IGF 2021 – Day 0 – Event #132 Transatlantic relations in cyber and digital affaires

The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF virtual intervention. 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, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.



>> We all live in a digital world. We all need it to be open and safe. We are all want to trust. 

>> And to be trusted. 

>> We all despise control. 

>> And desire freedom. 

>> We are all united. 

>> I guess we'll be starting soon. It's a great pleasure to welcome everyone here. Good evening, good afternoon, good morning wherever you are, the listeners to our panel. This is a global village. This is United Nations framework. You're all over the world, I believe, so for everyone, it's either sun rise or sunset or somewhere in the middle of the night. Wherever you are, we greet you from Poland. We're starting a panel to o transatlantic relation and cyber and digital affairs. The economy and the society of the 21st century will increasingly be based on digital solutions. The rules of the game and then managing the ongoing technological corporation between Europe and the USA in the relation to such issues like cybersecurity, big data, quantum computers, artificial intelligence, communication technology seems to be an obvious task. 

How we can work together between Europe and the USA to promote the development of the digital technologies, how we can work together to keep Internet open, free, safe, and secure for all users all over the world. How we can cooperate the development of new innovative technology so they can serve all human kind is an important question. For Europe and the USA, allies, friends. They work together. There is obvious benefits and obvious challenges to this cooperation. Today we will try to discuss some of them in the context of digital and cyber relations between Europe and the USA. I'm very pleased to have very distinguished guests with us today that I will present in alphabetical order of the states and organizations. From France, ambassador for digital affairs. 

Former entrepreneur who turned into serving the state of France but also the European community. From Germany, we have Dr. Regine Grienberger, cyber ambassador at the German foreign office. From the Netherlands, we have Ms. Nathalie Jaarsma for security police and cyber for foreign affairs. From Poland online, not with us here, we have Mr. Krzysztof Bednarek. And from the USA we have Mr. Stephen Anderson, deputy assistant secretary for communication and information policy, Department of State, who is also supported by the deputy coordinator for cyber issues, also from the Department of State. And last but not least, we have distinguished representative of the UPN commission, director Pearse O Donahue. Myself, I am Tadeusz Chomicki. 

I have the pleasure and at challenge to moderate this panel today. So my first question to the panelists will be concerning the opportunities and the benefits in coordinated cooperation in digital and cyber matters between Europe and the USA, but also the challenges or even sometimes difference of interests in some areas. Because there's no new industry. There's no new economy development without innovative and digital technologies. There is no new effective digital technologies without effective cybersecurity. There is no more internationalized and transborder as well as more security than cybersecurity. No other security. No other aspect or part of security. Depends on international cooperation. No other security is more ‑‑ cannot have a safe discrimination without safe financing or safe civil society without safe infrastructure. Critical infrastructure. 

This interdependence between sectors translates into interdependence between states and cooperation between states is a pre‑condition of safe cyberspace. And without safe cyberspace, we cannot develop new technologies, new digitalized technologies which are in hand a condition of the future development of economies and the human kind prosperity. So let's try to discuss what are the opportunities and benefits and what are perhaps challenges to the close corporation between Europe and the USA. I will start with Nathalie, the Dutch ambassador for that question. Nathalie. 

>> Nathalie Jaarsma: Thank you very much, Tadeusz. I'm very happy to see you all here in the audience and to be here in Katowice in person after all these online meetings. I wanted to make some ‑‑ first some general comments and then some short comments about cyber. So first in general, the transatlantic relationship ‑‑ do you hear me? Okay. The transatlantic relationship is a very comprehensive relationship based on shared values. For decades, there has been transatlantic cooperation through industry, civil society, sciences, and also governments. Through innovation, our societies have been able to reap the benefits of the Internet and digitalization. To us I think I can speak on behalf of all of us sitting here, it's a no brainer that we need to continue and deepen this relationship. [ Off mic ] 

>> Nathalie Jaarsma: That was an interesting call. The world is different than 10 years ago. What has changed in the recent years is that in this globalized world our values are being challenged. For decades we were used to looking through an economic lens and a security lens separately. We have built separate institutions and coordination mechanisms. For the transatlantic security relationship, we have primarily NATO and for the economic relationship we focused on creating and preserving a level playing field through multi‑lateral mechanisms and later on more and more through free trade agreements. Now that our values are being challenged, the lines between security and economy become less clear and that is especially true for digital technologies that connect us all as human kind. 

