IGF 2021 - Day 2 - Town Hall #22 Framing the Post-Pandemic Digital Rights Initiative (PDRI)

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.



>> CHRISTIAN PERRONE:  Hello, folks. It's great to have you here with us. In a digital world that has suffered so much, that has been pushed towards so much of digitalization. It will be fantastic to discuss this initiative for a post-pandemic digital rights future.

So what we have today is thinking about what it is to live in this fantastic, digital world and with all the challenges and opportunities that it brings to us today. We have been discussing what it is the possibilities, what are the main processes that we can provide to create this global governance regime, global governance system that will allow us to live in this concrete world but also in a digital space together.

So the last two years have shown us how important, how significant, and how much we actually need the digital space. And again, how we are going to be able to live in this global village with the different jurisdiction, different points of view, different including regulations, and including values as well.

In the past, we have seen many different opportunities, many different initiatives as well. And national and global initiatives. And we have today the opportunity to discuss with some of the most brightest minds of how to face these challenges and opportunities, what are the main opportunities that we can follow.

With us today, we have Ronaldo Lemos which was one of the not only the lawyer and technologist, but one of the founding fathers of the Brazilian internet Bill of Rights.

And he will provide us with the opportunities of discussing what was the process that led to this fantastic and well famous legislation and piece of regulation.

And we have today with us Sarah Wynn-Williams which is from technology foundation sharing about her points of view, how important it was for the world and how it could be a template for many potential initiatives in the future. And also with us, Juan Carlos DeMartin, not only a professor but also a Co-Founder and director to showcase what are the global implications of what are the main possibilities that happened in the past and how, for instance, Italy was one of the main countries that look at the Brazilian bill of rights and saw an opportunity to expand and provide not only a framework but also a potential point of regulation in the future.

So we will have a round of discussions amongst those three fantastic leaders and then we will open the floor for a big discussion on the principles, 12 principles that we think will be set up, a basis for a potential future consensus. So I'll hand the mic to Ronaldo Lemos for nine minutes to kick-off our big discussion on the potential future of the post-pandemic digital rights initiative.

>> RONALDO LEMOS:  Thank you, Christian. It's really great to be with you today. It's great to be with you Sarah and also with my friend Juan Carlos de Martin which I haven't seen for quite a lot of time, but I think the pandemic is partially responsible for that too.

So in this short, initial conversation, I would like to provide like some aspects of what happened in terms of governance and decision making in Brazil that actually led Brazil to build one of the first successful Bill of Rights that actually exists worldwide regarding internet and technology.

So as you probably know, there has been a lot of effort in different places and instances about building bills of rights for the internet and for technology. Some of them progressed really well. Some of them came up with interesting and important ideas. And I think like Brazil was one of them that actually succeeded in terms of how you can approach that effort.

So before I talk a little bit, I would like to say that more than ever, initiatives to discuss, debate, and implement builds up rights regarding technology, important, relevant, and absolutely necessary for the moment we are living right now. So I think we are in a moment in which we all have identified the problems and the challenges that technology has brought upon us. And from my perspective, being a Brazilian, someone that has been on the field in Brazil, seen very closely what is the impact for technology, of technology over the public sphere and the political debate, and so on, I think we, from that perspective understand quite well what the challenges are. And because of that, I think it's an important time to begin again to focus on building what is possible in terms of bills of rights.

So what is the Brazilian experience? I think the key word for what happened in Brazil is number one, multistakeholderism as a process. And the fact that when approaching a challenge of building a complex legislation that deals with technology from a broad perspective, the process was extremely important.

So in my view, the key component for the success was actually an open (distorted audio) collaborative process. The initiative was not a top-down initiative. It was actually a bottom-up initiative in which different stakeholders come together and basically propose a set of principles. And they debate those principles through a participatory online process for actually quite a longtime. It took us in the initial phase three years of debate and seven years in total to get the law approved. So as you can imagine, there was like a successive round of debate. And everything starting with principles.

So my point is, if you start with the principles and if you agree on the principles, then it becomes easier to lead a norm-setting legislation.

So basically, that was precisely what happened in the experience in Brazil.

Sowers, we had like a civil society, the scientific community coming together with private sector, the government, and so on. Coming up with a broad discussion about the principles. Once that round was completed, and we reached consensus about the key topics that were important to deliberate, then we moved to the actual text that would make those principles concrete. So I think that process in itself, in my view, is very valuable. And of course, if you're going to run that again in the world that we live today, I think we have already evolved in terms of participatory technologists in (distorted audio) of how you basically collect the experiences of building the initiatives.

