our past sessions.  In particular, we had a session two years ago where Matthew Sales was saying he wanted to apply the notion of freedom from harm to core internet values, and he was observing the core internet values should not be harmed.  Here we are in an age of pandemic, quite a lot of values pertaining to the core values, including freedom of ex precious or more compromised as an amount of necessity.

The question that is to be raised at this point of time, it is how temporary or how do these regulatory measures, that's what ‑‑ that's at this point.   .

Another participant, they were saying that a new central layer, a center of control, must never be created, and it appears that during this pandemic, there is a certain degree of regulatory control as being put in place and that also should be temporary.

We also have said in 2015, we proposed, that there be a defined, agreed upon list of core internet value, and these core internet value, they need to be the reference standard for global internet policy.  I wanted to mention this, that it was very, very important at this point in time to see how the core internet values are heard, it is something like broad commandment, the values, they're part of the goal and they're never meant to be changed, at the point in time, they could be altered in a certain way but whatever altercations are done, it is temporary.  That's all I want to say.  I would like Vint, someone to bring in their insights on this specific topic before it is closed.

Thank you.  Thank you.

>> OLIVIER CREPIN‑LEBLOND: We have very little time.  Did anyone want to wish to comment on this briefly?

I note in the chat, the Internet Invariants that Leslie Daigle has talked about and I know the Internet Society has followed up on much discussion on this topic as well.

>> VINT CERF: I would like to respond to that point.

I think I'm reaching the conclusion, I don't know about anyone else, that all of feet bombs that we want to apply to the core values of the internet have to be tempered somehow.  I think we're learning that we can't have a completely unconstrained environment because humans don't behave well in environment where is there are no guardrails and where there are no norms.

I think if there is any lesson to be taken away from the last couple of decades of experience with the internet, it is that it needs to have a framework in which freedom is tempered by responsibility and where people are irresponsible then it is tempered by ways of enforcing behaviors that are constant with the type of society we want to live in.  Of course, the tension here, it is figuring out what those guardrails look like and how they're enforced.

>> OLIVIER CREPIN‑LEBLOND: I guess that's words of wisdom for the end of this topic.

We have much more discussion in the future on that.  The last part of this section, of this meeting, it is about a statement that's been drafted by a number of people in the coalition, and that's been ‑‑ the effort is led by Gregory Name, whose joining us here and we also have some members of the other Dynamic Coalitions that have decided to support this statement.  Gregory, over to you.

Would you just show us through it?  I don't know if you can share the screen, where you want me to share the screen?

>> GREGORY NAME:  It would be good if you could share your screen, please.

Thank you, everyone, for this opportunity.

I suggested this statement in order to address government behaviors that are detrimental to freedom of speech.  We have listed five instances of excessive controls, especially we call excessive, any unilateral control of the internet for political reasons, especially for political purposes.

Reason can only exist if human beings are allowed to scrutinize each other and this applies especially to political life.  Every country that's a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has the way to ensure freedom of speech, but not every country is fulfilling their commitments.  As a Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Value, we have the duty to express our concerns and this statement, it is an appeal to dialogue.  It projects the notion that political control of the internet can be exerted without the participation of stakeholders.  Nobody knows everything.  No argument is so good that you can dispense with dissent.  Freedom of speech is a precondition for mutual understanding.  These are the values we defend and these are values that all UN countries have committed to uphold.  The text is divided in three main parts, the preliminary consideration, the problematics and the call to action.  Now, to the statement.

The internet is architectural as an ecosystem free and open and decentralized end‑to‑end and robustly reliable, as a global network of internet, it is a universal medium to be open regardless of geography or nationality.  The interoperability makes it possible for any computer system to run application programs from different vendors and to interact with other computers around wide area networks regardless of the physical architecture and the operating systems.  The Internet Technical Standards are open standards that enable any device or network to connect to the internet and allow this services and allow diverse services, applications or types of data.  The internet is meant to be free of any centralized control.  Its end‑to‑end and user‑centric nature gives control to the end users over the type of information application and service that they want to share and access.  The internet is robust and reliable.  The internet owes its success not only to the technology, but also to the way it operates, with no single authority directing it, accept the unique addressing system coordinated by ICANN which is designed for robustness and reliability and whose policies are developed in the multistakeholder manner and internet governance is a multistakeholder global process of furthering the evolution of internet as a universally accessible free and open and operable end‑to‑end decentralized ecosystem.  The internet is free of barriers to connect, communicate and create the IGF in particular, it is a forum of multistakeholder policy dialogue and these so far are pretty linear considerations and now we're going to look at the programization.

Recently, unilateral government actions have undermined public trust in the internet as a call for good, such actions do not reflect an international consensus, they do not result from dialogue with stakeholders in the communities affected, they are not endorsed by the IGF to form the internet governance, such actions include suppression of political dissent, despite calls of content moderation due to circumstances, there is no consensus of what constitutes or what constitutes reasonable moderation.  On the other hand, there is a consensus that the suppression of political dissent, it does not qualify as reasonable moderation, and national fireworks, global reach, it is a core principle of the best technical practices, it is built on end‑to‑end communication and interoperability.  This principle only works if the internet is shaped with a view to facilitate free internet and among users and functions as a network driven by the end points of communication without censorship or controlled duty.