So in reaction we see that every single liberal democracy is doing its own homework to connect the security and economy dots better aiming for protecting our values while preserving open economies and also keeping promises to the global south. This requires better coordination and strategic thinking. Within national administrations, at the EU level and the transatlantic relationship, we see this happening. Tadeusz, you asked what do you see as the biggest challenge. I think here the biggest challenge is coordination. Since we have all these established institutions and mechanisms and we need to connect the dots. In the cyber domain, we've actually made big steps. Through the very active engagements by a lot of countries, including the ones represented on this panel, we now have international agreements on what is responsible state behavior on ICTs and whatnot. This consensus has been reconfirmed by the UN general assembly this year. 

So we have a framework that forms a yardstick for responsible state behavior and we need to hold states accountable if they do not respect the framework through their actions or non‑actions. This also requires coordination on information sharing, on assessments, and on possible actions. But also capacity building. We have built up serious muscle memory to do so both within the EU as well as the transatlantic relationship and more broadly with states that are of the opinion that the international legal order in cyberspace needs to be strengthened. Impunity of malicious actors is not an option. Since this would have enormous security and economic consequences for the entire world. Thank you. 

>> Tadeusz Chomicki: Thank you, Nathalie. I would like to ask Regine to follow along with your views and comments. 

>> Regine Grienberger: Thank you, Tadeusz. First, I'm grateful to Nathalie because I can start off now where she ended for the sake of time I will not repeat most of the things I'm completely aligning with Nathalie. I also see the world in a change and profound change due to the digital transformation, and both the U.S. and Europe are in a similar condition. Our economy and our political system and also our defense relies heavily on digital technologies, especially on cyber technologies. Therefore, both of us, the U.S. and Europe, have created really an important attack surface also to all the malicious actors that are there outside. Starting with that, we have also developed let's say we share the threat assessment of where these threats to our security come from and what we can do about it. So I will like to focus in my remarks on the security policy issues. 

And I would like to mention three examples for how we align and how our interests and also our actions converge. The first one is in the field of attribution and accountability. Within the UN framework we have created with the consensus reports of this spring a framework for how to do a responsible attribution of cyber incidents to state actors. In both the U.S. and Europe, Europe is in the new cyber diplomacy tool box follow this ‑‑ let's say the rules of how to attribute cyber incidents to an actor. We did so in the past month at least two times together. The first case was the solar winds attacks which we attributed and the other one was ghost writer. 

In the first case, it was more the U.S. that was concerned and ghost writer was more European states that were concerned, but we used this tool in the same way. Another example is our defense instruments that we use within NATO. In the NATO cyber defense review that was completed also this year in summer, for the first time we said that also the cumulative effect of individual cyber incidents can be summarized to something that can trigger article five free actions. This is very important because it shows we have the same awareness that also an individual incident can remain under the threshold of a military kinetic attack. They can sum up to something that can trigger article 5 and therefore the alliance to act. The third example is the ransomware initiative. 

This is an American initiative and it tackles the problem of ransomware. We found this really something very disturbing in the last month. The number of ransomware attacks has increased sharply and the sums that have to be paid as ransom have also increased incredibly. Ransomware is not only a financial crime, a financial cybercrime for financial interest. It also affects national security interest as far as critical infrastructure is concerned. We've seen this because ransomware attacks have been issued against health organizations, against energy supply, and so on. So this is really something where we have to do something together and the U.S. called for a counter ransomware initiative with initially about 30 states, but the group is growing to try to come together to join their efforts. Thank you. 

>> Tadeusz Chomicki: Thank you very much, Regine. This is really important. I shortly commented that I was taking part in a conference earlier this year which was about the protection of critical infrastructure in general, but one of the comments which was on the side of this conference pointed out that last year, 2020 year, the biggest threat or most popular threat obviously was COVID, but in 2021 it is ransomware. Indeed, it is important. Now I would like to turn to the multi‑purpose ambassador of both cybersecurity that Regine has pointed out, but also digital and he's, as I mentioned entrepreneur turned into civil servant. Please share with us your perspective on this topic. 