So in my view, what happened in Brazil is very instructive to what can happen right now in terms of resuming digital Bill of Rights initiatives. And just to conclude, I think like a couple of points that are important, this process that Brazil applied ended up being influential in other places. For instance, in Italy, in which it was a sort of an inspiration for the Italian parliament also to address the challenge of a Bill of Rights. At the time, it was led by Stephen, which is a pre-eminent name, if you think about digital rights in Europe.

And Juan Carlos de Martin participated in those responsibilities as well. So just to conclude, you know, my point here is we are living in a moment in which we have a different kind of challenge from the global perspective. And in my view, in order to cope with that challenge, we are going to need new institutions. So basically, we are going to have to exercise institutional imagination in order to cope with the different type of challenge that requires new institutions.

I am a member of the Facebook oversight board. Actually I should call them MATA now but it's hard to get into that. But the point is, the oversight board I think is one tiny experiment showing that it is possible to try to design new initiatives and institutions that can cope with these new types of challenges. But I really think we need to think even bigger. We need to think about as Christian mentioned, a post-pandemic, digital rights initiative that can get inspired by what happened in Brazil and projected elsewhere. In order to build a new institutional imagination process that can actually and effectively deal with the challenge that we have right now.

Let me conclude now, and I'm very eager to hear from Sarah and Juan Carlos as well. And then we can resume on this task and debate afterwards. So thank you very much.

>> CHRISTIAN PERRONE:  Thank you, Ronaldo. It's fantastic. You set the scenario for what we believe is the starting point of this initiative. So we have to look at the past, see what has been achieved, what are the main process, what are the main important aspects that we can gather together and build on, using as you put it, our creative imagination for the future.

Now I want to talk to Sarah. Sarah, you were not exactly involved in the process, but you were very close looking at the process when they were developing the Bill of Rights. And it would be going to see from your global perspective, when from your point of view, what was important? What was interesting aspect? And how we can build upon those interesting aspects as you have seen in order to have this post-pandemic digital rights initiative. What are the aspects that created consensus? What are aspects that created legislation that was worth looking for and using as somewhat a starting point for a much bigger discussion, global discussion?

>> SARAH WYNN-WILLIAMS:  Thanks, Christian. I think one of the reasons it stands out to me is sitting here in December 2021 and looking at the current internet governance framework globally, if you were starting from scratch, you wouldn't design what we have now. At all. You would not approach any aspect of it, I think, in the way that we have. So if you look back, and most of that has been put in place in the last decade. Most of the national laws that touch most upon technology are new. The adaptations of existing laws trying to bring it closer to, you know, to address the huge impact that technology is having on society. And at the moment, one aspect of that is that there are literally thousands of open processes on regulating different aspects of tech. And you can categorize that any number of ways you like.

But if you were looking to release a technology product a decade ago, you would face a radically different landscape to what you have now. And we can debate the merits of that one way or another. But I think you have to look at in that decade of radical expansion, of legislation, policy development, all that, where are these examples of really effective models, you know, and it stands out. And it stands out for a number of reasons.

Interestingly there's a process which I think Ronaldo touched on. They're also on design. Where I think a lot of very smart choices were made. And then they're on the substance. And I engaged from industry which, is always an odd seat to have when a country is developing its own national framework. So you know, I'm not Brazilian. I wasn't directly at the table at this. And one of the things I think is perhaps a marker of success for the process is that throughout the three years that it was being developed, industry position on it changed radically. There were times where industry groups were putting out advertisements in national papers saying, please pass it. There were times when the same industry groups were saying, we have to kill it. And I think to me, that's actually a mark of success. That shows you that there was no voice that dominated there were times where they felt that process was going in their interest and times when they felt it really wasn't. And that say mark of a messy but effective process.

The other thing that I think on process was really effective, all those voices were at the table but there wasn't too much weight given to any. And you had confidence that there were experts refining the decision making. You know, unlike some other processes which I won't name, there was a real confidence that the people designing understood the technology or in instance, and there were a few where what was being suggested simply wasn't practical, you should have that conversation. You could say, look, is this log requirement actually going to work? Or whatever the specific provision was. Again, something I've noticed in Brazil more generally but really came to the fore and I think you see that in the result.