National shutdowns, by shaping the internet in ways that leads to fear and confusion in local communities, governments jeopardize international good will and if there are security concerns, there are technological ways of finding out what specific target is effected, with no reason to shut the entire network down.  Shut downs infringe basic Human Rights such as had freedom of expression and the rights to information with harmful consequences from people's lives.

Fragmentation of the internet, the blocking of internationally available service to a proportion of user, including the blocking of applications, applying provided discriminatory or regions specific shaped policies, it causes the fragmentation of the internet.  Preventing the internet offends the principle that all humans are born equal and must have equal access to any information and knowledge available to mankind.

Data and traffic shaping, the internet is a global network of networks, by dictating how networks should connect to each other and by splitting traffic governments undermine the agility, resilience, flexibility of the internet.  The rules of connection between networks should result from technical rather than political considerations.  These are ‑‑ this is a problem and then a short call to action.  The undersigned organizations and groups distance themselves from political actions that distort the inclusive, global nature of the internet, we therefore encourage governments to seek democratic legitimatization of the policies, this is only possible by engaging in a participatory dialogue with stakeholders.  Dynamic Coalition and core internet value, Dynamic Coalition on Internet of Things, Internet Rights and Principles Coalition, the Coalition on Internet Governance.

This is the statement.  As this is an ongoing debate, we welcome ongoing input.  We thank everyone who contributed to the drafting and I very much look forward to further constructive discussions and dialogue on this.

Thank you.  Thank you very much.

>> SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET: Thank you.  I take back the presentation.

If you have comments raise your hand, put the question in the chat.  If I ask, can other leader, leaders of other coalitions, Dynamic Coalitions, would like to take the floor and express your ‑‑ their view on this document and we are supposed to finish soon.  I don't remember what time we were supposed to.  Please, if there are other people from other.

>> NOHA ABDEL BAKY:  We support this, youth is from Generation Y and Z, they're still digital natives and main users of the internet and they're highly affected by everything that happens online.

So during the crisis we observed many things happening online, like applications, getting blocked, we observed partial and sometimes total shut downs in other countries.

We are observed youth being affected because their education is effected, they need to study online, sometimes as full timers and many also, they were affected because we had to work from home or the freelance jobs were effected or even their start‑ups got affected by the crisis.

Also we observed political suppression in some countries, youth were not able to express their views or how their governments handled the crisis or the pandemic situation.  That's why we're supporting the statement, because it promotes protecting the basic Human Rights of youth or any other ‑‑ or all of the end users to be online, and to protect their online presence. 

Thank you.

>> SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET: Thank you very much.

Any other Dynamic Coalition which would like to take the floor now?

>> VINT CERF: Could I jump in?

I just put something in the chat, but as I listened, it occurred to me that maybe we should take as a basis this statement that we just heard from Gregory and develop a Universal Declaration of Human Digital Rights and Responsibilities, and I note that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights did not include the word responsibility and it strikes me that this would be an important addition to a statement in this digital context.

>> SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET: I'm sure we'll take that into account.  May I give the floor to IEPCT, representative, is it ‑‑ it is ‑‑  it will be Marianne or Minda.


Yes.  Yes.  Minda will jump in if she wants to. 

We support this statement because it is as I have noted in the chat, it resonates with the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet.  I do believe responsibility, Vint, it is mentioned in the charter, it includes our corporate responsibility and the charter encompasses all of our points here very well because it was a collaborative effort ten years ago now ‑‑ ten years ago.  Many people in this session, they were actually in some of those early ‑‑ some people in this session, they were in the early drafting stages.  I think it may be a self‑serving argument on the part of this coalition.  I don't think we have to reinvent the wheel, we have to get our shoulders behind the wheel that's already turning and we do this ‑‑ we do it in this way by endorsing these statements, we may in the agree on every single point, but why should we?  The basic ‑‑ the basic principle is there.  I think ‑‑ so I would just like to know that the charter has been around as it is in public domain and draws on Universal Declaration on Human Rights and our subsequent treaties and covenants with all of the imperfections and perhaps arrogance positions on the statement of humanity just to refer to this here.  That's why we have had a discussion, basically endorsing this statement.  We need to go deeper and have all of our efforts resonate more deeply rather than more thinly.  Vint, with all due respect, I feel we have the sort of Document that you're advocating, and I think we need to use that and build it out more with these sorts of statements.

Thank you so much.

>> SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET: I see that you want to take the floor, but before I give you the floor, may I ask if somebody from the Dynamic Coalition on Internet of Things are with us and if wants to take the floor?  I have ‑‑ all right.

>> OLIVIER CREPIN‑LEBLOND: I don't see Shane.

>> SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET: I will give the floor to Gregory.

>> GREGORY NAME:  Thank you for the comments. 

If there is a problematic aspect, which there needs to be more academic research and more discussion, it is arguably there can be a conflict of Human Rights when it comes to things like encryption.