FINISHED COPY
NINTH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE
INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM 2014
ISTANBUL, TURKEY
"CONNECTING CONTINENTS FOR ENHANCED
MULTI‑STAKEHOLDER INTERNET GOVERNANCE"
05 SEPTEMBER 2014
14:30
ANADOLU AUDITORIUM
OPEN MICROPHONE SESSION
***
This is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the IGF 2014 Istanbul, Turkey, meetings. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We are about to start the open mic session. I will pass the floor over to Ambassador Janis Karklins who is the Chair of the MAG. Thank you.
>> JANIS KARKLINS: So thank you very much. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The open session is a tradition where everybody can say everything, within the limits of acceptable, please. No, I'm joking. This is the time when I would like to invite all of those who are interested to share their thoughts about any question related to either substantive issues or organizational issues of IGF. The Secretariat will capture all of the proposals which will be expressed during this discussion. And so shall we start? The rules are very simple. There are a number of microphones in the room. Please approach any of them.
Each speaker will have three minutes. If need be we can see if that is extendible or not depending on how many people will want to take the floor. And the moment we will exhaust the list of speakers, we will suspend the session and we will wait until the beginning of closing ceremony, which is scheduled for 4:00. So we have about 75 minutes at our disposal.
I do not see anybody at the microphone. Shall I consider ‑‑ now, I see. Please state your name, affiliation that we can register that, please. The floor is yours, ma’am. Sorry we don't hear you. Let me see if can fix the sound, please.
>> SARAH LUDFORD: Is it working? Yes, it’s working. Thank you very much, Janis. My name is Sarah Ludford, I’m a member of the British Parliament, in the Upper House of Lords and I was a member of the European Parliament for 15 years until May. And I apologize to anyone who has heard me say this this week. I might be repetitive. I'm here with grateful thanks to Nominet in the U.K. who I am their sort of sponsored parliamentarian this year and I would just like to make a plea for the further involvement of parliamentarians and legislators in IGF.
I personally have only been aware of a Dutch senator and thankfully some four members of the European Parliament. There may well have been other parliamentarians from national Parliament. Perhaps, I just haven't been in the right sessions. Now, I'm sure, now, I'm only in the beginning of a learning curve, I'm sure once I hope to get involved in the UK IGF I will discover there are lots of parliamentarians back home, but just if there are outputs, outcomes or whatever, they will filter down to the national Parliament where there is policy or even potentially legislation. So it's probably good to front load the process by getting parliamentarians involved at the earliest stage as possible. Thank you.
>> JANIS KARKLINS: So thank you very much. We are trying very hard to attract the attention of parliamentarians. Some years we had more than others, but thank you for noting that. I see there is next speaker. That microphone, please.
>> ARZU GEYBULLAYEVA: My name is Arzu. I’m from Azerbaijan, but here I’m together with Freedom House Turkish Delegation. We, the undersigned representatives of a group of global activists, journalists and lawyers from more than a dozen countries who attended and participated in the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum on September 1 through 5, 2014, in Istanbul, Turkey, as part of the Freedom House Civil Society delegation, make this statement at the meeting's conclusion to highlight our positions and concerns.
A growing number of governments and non‑governmental organizations, as well as the UN Human Rights Council, have expressed serious concern that Civil Society is facing increasing assault around the world, with authoritarian governments growing more bold and sophisticated in stifling individuals and groups that promote human rights, expose corruption, or otherwise give citizens a voice. In highlight of this, it is vital that the IGF work diligently to maintain and strengthen the equal participation of Civil Society, and refrain from using procedures ‑‑ such as the UN principle of discouraging ad hominem attacks ‑‑ as a pretext to stifle debate.