And I think -- there were a lot of smart design choices and when I think about where we sit today, I think it's worth understanding why it has endured and been very topical, you know, had very great impact in the politics of Brazil. And I think that's because there's a choice to frame this around principles and rights. A lot of things at the pointy end that technology pushes are issues of rights and those involve trade-offs. You can think about the trade-offs in different ways, but if you think about the complex debate around encryption versus online safety and protecting vulnerable people in society, like those are very difficult trade-offs inherent. Because you have competing rights in some instances of that. How cow create a framework that will allow the debate to continue and to develop but will create some framework and some ability to give effect to those rights and have a discussion about the trade-offs, again, Marco Civil was very smart in doing that. And if we look ahead now to what is needed in the internet governance generally, I think is a framework to be able to have the discussion around those trade-offs. And at the moment that's happening, what I'm observing, and I stand to be corrected, a lot is happening on the national level. And you're having interest groups trading off on specific provisions rather than abstracting it back to what are the norms we want in society? What should we be governing? That's abstract and come from a principal approach. So I think the work that we're hoping to see around discussing potential principles comes back to the design choices. And again, just finally on substance, I think it was a very considered and very effective choice of issues to be addressed. And I think that changed over time. There were times when it was more ambitious. And some things were not going to get to.

And being able to understand that having some framework, even not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. So accepting that politics and open processes and from the bottom-up processes are going to involve trade-offs the whole way, I actually think it makes the end result more enduring. So when I look back at having engaged in the decade or more of internet policy, for all of those reasons, Marco Civil really stands out and for me is the model we should turn to. Thanks for your time. I don't want to take up anymore.

>> CHRISTIAN PERRONE:  Thank you very much, Sarah. I think you had two key observations that I find it fantastic. First, you said it was sort of a massive process but effective. Thing is a very good description of what we intend propose. Because it is, when you seek out for consensus and to build principles and rights, it is sort of a difficult process in the beginning, but it actually builds very solid foundations. So this is a very good. And the second part, I think you mentioned that not having been the enemy of good, it's an interesting way of looking at building the blocks for a global governance initiative in terms of the digital space.

And in that note, I want to call to the mic Juan Carlos because he was at the offset of one initiative in Italy that is took up a little bit about what has been done in the Marco Civil and build upon that to have an interesting initiative as well. So Juan Carlos, what are your thoughts from what you have seen in Italy and how we can build upon that and have a global regime. So thank you very much.

>> JUAN CARLOS DE MARTIN:  Thank you. It's a pleasure to be attending this meeting with you, with Ronaldo, with Sarah, and all the people attending and participating in this meeting.

Yes, indeed this pandemic has confirmed the importance of looking at digital rights and considering them as an important, crucial component of the world that we want to shape in future years. Because all of us have seen suddenly, sometimes from one day to the next, how the digital technologies were essential for our job, for our personal life, for our education, for health. So everything we have been saying for many years before the pandemic now it's even stronger. The impact of the quality, what it means not to be able to access the internet or not have proper devices, not to have a proper way of dealing with the devices. So everything is sharper than it used to be.

Digital rights based on the successes of the previous years. And of course, Marco Civil is rightly, and remember, held as an example to draw inspiration. It was one of the elements that inspired Italy. We're thinking about 2013, 2014 when the Marco Civil was being discussed and then approved. And back in the time, let me briefly remind the audience of what happened in Italy in those years.

Not only a law professor but a political figure and public intellectual with a strong voice in issues including THS related to digital rights. Well, in those days, we had President of Italian chamber who was convinced that it was important for the Italian parliament to say something about digital rights. And actually, not just to say something but to aim at not less, anything less than issuing a declaration of internet rights. So we had actually representative telling the story of Marco Civil. And after that, the Italian president created a commission of members of parliament representing experts and I was one of them. They were the following eight months, actually was quite quick. Almost less than a year, we drafted the declaration of internet rights, it is available in languages, Spanish and German and Portuguese, et cetera. And it was not exactly stakeholder in the sense of some other initiatives, but it was an important component of participation because those, I can say that we audited essentially everybody who not only was important to involve but also everybody wanted to say something. So those positions where it was very important. And also with lengthy and consultation process. So we received the contributions of experts and regular citizens, et cetera.

