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 all want to trust.
>> And to be trusted.
>> We all despise control.
>> And desire freedom.
>> We are all united.
>> ABRAHAM SELBY: Good morning. Good morning. Please my name is Abraham Selby. And we want to wait for like some five minutes to see if this session can be started. Good morning to you all. And once again, this is a section for the Rising of Techno Authoritarianism on the Employment of Technology is Enablers of Human Rights Abusers. And we have the data privacy Brazil Research Association on this. And we have also the data privacy Latin America Research Association on this, Civil Society. So let's wait to see if we can get the people who will be giving us the insights of this session. Thank you.
(Captioner standing by).
>> ABRAHAM SELBY: Okay. All right. Good morning. Rafael, you can see are part of the speakers, for the organizers for this section. So since we are far behind time, can you start with us? And also the other speakers who ‑‑ since you have the round of all the session information, that we are going. So basically we are far behind time. If you can start for us. Thank you.
>> RAFAEL ZANATTA: Is this the correct one? Is this from the Session No. 77, about the Rising of Techno Authoritarianism?
>> ABRAHAM SELBY: Yes.
>> RAFAEL ZANATTA: Because there is a group of invited speakers. So I just sent them the link because they could not have it. So I just sent it to everyone. I think they will join in two, two minutes.
>> ABRAHAM SELBY: Yes. I shared the link again through that on the chat box. So if anyone is involved you can invite them to join the section. Because we have 45 minutes to go. So ‑‑
>> RAFAEL ZANATTA: We can make it shorter, absolutely. What happened to the IGF website? Is it down?
>> ABRAHAM SELBY: Yes, it is down. But it came up again. I think they are working on it. But ‑‑ a link that contains the live sessions and the ‑‑ so let me share that link for that. So that in case a website is down we can use that to assess that. Thank you very much our members on site and our online members. We will be starting very soon. Thank you.
>> RAFAEL ZANATTA: Thank you. I will wait for one minute for them to join and double check with them by e‑mail.
>> RAFAEL ZANATTA: Abraham, what is the time limit for us to end?
>> ABRAHAM SELBY: I think we were given 9:30 to 10:45. Let's get the speakers engaged and maybe we can at least extend maybe basically on the time that we have to start. Because I think there is a problem with the IGF website. So maybe it is ‑‑ it can also delay some session aspects of that.
>> RAFAEL ZANATTA: Great. So I see Khadijah is also here. Hi.
>> Khadijah: I didn't have a problem logging in. I think I was one of the first people to log in. I got the link yesterday.
>> RAFAEL ZANATTA: It works for you. It didn't work for us. Sorry. And also Adriana and Veronica are also here. Khadijah, as you saw by the e‑mail that I sent to all our invited guests, the link so they can join. And I hope some of them can join. I know Caitlin already wrote me saying she will not be able to join. Tabi as well. So I will introduce and we can take advantage of the fact that you are here and others and we can engage the conversation.
It would be great to hear as well. So good morning to everyone. My name is Rafael Zanatta. I'm the executive director of the Data Privacy Brazil Research Association who is a non‑profit organization based in San Paolo. We are part of the coalition rights on the network which has more than 50 members in Brazil working with the agenda of expanding and affirming digital rights in Brazil. And working in the intersection between data protection, fundamental rights and new technologies.
This conversation about the Rising of Techno Authoritarianism is connected to one project that has been conducted for more than one year, about the intrinsic connection between the deployment of new technologies, such as interoperability of personal data by the Government, the use of new technologies such as facial recognition technologies or digital I.D.s, and how it is sometimes attached to authoritarian practices that are occurring within democracies. And the biggest challenge of this project which was conducted together with the Brazilian Bar Association and the Center for Authoritarianism and Liberatism in Brazil.
So the idea of the project was not to label some countries as Democratic or authoritarian but rather to understand and investigate the complexities of these practices that are using technology. And more specifically personal data in the deployment of new technologies in many fields, such as security policies or cash transfer policies or many other policies that are being developed in the past years in countries like Brazil.
The project was localized in Brazil but we had the opportunity of discussing the same problem of Techno Authoritarianism in different countries. That's why in July we had a meeting at the RightsCon conference which we had participants from many other countries sharing their experiences and talking about this relationship between how the deployment of new technologies by Governments that can be authoritarian might present new challenges to fundamental rights and how can Civil Society react to this set of problems. We had a brilliant conversation in July. And a report was published on the data privacy website. This was envisioned as somehow like a follow‑up conversation to understand what had had happened during this year.