In a new report released last week, Freedom House described the IGF host country Turkey as a battleground state for internet governance, meaning that what happens domestically in Turkey sets a precedent for Internet Governance elsewhere. The state's intensifying efforts to control the Internet in Turkey demonstrate many of the challenges to Internet Governance, and it is unfortunate that groups that wished to openly discuss this were forced to have these conversations in a separate venue due to UN restrictions on open dialogue. Thank you.
>> JANIS KARKLINS: So thank you very much for your statement. I see the next speaker is standing in line. Please, ma'am, you have the floor.
>> TETYANA LOKOT: My name is Tetyana Lokot. I’m from Ukraine and I represent the local part of the Freedom House delegation. We share the sentiment of the vast majority of the IGF participants at this critical juncture in determining the future of the Internet. The Internet Governance can and should be improved. Furthermore we stress the importance of upholding and strengthening the multi‑stakeholder approach to insure that the Internet remains open, mobile, secure and resilient. And in calling for more protection of Human Rights online, our group makes the following recommendations: First, renew and extend the IGF mandate. We call on the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs and UN Member States to strongly support renewing and extending the IGF mandate which is currently set to expire the end of 2015. We believe that short‑term mandates hinder the ability of the IGF to fully achieve the outcomes that stakeholders involved in the process seek. The substance of the mandate should be evaluated and where necessary adjusted through open consultation utilizing the multi‑stakeholder approach.
Over the past nine years the IGF has provided one of the few venues for certain Civil Society members who will not need to fear reprisals in their home countries to directly address leaders of national Governments, private sector and the technical community, particularly for participants who are blocked from engaging with Government representatives and other decision makers in their own countries.
Second, to strengthen multi‑stakeholderism through equality, diversity and access, this year's IGF held numerous workshops on topics of Human Rights, including freedom of expression, gender, privacy and access. Yet, the value of this enterprise is undermined when Governments can use the IGF to promote themselves, but Civil Society groups are forbidden by the ad hominem principle from criticizing them. Likewise, gender equality has not genuinely been discussed when the vast majority of individuals at high level meetings delivering speeches and participating in workshop panels are men. Access can also be addressed if remote participation fails to adequately provide two‑way discussion for those who cannot attend in person.
The IGF should include these voices not only to promote multi‑stakeholderism and inclusion, but also to improve the quality of discussion and the prospects for solutions. Third, expand transparency. For Civil Society to be an effective stakeholder in the Internet Governance ecosystem, more transparency is needed on the part of other stakeholders to better inform individuals and groups advocacy. We welcome the growing number of businesses that have issued transparency reports and requests for user data and content data and urge them to continue to improve these reports to include greater detail about their results and the process for responding to requests, transparency reports be standard process for all companies that receive removal and user data requests. And implementing ‑‑ I'm sorry, and drafting and implementing laws affecting -- the Government should also strive for greater transparency drafting and implementing laws affecting transparency and insure that legal frameworks do not prohibit businesses from disclosing information about the number and type of requests they receive and comply with.
Even as we highlight these challenges we affirm that the 2014 IGF with its open‑ended consultative process enabled individuals and groups to amplify Human Rights perspectives and concerns in the forum sessions as well as through side meetings and consultations with representatives of Governments, businesses, the technical community and multilateral bodies and Civil Society organisations from all over the world. We urge all stakeholders to continue to engage and participate in future IGFs, to strengthen the Forum’s multi‑stakeholder process and to uphold the principles of openness, transparency and inclusiveness. Thank you.
>> JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you very much. I would like to ask our time keepers to do their job properly, and now we have three more speakers in line. I will start with the first microphone here and then we will go for the, for the second microphone, please.
>> PERNILLE TRANBERG: My name is Pernille Tranberg, I work with the Danish Business Authority. I just want to say it's been a really, really good Conference, lots of good topics and people, but there is one flaw, I think, and that is there are big corporations part of this Conference and they have been speaking a lot about privacy and Human Rights. But when they talk about privacy and Human Rights, they only talk about Government surveillance. They don't talk about corporate surveillance.