And the final declaration of internet rights that was a strong improvement in the regional draft, it was the one discussed during the consultation. So I can say that in tend, the Italian parliament issued the declaration was truly the outcome of the contribution of a broad range of experts, industries, civil society organizations, political parties, et cetera, et cetera.

So in the end, even though not literally but the actual outcome was through multistakeholder in that sense. Even though it was issued by supreme institution of parliamentary.

Since then, it has been a reference. And sometimes also referenced elsewhere like European parliament and elsewhere. I think it's stood the test of time fairly well because now and then, I personally and other people go back to the declaration and even though in six years, many things changed, we think that most of it, if not all of it, is still pretty much good reference to understand where we should be going in principle. Currently the challenge, if I can say something about the current situation, the challenge I see in Italy and perhaps elsewhere in Europe is the great emphasis on everything digital at the European level. And then that percolates on the national level, as sort of an instructional, everybody talking about digital transformation as if it's purely a technology logical transformation. So a lot of talk about Italy and Europe being behind the U.S. and behind China. And we have to catch up. So a lot of focus on that which is fine. Personally, I'm an engineer so nothing against an instructional view of technology but at the same time, the talk about rights is maybe in this frenzy should be reminded more often. We do have privacy and laudable exceptions to what I'm saying. So propose draft regulation about AI. In Italy actually, we recently passed a moratorium on the use of recognition in public spaces which I think is a fairly good exception to what I'm saying. But I think it's a very good timing for initiative like the one we're discussing today to shine some light on the topic of digital rights. Of course, it's not the only thing we should do. We also need something else because I see a document produced by friends that says we have a huge issue of concentration of power. And concentration of power, you can deal with that to some extent but you need definitely something else. You need actually to show the force of democratic control of technology. With the help of rights but also with the help of other instruments in order to tackle concentration of power. So I welcome the initiative. Contribute in any way, of course, very pleased to do so. And let's hear what other participants have to say about this. Thank you.

>> CHRISTIAN PERRONE:  Thank you very much, Juan Carlos. It is phantastic hear from you, from your perspective of how important a process, consensus, and the blend of technological aspects, principles are important for building an important governance structure for the digital space. And I think one of the main points of this initiative is to blend all those aspects, the social, the rights, the principle, and the technological aspects in order to create the building block, the starting point of more global interoperable initiative. And in view of that, we have proposed to discuss now with the audience 12 principles a starting point. It's obviously open to major discussion on how we're going to discuss this, and obviously the idea is to see what you're going to talk about process, what you think about right, what you think about principles, and then I'll put it --

>> RONALDO LEMOS:  You're on mute, Christian.

>> CHRISTIAN PERRONE:  Yeah, sorry. Sorry, folks. So going to put on the chat so you can have a look as well of the 12 starting points, 12 aspects that we can discuss. And now if anyone wants to raise their hands to discuss or write something in the chat. Otherwise, I think we can start having an idea of what it is the main social aspect that we consider are going to be the most basic starting point. And I think when you look at Marco Civil, as a starting point. So I will lend the floor to see if anyone wants to contribute. Otherwise, I would ask Ronaldo to go for it. And give us, what is the main idea behind the specific starting points principles that we had in the car core Civil.

>> RONALDO LEMOS:  Absolutely, Christian. So I think the point here is the following. Sarah and Juan Carlos mentioned, because of the pandemic, I think we all agree that the digital infrastructure and the digital capability, transformation, and so on has become a key component of the lives that we have today of resilience, of, you know, everything we need to do in order to basically deal with a crisis, a global crisis as the pandemic. So I think like, if you're looking to the proposals from people, he basically talks about creating a sort of antivirus for the world, right? Not speaking only about the virus itself but also about protecting the stability, resilience, and availability of the cyberinfrastructure that we have today because it has basically proven itself as absolutely crucial for going through a global crisis as the one, we're still going through.

So I think there is a point of consensus. So that's the first thing I would like to talk about before we delve into the principles.

The second thing is, we are not alone. So we are here basically talking about a post-pandemic digital rights initiative. And I think one of the tasks of an initiative like this is precisely to look into what has been made so far, what are the other initiatives that are happening all over the world in order to deal with the problems. Sometimes these initiatives are focused on a specific problem like artificial intelligence. Others are focused on cybersecurity. Others are focused, you know, on algorithmic bias and discrimination and so on. Realizing we are not alone and so many interesting projects that are already happening as we speak here. I think that is very important. So recognizing those initiatives, in my view, is important. And also mapping what are the proposals. And what seems to be the topics and the consensus that might emerge from these initiatives. And from the work that has been made so far.