Of course, the pandemic has affected immensely the problems of Techno Authoritarianism because of the pandemics and the need to fight COVID and to use new technologies such as contact tracing technologies or technologies to monitor and understand the patterns of localization of citizens and how they were moving from one place to another or if the ‑‑ they were using the masks or not or they were being vaccinated or not.
This also opened up a really big agenda of this conversation about how governments were also using technology in a authoritarian way to fight COVID.
This is the basic context of the conversation and what's behind it. We have some participants that will be joining because we had some problem from the IGF website. Some of the members could not join the event because they could not access the website to add the event. But some of them are here. And Khadijah is also here. I would like to ask Khadijah if she can present herself and share her experience for a while on what are her thoughts on this topic and the problem of Techno Authoritarianism. Khadijah, please.
>> Khadijah: Thank you so much. I'm hoping that my ‑‑ you can see my face properly.
>> RAFAEL ZANATTA: Yeah, it is working.
>> Khadijah: Thank you. I'm the lead for the Africa Paradigm Initiative. We are digital rights and digital inclusion. Digital rights and digital inclusion organization. We work towards ‑‑ focus on digital rights because that's what we are talking about here. We work towards digital rights all over Africa from research to advocacy. So the topic is definitely something that we're seeing more of lately. Some of us might remember that in ‑‑ 2019, about 19 African states had shut down the Internet at one point or the other. And really it is just that, you know, a lot of them come under the guise of democracy. But it is really that authoritarianism really.
So in Nigeria where I'm based we're currently experiencing a ban of Twitter. It is something that ‑‑ that was a long time coming. The Government had shown, you know, itself in different ways to want to repress freedom of expression, especially. 2019‑2020 there were two bills that were proposed to regulate the Internet, regulate social media. And just regulate freedom of expression really.
And in 2015 a cybercrimes act was passed that was supposed to combat cybercrime. Rather it was used as a means to chase down journalists and anything that they had put online, and digitally.
So after 2019 when the bills were called the antisocial media bill, nicknamed the antisocial media bill and the anti‑hate bill, all in a means to curtail the Internet, seeing how powerful technology can be, scares Governments, you know. It scares them on how much that can question their authority. So a lot of the stories that you hear towards the Twitter ban in Nigeria was that we ‑‑ so the President put out some tweets. Some of the tweets were reported by the people as being offensive. And two days later Twitter was banned in the country. I can't say that was the origin of the ban but it definitely fuelled it for some people.
It is really that fear of technology, the fear the power of technology has. I have seen recently a lot of people saying that social media is the last tool of the common man, especially in Third World Countries where people don't get justice as it should be. You can't just ‑‑ the court systems are slow. The police are working directly for the Government. And you just don't find any safety anywhere except the Internet.
So a lot of Governments find this threatening and they try as much as possible to control the data, control technology. And this has shown up in so many other ways.
Another interesting happening in Nigeria between 2020 and 2021 was we started a massive rollout of a digital identity program. And this is without a data protection law. We have no data protection legislation. And it was rolled out so aggressively that everyone was threatened with their phones being ‑‑ with their SIM cards being banned and you being unable to access the Internet at all if you didn't register for this digital identity program.
Without the Government giving the other hand and saying hey, it is okay, you will do this and we will protect your data. We have no idea where this data is going. How long it is going to be there for. What's going to happen with the data. Who else is going to have it. And every concern that comes with data protection, the rollout was or has been so aggressive that many people did not feel that they had a choice. And I feel like this is definitely one of the things that comes under this Techno Authoritarianism.
So, you know, hoping that's a good enough background to start.
>> RAFAEL ZANATTA: Yeah, it is. Thank you so much. I will get back to you because there are so many interesting things in the way you were talking about the movement of the digital repression, but at the same time the importance of Internet is one of the few spaces that people can freely act and somehow change things. But also the problems of the lack of enforcement of data protection and the lack of affirmation of all these digital rights. You know you are working so much on that topic.
I will pass to Tevin, because I would like to hear as well from him. Tech is one of the invited speakers. How do you think about this relationship between the rise of new forms of authoritarianism that is intrinsically connected to technology and the use of data?
>> TEVIN MWENDA: Okay. Hello, everyone. My apologies for coming late. Currently in Kenya we have something called the Kenyan Innovation Week. On to your question of ‑‑ can you repeat the question? I have kind of come in the middle of everything.