>> Thank you very much. Yes, I will take your question in a more general sense. First because I totally agree with my two colleagues and counter parts, so I would be boring if I say the same thing. And then because I think when you did invite us, why do we speak about the specific relation? The IGF is a global forum from the United Nation. But I feel that this relation, our relation is very important not just because, of course, did play a major role in the story of intelligence. Everyone knows the role of the U.S., of course. Some people forgive that in Europe we're born quite every aspect of the intelligence. So we did create a very important part of this history and the iteration between two ecosystems can be very fundamental for the rest of the international organization. 

Just to share this, I will share with you a very simple idea. Yes, you did mention my profession in life. I was trained as a researcher and then I started three companies. The French open policy and I was a CEO and now I'm a diplomat. I mention this because at each stage of this life I had great cooperation with and together with the fight against the same adversary and they were American or European. My first mistake is that there is not one Europe/U.S. relation. We have the story of the digital cooperation that is being written and a stakeholder story made by companies, academics, states, regulation authorities, city organizations, and they do interact nationally and internationally. 

And they exchange, cooperate, sometimes confront each other. It's very important, because in my opinion the first duty of the European/U.S. relation is to try not to oversimplify the relation through ‑‑ to see particular visions. We have two great ecosystems. We need to advance something. To advance how two very important ecosystems could cooperate. We are more different than people usually think. For example, of course in Europe we like a good regulation, but after the ‑‑ maybe the work we did for the last four years could be important for everyone. We can learn a lot from the city, of course, or I don't know. That may be my message during this roundtable. We could try to advance out to how great ecosystems could interact. If we exist in this, it would be something useful for everyone for the rest of the world, for every ecosystem in the world. So maybe my message is let's try to invent how ecosystems can cooperate. 

>> Tadeusz Chomicki: Thank you. That is also very interesting angle from which you have described this relation in cyber and digital. I would like now to ask Krzysztof who is representing the publish prime minister's office. In his daily work, he's working on the economic issues, mostly on economic issues in the framework of the European Union. This is his department which was preparing the police position on digital autonomy or strategic autonomy in Poland. So in this context of the specific discussion, I will like to ask Krzysztof who is online and joining us online from Warsaw to share his views and comments. The floor is yours. 

>> Krzysztof Bednarek: Thank you. Good evening to everyone. Thank you for inviting me to this panel to discuss transatlantic cooperation. As you mentioned, I would like to focus on the economic angle as digitization brought new opportunities and brand of services but also brought numerous challenges that require our careful attention and action and these challenges are visible with more clarity after analyzing particular cases that appear on both sides of the Atlantic in the past years. They are often high in the media, high in the news. Anti‑vaxxing campaigns and we are often confronted with key questions, how to ensure privacy protection, how to develop standards for access and management of industrial data, how to discourage potential the dominant position of digital companies that grew to significant size, and how to fight this information and how to secure basic digital rights, like freedom of speech. The good news for our transatlantic cooperation is that we need to tackle similar challenges. And the starting point is common fundamental values. 

So we could probably hold that the final regulatory outcomes will be not so far away. Obviously, the European Union has advanced in addressing challenges. Boasts itself as a super power, but it's not because we want to protect access to the market but it's rather the necessity to address all those challenges to secure support for digital transformation. When I observe the debate the issues across the Atlantic, those issues are debated and there are already substantial regulation on the federal level or state level. Some of them very much align to what the year has done so far. But I believe my American colleagues could tell us more about how the approach has evolved. So I'm convinced that when the debate progress, we converge on more solutions. 

We need to have in mind clear benefits from the lottery and corporation. The easier would be for our businesses to thrive. The more aligned we are, the better chances to shape, to influence global rules. But there are also obvious obstacles. Yes, we do have competing economic interests. Quite substantial symmetry in the scale of digital companies and different traditions, so there might be the impression that more burden or more adjustment will be expected from U.S. companies. And the second challenge is that the results are quite time consuming to find within the year to how we should tackle these challenges. So it's a work in progress. 