Final point is, I mention in my first talk about the importance of participatory technologies. And I really think like part of the problem that we are facing right now is because we have delegated a lot of decisions to algorithms. As a sort of a replacement for collective participation. One challenge that feels to me as absolutely crucial is how do we bring back participatory technologies in the 2000s were basically flourishing. And I think the most important example of that is Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an innovation not in terms of technology itself but it's an innovation in terms of governance on how people can organize themselves, even people that have never met, in order to achieve a common goal and to come up with a collective work that is actually very sound and important.

And of course, we're not in the 2000s anymore. And we have so much more possibilities right now. We have so many more tools and infrastructure and possibilities of participation that range from voting, methodologies, and you know, you can name like so many different initiatives. And I think we can bring that back into the debate again. So in my view, we are on a very important and ripe time in order to propose this post-pandemic initiative. And if we take the three elements together, basically recognizing the importance of principles and agreeing with those principles and setting those principles beforehand, understanding that we are not alone in recognizing the other initiatives. And bringing back participatory technologies rather than algorithmic decision making, I think we can create a multistakeholder process that can be quite successful for doing that. So Christian, I welcome the principles that you have shared. I am looking at them right now. And I'll be very happy to discuss each one of them. And to approach them in a way, you know, that resonates with this challenge that we have ahead.

>> CHRISTIAN PERRONE:  Thank you. You mentioned two of the most important parts of this bigger discussion which is how do we establish this process in a global way? How do we establish consensus in a glow wall way? And having different methodologies is an important start point. And one thing I've been wanting to reflect as well, just at the next time, to expand the possibilities of creating a governance ecosystem for the world, as an example, for the digital space and globally speaking.

One important aspect as well, what are the main tenants of that we're going to move towards the initiatives. And not a principle in itself but true to principles is (?) So we are facing a world that are different initiative, most of them national. So we want to find ways to maintain our national values but also making them potentially interoperable within different types of regulations.

So starting point, building a consensus, to facilitate the possibility of interoperable working system globally.

And on this note, we want to open the floor to see whether Sarah and Juan Carlos want to contribute and say some words about the main basis of principles that we're going to discuss and whether we have anything to add on potential procedures that we want to move on through this initiative.

So do you have anything to add, what are the main tenants that you're going, we should move forward?

>> SARAH WYNN-WILLIAMS:  Just a short observation. I think you can see we've drawn inspiration from Marco Civil in setting out what the principles because, again, it's a model where you've got principles that have held up over the test of time. And seemingly have only become more relevant, even if there are changes. And the other thing I would say, I think interoperability is going to become more key over time as each national jurisdiction fills out its framework across multiple different areas of technology and policy.

And it's striking to me that isn't discussed more often. And so when you look at those principles, there is tension between some of those principles. And what I would be interested in is contributions from other people on whether you think there's anything that's been permitted or anything that's been included that perhaps shouldn't be or has the potential to sink the overall objective. You know, are we not, are there some issues that aren't ready for a principled approach because as Christian know, ideally, we would have 10, I think, just as nice. But it's hard to ignore areas that are ripe for consideration on like how an interoperable framework could work.


>> RONALDO LEMOS:  And Sarah, before Juan Carlos steps in, that is an important thing, editing what we are proposing, right? So when we did the view, one example was, we decided not to talk about intellectual property rights because we knew that if we were going to do that, that would have basically killed the project from the outset.

So I think you're absolutely right. So when I look into the principles here, I see some that are truly global in nature. So for instance, protecting the internet stability and functionality by all technical means. Protecting issues regarding infrastructure security and cyber resilience, others might not have that outreach. So I completely agree with you, we have to focus on those, and I think we all welcome input about how to do that. And because that's part of the design decisions that we need to make.

>> JUAN CARLOS DE MARTIN:  We have to think about the relationship with this and digital principles and the basic fundamental principle, we are enshrined in our institutions. During the pandemic, we have seen some rights come strongly under stress. And I speak for Italy. And we see a surprising amount of stress and Freedom of Expression. In just recent days, we've had prominent figures in our political landscape say things like, you know, we should be less democratic about what we say on television. We heard famous journalist say talking to an expert, come on, doctor, you shouldn't be saying that on television in prime time. We are not questioning whether it was true or not, but we have a very strong pressure on -- maybe we should take in consideration especially if this pandemic draws, continues for some time, and I'm afraid it will continue for some more time. Think about the interplay between the actual fundamental constitutional principles and these other principles that we care about. We care about both of course actually the second, the latter are based on the former. So that's maybe the comment I would like to make at the beginning.