>> RAFAEL ZANATTA: I was asking because you are a digital rights activist working in Kenya and working with a coalition of many other activists, and we are discussing the problem of how sometimes the use of personal data or the use of technology is intrinsically connected to new forms of authoritarian practices that can occur in our societies and Governments.
And how is your reality in Kenya, how do you see threats of authoritarianism that are sometimes connected to the use of technology?
>> TEVIN MWENDA: I think I can give an example of our digital I.D. system. Sorry. Let me introduce myself. My name is Tevin Mwenda. It is a lack of information asymmetry. That's making out what's going on. As a Government you are not clear of how you are using technology. The people start assuming and start making up their own stories. But if you are clear from the word go how you are using technology, anything that you implement in the Government for the people, it reduces the fear that this is going to create another digital authoritarianism. I'm going to give an example, Kenya digital I.D. system. When it was introduced, people say it was like sneaking in to the law. No one knows what this was. Then it was the end of January, a law was signed and we were told we have the new number, the digital I.D. system. And the Government told us this is a new number for everything. And then the questions were raised we already have an identity card, why do we need a new identity card, why do we need to collect all this data in one place. They wanted your DNA data. And started raising red flags, like what's happening. Are you creating a new system and you have all this data on your people, that now creates massive surveillance.
And also another question that was raised was we just had a data protection act. So the reaction was very swift. Technically people in Kenya ran to court and the court was like some things you can't implement and you have to have some form of framework to implement the system. Government passed a data protection act. Data protection act was the result of the digital identity system. And this was trying to look like no, you are going to look like an authoritarian Government. It has been marred with a lot of court cases to ensure that the people's data is safe. It is not being misused.
That's a good example of how I think the citizens are becoming aware of how much data the Government has on them. And the kind of ‑‑ you see this panic came as a result of not informing people of what is exactly happening and why you want all this data, when there is existing data. And perhaps now what we are starting to see is Kenyans are becoming more aware of the Government data. Elections are becoming ‑‑ it is being used a lot for elections. And the argument is the Kenyans' upcoming elections in 2022 it is going to be a data led election.
So I think one thing that people are realizing, in the office of data protection act, actively now, data protection is talking ‑‑ we need to kind of enable capacity building and inform people of their rights. And the more people are informed of their rights that they have, the things that they can do in terms of data, I think the more they start trusting their Government. What is lacking is that lack of information asymmetry, but I think this requires more input from every stakeholder, from Civil Society to private sector to Government. We all need to sit at the table and say these are the projects that you are working on. Digital identity, this is a perfect example of what digital I.D. can bring. If it is not properly implemented, that's when the trouble starts.
Yeah. Thank you very much.
>> RAFAEL ZANATTA: Thank you, Tevin. And it's great that you mentioned the case of digital I.D. in Kenya because there is also so many commonalities with other countries such as Brazil, for instance. Brazil had in the first year of the Government who is a well‑known right wing politician, he proposed the citizens' registry, was called the National Citizens' Registry was the unification of all the databases for more than 40 public policies from different Ministries in a unified system that could also collect biometric information such as fingerprints, face information but also the way that you walk and many other ‑‑ also interested in gathering information about your voice print. So they can have many proxies. So they can check the identity of one person.
And the explanation they provide is that they want to be more efficient when they are providing public policies, when they are executing public policies. Pretty much the same rationale behind the Adar case in India, the national identification project when it occurred many, many years ago.
So we can also see how in different countries some of the rationales and arguments are the same and some of the fights are also the same. But they can take different courses of actions, like in Kenya as you mentioned, the court case was very successful in connecting the discussion about the right to privacy with the more recent discussion about making mandatory to have data protection impact assessments, correct? That's how you won the case. At least by now.
Let me go back to Khadijah because I want to connect with her and also understand because I know that Khadijah, you have mentioned that many of the problems in Nigeria at least from what I know as well, reading everything that's published by Access Now and other activists working and looking to Nigeria, are the problems that you mentioned about Internet shutdowns but also removing content and removing profiles and profiles from Twitter or Facebook, et cetera. Tevin mentioned another dimension of problems which is the dimension of monitoring and identifying the citizens constantly through the digital I.D. project.
Looking to your current scenario, I would ask you, what is the biggest challenge regarding authoritarianism in your country? Is it the problem of Internet shutdowns or control of content? Or do you also have problems regarding this new forms of digital I.D.s and the deployment of these technologies and to catalog and monitor the citizens constantly?