And all member states have to be on board. It takes time. But I think it's manageable. We need to make sure that solutions to challenges are proportionate and provide a view and we have some very encouraging examples of the most difficult issues. We're able to find satisfactory consensus. Here I mean obviously the historical agreement that assure benefits of the ‑‑ benefits of digitization will be distributed in a federal way. This is better positive signal. And that we were able to tackle erosion in an effective way. I believe that similar extra effort is needed to reduce potential tensions while addressing key challenges with regulations. And that is why Poland, we support the open version of EU digital sovereignty. Indeed, we must strengthen our digital capacities, but we need to remain open for cooperation and promote openness towards like-minded countries. And we do hope that the technology counsel will be very instrumental to better understand our approaches to key issues and we can make good progress. Thank you. 

>> Tadeusz Chomicki: Thank you, Krzysztof. It was very good comments from your side because it shows some challenges, but also that there are very good examples of the similar challenges. Coming from similar sources we already overcame in some fields. There is actually space where we can work together. Hearing from the member states of the European Union, we would like to see how the opportunities and challenges, how they look like from the American perspective, and I would like Stephen to take the floor and share with us the view from Washington. Stephen, please. 

>> Stephen Anderson: Thank you. Unfortunately, I am in Washington as opposed to Katowice. I was quite jealous watching you all mull around on the stage talking to each other before this panel began and I miss out on that. Also congratulations to you for putting together a panel that really brings together people who focus on the security and economic sides of this issue and putting them together which I think already is a theme that we've seen and is important. We have to understand the bulk of those issues need to be dealt with at the same time as we look forward in the transatlantic relationship. Unfortunately, I'm going to steal a line from Pearse in terms of how good the framing is that you've given to this particular session. 

I really do think you hit it absolutely on the mark. What we have to think of is in a world characterized by strategic competition, competition that is centered on competition and critical and emerging technologies, it's very true that the United States and the European Union share a positive vision of technology as a net force for good supporting the merging of our citizens and people all over the world. I think that's a theme that came out from all of speaker from the European Union. But what we sometimes need to understand is that we do have distinct regulatory approaches and we need to make sure that these approaches are always complementary rather than creating barriers for our two systems for us to achieve our fundamental objectives. 

What I would say, what that really means is that as we cooperate on strategic competition, we must also ensure that our approach to economic competition between us is complementary of the first effort. I think that is something that we are doing and we're beginning to do it really well over the last few months. Both the United States and Europe as we recover and change from the ongoing pandemic our transatlantic digital relationship is going to be critical to us building back better. Here at the state department, we are focusing on working with European allies and partners co ensure that together we remain the world's innovative leaders and standard setters. And that this innovation is grounded in democratic values and delivers real benefits for our citizens. 

I believe my French colleague spoke about the importance of the innovation that we see in the United States and in Europe. The secretary has identified six pillars that are necessary for us to meet the needs of our citizens both in the United States and in Europe I would say as we face down techno authoritarian regimes and other related threats posed to our society. First, we have to reduce the risks by cyber activities and strengthen the leadership of the U.S. and those sharing our values like the European Union in competition. Third, we have to defend an open, reliable and secure Internet. Four, ensure that technical standards and norms for emerging technologies are of the highest quality, industry led, bottoms up. Fifth, we have to make sure that these emerging technologies work for democracies. Not against democratic interests. And six, promote cooperation among democratic partners which I think is a theme here tonight as well. 

Now, discussing these pillars in this particular context naturally leads to a discussion of the U.S., EU trade and technology council which is an example of those pillars in action. In fact, I'm very proud that I work with Pearse on one of the working groups cooperating on how it is we can advance security and competition in ICT. Now, the U.S. and EU trade and technology council is an important forum to advance an affirmative values‑based U.S./EU type agenda. As the TPC inaugural meeting in Pittsburgh in September, the U.S. and the EU issued a joint statement that made commitments in the areas of global trade challenges, addressing non‑market trade sorting practices, semiconductor supply chains, investment screening, export controls, artificial intelligence. 

When you add in the other issues that we have in the working groups, tech standards, including technology, misuse of technology threatens securities in human rights, what you see is we have a very extensive agenda on both the promote and the protect side of technology issues. I think you could only have such a broad depth ‑‑ a broad focus of concentration in a relationship as close and as deep as that which we have with the European Union. We are seeking closer alignment ‑‑ as our Polish colleague has mentioned. We do recognize that it is unrealistic and probably not even necessary to have total convergence in our approaches. 