>> CHRISTIAN PERRONE:  That's one of the main tenants we try to express through the initiative. And we have to think about the internal principles and rights and how it may have attention towards a more global effort. And if you look at, we have to actually boil down the basic major principle to the realities. But continue to make this interoperable within the different nations as well. And there are a few of these, you're trying to propose some principles that are a bit more on the edge of what it is seen as traditional rights and principles. For instance, when you talk about sustainable development intergenerational really justice, this is hopefully something that's being discussed. And it's being created throughout bringing consensus worldwide but still it is not traditional principles and rights as Freedom of Expression. So it would be interesting to see since, what are the main idea, whether this is something that may achieve international consensus within the different and global aspects that we are doing now.

Other principle that it is quite interesting is obviously most people or assume anyone would agree that children should be protected but it's achieved global consensus., the post-pandemic digital right, space, so this is the types of discussions that we wanted to see. And from this standpoint of our participant here, it would be interesting to see what are the -- of the potential tensions that you already see, for instance, do you think that right of access of internet has achieved this level as well or not. That we can have.

>> RONALDO LEMOS:  Yep, if I can follow up on what Juan Carlos mentioned about Freedom of Expression. I think probably Freedom of Expression is the intellectual property issue of our times. No not because it's an unimportant, precisely because of the opposite. Because so many national states and regions are already working with that issue from enormity of perspective. I think the de(breaking audio) probably following his own course. It was approved in bun commission in the Brazilian Congress. And if you look around the glow -- there's so many other initiatives doing just that. So my fear is if we deal with this particular issue, we might be basically engulfed by it and basically not been able to move forward precisely because it's already happening at so many stances at the national level. But that is one reflection.

>> SARAH WYNN-WILLIAMS:  I just want to echo and support that. I do worry, and again, it goes back to the perfect being the enemy of the good. That you can have just one issue that sinks the entire initiative. And just to abstract that up a level, I don't think and love the far more qualified Brazilian citizens on this call to correct me, I don't think Marco Civil could be passed now in its current state. And so I think some of the principles to us look relatively uncontroversial in this moment in 2021 are going to become more contestable over time. So there is a strong argument to where we can see existing norms and consensus, codifying them in some way, before they come under pressure and that common ground shrinks forever.

>> JUAN CARLOS DE MARTIN:  If I make just a very quick comment on that, yes, I understand what you say. Although at least for Italy, I don't know about other countries, what I see is that we do not have initiatives on Freedom of Expression in the traditional sense because I think that governments, at least in Europe, if they tried to restrict Freedom of Expression, the constitutional courts would stop it. There's no ways they're going to change decades of jurisprudence of Freedom of Expression. We do see a chance to restrict online, on digital platforms. Not using laws but using a sort of soft power and softer regulation, et cetera. So in my regard, I raise these issues, not because I wanted to raise a difficult obstacle to the initiatives but because I do see a specific trying to bypass traditional protection for Freedom of Expression on the digital domain using something softer than those. That's it. I don't want to focus too much on this topic.

>> CHRISTIAN PERRONE:  I was going to say, that's one of the important issues of why you have the initiative. Not only the Courts but we should have a governance system that will support this logic. But I hand it over to Ronaldo Lemos for more.

>> RONALDO LEMOS:  No, just a quick comment. I think we are talking about issues that should be edited from the list and you mentioned Christian, issues that are being left out, right? So if one of them, in my perspective is the whole debate about a decentralized internet, what has been called the web 3.0, and I think there's a lot of consensus right now about excessive decentralization. However, I think we are going to face, as Sarah mentioned, issues that might not seem controversial right now and later on in time might become extremely controversial. And one of them in my view is the movement we are seeing happening in the direction of building decentralized networks that, you know, can operate upon themselves, and not really rely on a company or government or individuals but on networks themselves.

So this is an issue that I think it's in the very initial stages right now, but it's one that I would also like to see which is how do we deal not only with the problems of centralization but also the problems of decentralization especially when it's embedded in the network itself.