>> Khadijah: I think it is definitely a lot of things. I wouldn't say it is surveillance, per se, because ‑‑ so we know that there is massive surveillance going on. We just don't exactly have a lot of evidence around it. So every year when Parliament passes the budget, there are huge, huge amounts that are dedicated to surveillance.
In 2021 I think, I cannot remember the figure exactly, I think about 7 billion was passed for surveillance. And I remember we sent a freedom of information request asking what exactly ‑‑ because the report we saw on the news was saying that the surveillance was specifically for platforms, like WhatsApp and Facebook. And, you know, we were asking what is the basis of such surveillance, who are the people that you are going to be surveilling, would you need a warrant for that.
And it was met on deaf ears and we just never heard anything back on that.
So we know that surveillance happens. But as for the intricacies of the hows, the whys, we have no ideas. In 2021, in May there about, a new SIM card policy was published by the Ministry of Digital Economy, Communications and Digital Economy. And the policy asked that the ‑‑ how's it called? The IME number of every phone would be registered in a singular database.
And, you know, if you are technologically inclined, it means that they can trace every single mobile phone for no reason.
So it is a scarey thought. Because they would tell you that it's ‑‑ this is because of security, and we have had a lot of insurgency issues, no data protection legislation, we have no idea how far this could go. They could easily start to chase political opponents with that. Or a journalist that says something that isn't agreeable would suddenly disappear. And we've had situations like that.
So again things like that do happen but we don't know whether it came directly from such surveillance. But the fact that these little things are out there and are happening is something that we should definitely be concerned about and is why ‑‑ it is why we keep pushing for a data protection legislation.
And we really thought we were very close to year. Last year there was a draft bill. We made a lot of input in to it. And then in November of this year, the Federal Government calls for consultants to draft a new bill.
So this would be the fourth attempt at a data protection bill. And for whatever reason it is just never goes on. So yeah, we have ‑‑ it's ‑‑ the ‑‑ I have a friend who calls the Minister of Digital Economy at the moment an emperor. Because during the ‑‑ when he first ‑‑ when he joined, he got a lot of the major technological agencies under his belt. And then it stopped, that way it stopped every aspect of independence of these organizations.
Let me just ‑‑ let me break that down.
So the agency that is in charge of the digital identity project is now under the Ministry of Digital Economy. The agency that is supposedly to protect data, so there is a data protection regulation but it isn't a legislation. And it doesn't have as much power. That agency is under same ‑‑ the same ministry.
So the National Communications Commission that's in charge of telecommunications and all of that are also under the same ministry. So everything under technology is pretty much under the same person, under the same umbrella. So it is all very politically inclined. All their policies are always in line. The agency that is supposedly supposed to protect people's data or check data breaches is in cahoots with the same organizations that are breaching said data.
So for us it is a lot of institutional ‑‑ it is a lack of institutional independence, as such there can be no enforcement of whatever regulation there. So we're just here waiting on an actual legislation that would allow us to be able to go to court, and enforce some of these rights.
So we don't exactly have what Kenya had with being able to go to court. So a lot of what we would do would be taking from different laws to imply the rights to privacy. So the constitution gives the rights to privacy but it specifies telephone communications and something about your household. So this constitution was written in 1999. So it is very outdated as to what privacy looks like today.
I imagine they didn't imagine what the Internet would look like in 2021. So, you know, it is also the lack of laws, the lack of institutional independence, the surveillance. I could go on and on. The problems they go on.
>> RAFAEL ZANATTA: Yes, it is very interesting that you have mentioned that there is this kind of enormous hope from activists that data protection will solve many of our problems. Sometimes they will. Sometimes they will not. What occurred in Brazil was quite interesting last year was that in the middle of the pandemics, when Bosando, he wanted to use all the data from telecommunication operators to do research on what was the impact of the pandemics on people, especially the economy and family problems and so on.
Because as you know ‑‑ as you all know Bosando was one of the few Presidents in the world that was against vaccinating people in the beginning. And also against the whole idea of COVID and the pandemics. He was desperate to get data on how the pandemic was affecting people's economy and economic life so he could make an argument that he needed to keep the stores open and let people on the streets and so on.