But given that we share many of the same objectives, we should seek to understand our differences and work towards complementary risk‑based innovation friendly approaches to tech market regulation. Now, since we're here at the Internet Governance Forum, let me say that the United States and European Union need to preserve and defend the vision of an open net that is open interoperable, secure and reliable and ensure the development and deployment of sensitive emerging technologies are done in a way that strengthens our democracies. This also includes support from a multi stakeholder system of governance. The transatlantic relationship has brought us 75 years of peace and prosperity. The Biden administration is committed to not only continuing but to revitalizing and raising the ambition of a transatlantic relationship. I think that together we can ensure that technology is used to promote our values and tackle the most pressing challenges from the pandemic to climate change. Thank you very much. 

>> Tadeusz Chomicki: Thank you, Stephen. Thank you, Douglas, very important to hear the voice from Washington even though we would like to hear the voice of Washington here from Katowice, not from Washington. I hope that next time we can make it here. Or somewhere else in physical presence. Last but definitely not least I would like to ask Pearse O'Donahue, the director representing the European commission on the perspective from the institution itself. 

>> Pearse O'Donahue: Thank you very much and good afternoon. Some of my best lines have been stolen by Krzysztof and Stephen, but I'm happy about that. And also the European commission being able to then add in my perspective, because from what we've heard already from the panel, we do have to focus on what are the challenges in relationship. But I would start by saying, of course, what is the alternative if we were to allow those challenges to dictate the relationship or we were giving up on the cooperation that is evident? And of course, that's unthinkable, because we are here in the IGF with the community who work hard and believe in an open trusted secure Internet. And we need to work to play our role in securing that on both sides of the Atlantic and of course with global partners and think the same way about it. That is exactly what's happening. 

We've heard from the cyber diplomats whose expertise I acknowledge in terms of the cooperation that is there and of course we are working together on securing the open Internet. On the European Union side, as people know, we have done quite a lot recently in order to strengthen and adapt our policy to growing threats but also to rapidly developing technology. To take a more holistic approach, to working with the member states who are in the front line of all of this. There is a national security element that is undeniable. We have more recently introduced a set of measures under the EU cybersecurity strategy which is part of our digital decade program. 

I won't go into the details there, but clearly what we are seeking to achieve is resilience, technology sovereignty and leadership. I would say a word about technology sovereignty in a moment. But it's also building the operational capacity to fight against cybercrime and cybercrime, to deter and respond. To do that again, we get into the area of global relations. We cannot create cut off the Internet because we'd be cutting off ourselves, not the rest of the world. We have to have a global and open cyberspace that is trusted and security, so we have to work with partners and assist partners in a neutral and helpful way that is suitable for their level of development. 

So that resilience is a key issue and you'll be seeing more from the commission and our president announced in September that we'll be bringing forward a new European cyber resilience act to complete the suite of measures we have put in place on cybersecurity. Now, there are good examples in this domain, but I'm not the expert here on the panel. We've heard already from Regine with regard to ransomware. That's a good example of detailed cooperation where administration and economic actors have worked together. I would actually like also to talk about the wider areas of cooperation and specifically what Stephen his just referred to and what Krzysztof referred to which is the transatlantic, the trade and technology council where we are working on a series of detailed issues around connectivity, around ICT and technological development. 

And seeking to improve relations that weren't so good in the recent past, and I recognize fully when Stephen says we have to look forward and that's exactly where we're going. Because the TTC as we call it is a sign of transatlantic cooperation. And it does serve as a forum for us to work out some of the issues that are really there. I think this is the point that I will like to interject. In Europe we talk about technological sovereignty. It is not to go on our own. It is not to create silos. That wouldn't work. We know it wouldn't work anywhere. It is to ensure that in times of geopolitical strive or even cyber warfare that Europe is able to continue to operate its Internet to be able to provide services to others who share the same principles and to support other countries with similar vision which may be more vulnerable than we are in the European Union in case of a doomsday day scenario with regard to the Internet. We don't want it to get there. 