>> CHRISTIAN PERRONE:  Fantastic. And we have seen this logic, this splitter net as well. So it's important for us to see interoperability as one of the tenants, not only in the sense of interpretability of different systems, to decentralize internet systems. So having a common ground might help us build a system that is actually interoperable.

I think we are reaching our final time. I don't think there is going to be more strong contributions from the audience. So I would like to propose two minutes each to have some thoughts, what are going to be the future, what are the main aspects we should look at to build upon digital space that is based on consensus, that's based on a process that involves different voices, different stakeholders. So if I may have a round of final two minutes for each of you. That would be fantastic. Can I start with Ronaldo as well?

>> RONALDO LEMOS:  Thank you, Christian. I'll be very quick. So from my perspective, I think we should be excited with this possibility of advancing once again the discussion about the Bill of Rights. It has to be one that fits with the challenges that we are having at this particular moment. And as I mentioned, I think the list that you came up with so far, we came up with so far, they're a great initial list and of course our challenge is going to get feedback and add to that list and also include some points that might not be added so far.

And use everything that we discussed here in terms of participatory approaches, multistakeholderism, and everything that the Marco Civil inspired and made possible in Brazil to basically ignite the discussion and bring it like, to a level that I think it can effectively contribute to the challenge that we are having now. So thank you, Christian, if for moderation.

>> CHRISTIAN PERRONE:  Thank you very much. Can I ask Sarah for two minutes and final notes how to ignite this.

>> SARAH WYNN-WILLIAMS:  I think part is understanding that there is this limited window of opportunity and creating urgency around it. Part of the challenge is that we tend to be very reactive, whether we sit in civil societies or academia or industry. And don't tend to project out five years or 10 years. And Ronaldo that's why I think it's helpful to bring up what does a decentralized mean for these set of principles? And that goes back to the point that I think hopefully we leave the session with, it sounds ambitious and like a nice thing to have and it doesn't seem like a daily necessity. This is not food, water, survival. And I remember when we first pitched to the U.N. including internet access in the SDGs. And they're like, people are starving, why would you be talking about the internet? And I think sometimes it's good to be early to an issue and appreciate the urgency behind it. We will look back, I'm confident, if we have this discussion in five years or 10 years and, a there was a real moment there to create some global norm, to create some framework, and that moment has passed. And now ambitious has to scale back even further. So I think very pragmatic and saying, you know, let's drop anything that could sink this and let's see where we can start to build from the ground up something and hopefully that will become a baby cis where we can build and build and build over time. And I see it as urgent. And I see that we will look back on this time and not realize how much opportunity we had.

>> CHRISTIAN PERRONE:  Fantastic. I think that's the note we have to finish. The opportunities of the future. So Juan Carlos, what do you think about that? Your final two words.

>> JUAN CARLOS DE MARTIN:  Yes, following on Sarah's remarks, I do think that this efforts to establish digital rights, for a longtime have been with some, knew exceptions of initiatives of people like us and our community and the communities, but definitely aren't something (?) and this pandemic as Sarah reminded us a moment ago, this pandemic has made hundreds of millions of people, if not billions, touch with their hands what it means to have certain digital rights or not have them for education, for work, for your personal life, et cetera. So I do think this pandemic is an opportunity. So many horrible things but also the possibility of being an opportunity to exploit awareness and new awareness that digital technologies are not just a luxury, not only Netflix or it's definitely part of your life. And if you do not have proper digital rights, you can suffer very concrete consequences, consequences on your life, on education, your children, on your job, on your health. So this is an opportunity. And moving forward, I think we can now seek to establish broader alliances. So to get out of our space and to have more easy alliances with civil societies organizations, political parties, political movements, trade union, you know. I've been talking the other day with a prominent trade union leader in Italy. And unions in the last five years, made enormous change in awareness and understanding of what it means digital technologies.

So maybe that could be this opportunity maybe is where we can establish a stronger push to establish digital rights and international level.

>> CHRISTIAN PERRONE:  Fantastic. I think that's the end of our discussion today. And that's the end, we have to establish a starting point based on a broad consensus and broad view. And as Juan Carlos mentioned, we are the masses have become aware of the importance of the digital space. So this is also one interesting point to see how base our global initiative on rights and consensual principles may be a very good basis for international, global, interoperable governance regime or institutional arrangement. So thank you very much. And this is start of a very broad discussion that should move forward in the future. Thank you.