So what occurred there was a window of opportunity because he added an executive act, like a federal decree so he could get all the data from the telecommunication operators to the Government. And that was the moment when the Brazilian Bar Association filed a constitutional case. And when many activists jump in to and the Supreme Court ruled this very important case making the clear separation between the right to privacy and the right to data protection as an autonomous fundamental right. Declaring that the right to data protection was much more about reducing the risks to citizens, when the Government wanted to use personal data for secondary purposes. When it did not have accountability or impact assessment or mechanism for social control. This was a very important case in which the court was one of the few spaces which we could count on to counterbalance this more authoritarian approach of the Federal Government.
So it is interesting that we can perceive as well having all these conversations during this year that we are also looking to courts as one specific like political site, so to speak, in which we can counterbalance this problem of authoritarianism.
I will ask from folks who are on site and I can see you all here, and thank you for being with us and sharing a moment with us, if you also want to make one comment, or if you want to make a question or a comment based on what you think about the relationship between the rights of Techno Authoritarianism and the problems of digital rights we are discussing here. Abraham, can I just open the floor ‑‑ the microphone for them?
>> ABRAHAM SELBY: Yes. Please. Currently I'm giving the floor for onsite members to also come in. Then I will spotlight them on the screen. Thank you.
>> RAFAEL ZANATTA: All right. So let us see if they are comfortable with making comments or questions and we can hear them.
>> Hi. I'm Vladimir from Article 19, from the Office of Mexico and Central America. I was listening to Khadijah and what she was mentioning about this same registration and e‑mail registration. And it just like gets in connection of what we are seeing in Mexico. Just recently they passed this bill, this legislation to also create this same registration. But now they are including biometric data. There is an ongoing process to litigate. There is this belief that still the judiciary power will make this counterbalance and put in place data protection. And how the risk and the vulnerabilities and how this may affect the right to privacy, the data protection, even the national authority on transparency, and data protection.
In Mexico they also present a controversy, an action of unconstitutionality. They are going to see how they are going to react to this. Thousands of citizens they also pushed for the judiciary power to interpret or to make a decision on how this idea of thinking that security or that at least in the context of in Mexico of violence and how they are like framing and saying now we're going to collect, imagine like about 80 million numbers and biometric data, voice, fingerprints and so on, we are going to centralize in one database and that's their main argument to reduce violence.
We have in the prior experience in which this idea of a centralized database for same registration failed. Numbers showed that the extortions and kidnappings using mobile phones they actually raised. So now we are seeing and we have like first through different Civil Rights, Civil Society Organizations, we created this campaign. We raise awareness. People were really questioning this idea of security versus privacy. We are now expecting what is going to be the decision at the Supreme Court in Mexico.
And my question for Khadijah and perhaps to the others, it is like is it just like thinking that the judiciary power is the only way in which we still believe there is a way to protect Human Rights, a way to protect privacy, or we should also start preventing, I'm seeing this in Nigeria. Are only there other ways to connecting, raising awareness in another way, but thinking in other different ways to try to reduce this Techno Authoritarianism wave that we are seeing in Latin America, but I think we are going to see in the rest of the world. And as emerging technologies are coming up. Thank you very much.
>> RAFAEL ZANATTA: No. Thank you. That's excellent. Thank you for bringing all this really important information about the Mexican scenario. Khadijah, I think the question is mostly directed to you. So I'll pass to you.
>> Khadijah: Yes. I think it's so great to ‑‑ well not great. But on some level I suppose it is nice to know that we're not alone. And it is easier to relate with people from other countries knowing that we're experiencing some of the same issues and we can throw out ideas on how to fix them or mitigate some of these things.
So, you know, the court is very commonly called the last hope of the common man. I feel like it is one of the biggest, biggest ways to fight authoritarianism, assuming the courts themselves do not end up being politically inclined because that's also a possibility.
At least we know that they are guided by these laws and very often it is difficult for you to arrest the politician or stop them from making certain policies. So really the only way that it can be stamped in law would be to go to court. And it is why we do what we call strategic litigation rights. Sometimes you know for a fact that you are not exactly going to win the matter in court but the fact that it is there. The fact that you have spoken against it, shaken them up a bit, called their bluff. We have seen that work sometimes. We had a matter with the digital identity institution in Nigeria where they had to get your NIN number. It is very similar to a Social Security number in America where, you know, it has all your biometric information. And you could use a person's year of birth and last name to get that number through a USSD code on your phone.
So it is very easy for me to Google the year of birth of the President really. Put his last name because everyone knows it and then his NIN number pops up on my phone. We tried to reach out to this organization to say hey this is very risky. And they did not respond.