We need to recognize there are other tendencies that can have a less dramatic but undermining effect on cooperation, but also on the security and the future of this open trusted Internet and that is what has been mentioned. In particular, the fact of competition, even at the state level, but commercial competition, which exists, and when that competition is sometimes typified on both sides of being a political culture or commercial culture of the other side, which is not acceptable to us, as is stated in the vision statement for this panel today, we need to be very careful about what we do and don't do. We are not going to try to solve those commercial tensions. Nor do we want to. We want to live in a competitive environment where the technology can develop and where the stakeholder community particularly innovators can actually help us to develop the next generation Internet. 

What governments and states on both sides needs to do is to ensure that the principles that we all espouse to are maintained and we do not use the technical weapons available to either side to undermine this ecosystem we have seen created. In the transatlantic trade and technology discussions but also in cyber and cybersecurity in general, we need other voices. We need the voices of reason and we need the expertise. That is why we are discussing this here in the IGF. The multi‑stakeholder community, but also of NGOs, privacy and security advocates, those who are working for diversity and inclusion in the Internet are critical to call out governments or governmental organizations wherever they may be including in the European Union if there are abuses or if there are problems. 

If through even with the best of intentions to regulating elements of the Internet, we are actually stifling free speech. We're stifling innovation. That is why in this environment in particular we must have an ongoing discussion and we must ensure that the multi‑stakeholder community, civil society and others are fully informed and involved in the discussions, in the TTC, and in everything that we do in cyber. Thank you. 

>> Tadeusz Chomicki: Thank you. We have a situation of negotiations at this moment. We've been given originally only 45 minutes, but I believe having such prominent speakers and important topics, we are in the process of negotiating with the United Nations organization that we can extend it a little bit more. I don't know the results of the negotiation yet, so I will make a very quick roundup of what we've heard. If we are given 15 minutes more, then I will go with a second round of questions. What I've heard is this is a very large area of cooperation that we are talking about. But definitely everyone ‑‑ you were very specific when you said if we do not cooperate closely, what is the alternative? What is the alternative? And several speakers from both sides of Atlantic Ocean pointed out we have the same values. We share the same values. We share the same norms. 

That we work together for within the framework of the United Nations. In fact, next week most of us will meet each other in an organizational meeting of the open-ended working group in the first committee to further discuss the norms of the responsible state behavior and we will be working together for the benefit of all countries in the world. So we have the same norms. We have the same values. We have very often common interests. And yes, we have competition. Stephen has pointed out this competition doesn't have to be destructive. It can be competition which is helping each other. That was also the voice from Poland. Convergence is the way to go maybe. 

We have a different regulatory traditions. In Europe we like things a little bit more regulated. In the U.S. it's a different tradition. But eventually I think on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean we start to think about the same things. Protection of privacy. But also protection of the freedom of speech. It's a protection of norms, whether it's outside of Internet or inside the Internet. So it seems like definitely we have good reasons to continue to work together not only to the benefit of the European states and the United States of America or other partners, because this is transatlantic, but in fact we are talking about partners outside Europe, Canada, Australia, other countries that we work with closely. It seems like the benefits are obvious. 

As pointed out the cybersecurity, I sat at the very introduction. There is no development of digital economy, of prosperity of human kind without cybersecurity. The human kind depends on the development of innovative technology. Without them, if they're not safe and they're not secure, it will be a failure. And all of us all over the world, the digital world is safe. Cybersecurity is a key element. Provide that. We have good examples. Cooperation within Europe and America to provide for the cybersecurity of the digital technologies and we continue to do that. 

We work together within the global fame work. These are not our values. These are universal values that we are working for. Definitely, yes, we will be looking and working together even if we have this difference or sometimes various perspectives from which we think. I have to ask an open question because I have no communication. Do we have more time that I can go with the second round of the question or we'll have to wrap up? That is the question to whoever is behind the scenes and making this meeting possible. I see no answer, so why don't we try to continue. So if anyone would like to add, maybe Nathalie, you wanted to add something? 

>> Nathalie Jaarsma: Certainly. I was actually wondering what this clock in front of us was doing, counting down. I was waiting for sort of a launch, but it is just sort of the next phase of our discussion. I wanted to add something and pick up on something that was said about the ecosystem, but also others who mentioned the role of multi‑stakeholders. I think really that's a transatlantic community, we need to get better and n truly walking the talk of multi‑stakeholder and that especially goes for our governments. 

In order to deliver concrete results. Including through already existing multi‑stakeholder platforms such as we are here at the IGF. I think all stakeholders are essential and Pearse just gave a very good list, I think, of all the different roles. But what I'm wondering is how can we ‑‑ when I started to ask questions about who in the industry are actually the multi‑stakeholders, what I found striking is that it's mainly big tech and I think we need to do better in terms of involving the smaller companies, the small enemies who very often have a great view on what actually hinders them in terms of innovation, can give great feedback on everything we think about as governments, as regulators, and they can also play a very important role in delivering new tech that is indeed in line with democratic principles. And we have, for example, the OECD principles on human rights. 

I think we should use them a lot better and make them known and look at how perhaps bigger industry players, NGOs, but also governments can play a role in making those principles better known and operationalizing them. In addition, I think multi‑stakeholders have a very important role in implementing the normal framework that we have agreed within the UN and I know that he was on the panel on the program of action. That is crucial. Also multi‑stakeholders can play a role in verification. They talked about the diplomatic responses. By the way, verification is not attribution, but the technical community can clearly play a role in analyzing what has actually happened in a cyber incident and to what extent the normal framework was being respected or not. And last but not least multi‑stakeholders play a big role in capacity building in order to implement the normal framework also in our nations. Thank you. 

>> Tadeusz Chomicki: Thank you, Nathalie. I will give a chance maybe to take the floor to France from Washington who is the deputy cyber coordinator in the state department. If you hear us, can you join in? 

>> Yes, I hear you well. Can you hear me? 

>> Tadeusz Chomicki: Yeah. 

>> I'm glad you got a little bit of time. Similar to Stephen, I'm sorry not to be there in person. The only thing I'd like to add is for some time we have had a very strong engagement on the cyber issues that has led to I think in many ways the successes that we've seen. We started a U.S. eve cyber dialogue in 2014 and we continue that dialogue today and I think that has been a great foundation for making sure that the values, the principles, and the negotiations that we have been in together have shown that we can stick together in very difficult kinds of times and not let those that would try to drive a wedge between the U.S. and the EU be successful in that regard. 

So I know I've taken you a little bit off topic for the last few comments that were made and I totally agree with Nathalie that the stakeholder community is valuable for many of these discussions, so I hope that the discussions this week will serve much good fodder for that. As well as next week for those that will be in New York, either in person or virtually. So thank you for giving me a moment just to highlight one of the areas that we continue to have very strong engagement and while we're on this topic. Thank you. 

>> Tadeusz Chomicki: Thank you very much. Well, we'll have to be really closing now, soon, because we have other events coming as a part of IGF and it will be live in‑person meetings which are indeed a very important part of what we're doing here. New technology has allowed me to coordinate things between Katowice and Washington and even Warsaw. I'll briefly touch on what Nathalie mentioned. She mentioned OECD as an important ‑‑ I wanted to mention OECE, the organization of security corporation in Europe where Poland is taking the chair in office position in the first of January. We just announced last month what will be our priorities in the cybersecurity corporation. This will be enhancing the resilience based on enhancing the social awareness of threats coming from Internet, from cyberspace, and also improving the cyber education. 

I'm mentioning it here, because these are the very basic grounds of how we can build together the safer future of the cyber world. And there's no boundaries and no limits to corporation in this area. About 53 countries belong to it. It's the standards that we set are global. We need globally to be aware of what opportunities and what challenges the cyberspace is offering us and we need globally cooperate to make the cyberspace safer and to turn to the benefit of whole countries all over the world and all people all over the world. And I believe personally, and I believe all my speakers today share this belief that the cooperation between Europe and America, the transatlantic cooperation is an important part of this global effort that we need to undertake. 

And we want to thank you, the IGF. We want to thank the United Nations for giving us space to talk about this important element. And thank the audience here physically present in Katowice and all of those who are online for listening to us and to maybe bringing some good messages out of this discussion today. Thank you all. Thank you.