So we took it to court. And even though the moment we took it to court they fixed it. So before it got to the end of the matter, it wasn't an issue anymore.
So the court eventually just made a pronouncement saying what we did was necessary. There wasn't anything to adjudicate on anymore because the matter was gone. But it was necessary for us to have done that. And it pretty much made a declaration telling them to respect privacy going forward.
Also when the matter of the IMEI number came up where the Government wanted everyone to register, the IMEI numbers of their mobile phones, there was a very, very public outrage. You know, there is a lot of distrust for Governments these days and people were not having it. And then the Government came out to make a public statement, eventually that didn't happen anymore. We did eventually get to find out that they could have gotten it from the telecommunications companies themselves, but the public outrage worked. And with us in Nigeria now our next general elections are next year in 2023. So a lot of the politicians are pandering to the people and really any outrage is working.
So it is ‑‑ we cannot take away the role of civic participation and just people being a part of political processes. One of the reasons why things just ‑‑ anything goes, is because people, especially younger people, are not part of political processes.
A policy comes out. No one reads it until something bad happens. And ‑‑ or a law comes out, a law is passed. The period where the people are supposed to participate, and make their own suggestions, contributions, nobody does that. The Parliament is empty. No one is a part of it until the point where something goes wrong and you realize it is a part of the law. It is just like the ‑‑ when I was mentioning the cybercrimes act and how it is used to chase down journalists and bloggers, if we were more attentive it might not have happened. It might not have become a law in itself.
So yes, going to the judiciary is up there. It can be politically inclined and that takes too long. We are currently in court for the Twitter ban. We have four matters in court. One where they sued telecommunications companies. A lot of these matters have not been heard.
We have not even opened ‑‑ it took us about two months to get a date for hearing. The hearing dates, the judge was not around. And now it has been pushed to January. Before we could possibly get justice, a lot of damage has been done. But ordinarily, in the best case scenario, the judiciary is and should be the last hope of the common man. But before then, I would ‑‑ the next best thing for me is civic participation.
So yeah. Hoping that ‑‑ that was clear enough.
>> RAFAEL ZANATTA: Thanks. I was reminded here that we just have two minutes. Tevin, would you like to make any sharp and quick comments regarding Vladimir's question?
>> TEVIN MWENDA: I think Khadijah has done the whole job. Kenyans have become very litigious. Because our constitution is relatively new, 2020 one, it is very robust on Human Rights. Sometimes it is not even a case of like, for example, when it comes to data protection matters they are already enforcing right to privacy. So we find in most cases the court kind of becomes the last resort of hope when everything fails. If people tend to start trusting the court, they see they have a vulnerable judgment that's upholding Human Rights. That's something we have seen a lot in Kenya.
We have our cybercrimes act. It was crafted to kind of favor the politicians. So you realize, never persecuted anyone from an actual cybercrime but we have seen bloggers being arrested and journalists being arrested. This is something that's possibly going against the Government. That's a case that's still in courts that is because of our cybercrime act.
But also ‑‑ also you notice, you talk ‑‑ there is an obligation for people to act. As a citizen you are not aware of the laws that are currently passing. It becomes really hard to when a law is finally passed for you to try to return it. So I think we have a responsibility from Civil Societies to general citizens to participate in the process from when the law is actually starting. Be part of the drafting. When the Government is calling for input be part of it. Even if the court case is passed, let's say you go to court, this is ‑‑ this is some part of your evidence. We submitted our request. So I think it is now a case of everyone has to be part of it. Yeah. So thank you very much.
>> RAFAEL ZANATTA: Thanks. Thanks, Vladimir, for your question and thank you all for being here. We have to finish this conversation. Sorry for sending it so quickly. But this conversation will continue. This project will continue next year. And as Khadijah said it is so good that we can be together and talk about the same problems. We do not feel alone anymore when we are doing that. So thank you all. Thanks, Abraham, and all the team from IGF for hosting and supporting this conversation.
>> ABRAHAM SELBY: Okay. Thank you. And thanks to all onsite participants as well. We are very sorry that we started very late. We hope to ‑‑ we hope you enjoyed the sessions. Basically there is a connection that you can connect with the participants on the IGF schedule website.
So basically you can connect with most of us on the website for interactive or further communication. Thank you very much. And have a wonderful day. Thank you.
>> RAFAEL ZANATTA: Thank you all.