And we have not discussed corporate surveillance which is just as important for many humans in the world. I'm not saying Government surveillance is not important, but corporate surveillance is really important and I hope we can take up that topic again. And also the last thing I saw Google, the Google tent event, which is really interesting as well, it's in the official programme, but the unGovernance Forum is not in the official programme, and that's not my understanding of multi‑stakeholder, the multi‑stakeholder model. Thank you.
>> JANIS KARKLINS: So thank you very much. So the next speaker, please, Thomas.
>> THOMAS DE HAAN: Thank you. My name is Thomas de Haan from the Dutch Government. I just wanted to tackle one issue which I think deserves more attention in the IGF, and it's the impact of the adoption of, specifically the non‑adoption of Internet standards for the security of Internet. We held a workshop about this. It was also participating the Chair of the ITF, American Standards Organisation, Cisco, Google, APNIC and user representatives.
We notice that in the IGF, the standards have, the issue has a lot of attention, but it's more on the making of standards than on the, let's say, how in multi‑stakeholder process voluntary standards are adopted through consensual system which is all right. And I think this is something which is recognized by everybody.
But we think there is still a problem in the non‑adoption of certain very basic standards like IPv6, UNISEC, DCAM and others. And what we see is something which is probably for that reason something for the IGF that it needs a lot more of multi‑stakeholder collaboration between Internet standards bodies, the private sector Governments and the Civil Society.
For example, it was signaled that one of the major impediments of actors not complying or adopting standards is the fact that they don't get the benefits from the investment in the time they have to spend on it. So there is a kind of ‑‑ I would not say marked failure, but it doesn't work as we all want it to work. I will leave it with that, but I think this is a topic which needs much more attention in a more multi‑stakeholder way. And we didn't come out with a concrete outcome, but we think this is something which could be tackled either in the best practice Forum or some other session. Thank you very much.
>> JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you very much.
>> ALEXANDER CASTRO: Hi, My name is Alexander Castro and I am here representing the major Brazilian Telecommunication Operators. It was a great pleasure to attend this Conference and before we leave I would like to make a very brief comment.
During the all first day of the IGF Conference we had an excellent debate on Net Neutrality and its effects on zero rate programs, development of the infrastructure, the provision of specialized services and so on.
We realized that we have different players supporting different definitions for the net neutrality concept. According some players, including us, we understand that some zero rate programs and business models based on reversal charging don’t conflict with Net Neutrality Concept. But others have a different understanding.
According to some stakeholders, including us, the concept of Net Neutrality should accommodate the possibility of offering specialized services in a different way of the regular Internet and we understand that solutions based on Content Delivered Networks don´t have any relation with Net Neutrality. But we realized that others think differently.
So in our view we have an excellent debate but we have not a consensus regarding these issues. So we believe that we must continue to discuss in order to reach the necessary balance among all stakeholders.
But finally, I would like to say that in one thing we have a big consensus. And this is regarding the necessity to include two thirds of the world population. And for those who currently have an Internet access we must develop the networks in order to provide new access with higher speed, better quality. And in real world to accomplish these goals we need to invest so much money. And these investments must have sustainability.
So the Brazilian Telecommunication Service providers understand that operators should have the necessary freedom to manage their network in order to guarantee their stability and their security. And of course, to optimize the use of those networks. Thank you very much, and I hope to see you in Brazil.
>> JANIS KARKLINS: So thank you very much for your statement. Please, next speaker.
>> DARIA CATALIU: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Daria Cataliu. I'm working for the cybersecurity agency ENISA and I would like to invite you all to an educational initiative. Maybe some of you are aware that October is the cybersecurity month all over the world in U.S., starting in 2001, Europe also 2010, so currently Asia‑Pacific is participating, Australia, Africa, but I would like just to invite also other stakeholders from the present countries to join our common activities for digital citizens all over the world, in Europe, but also worldwide. Thank you.
And for the European cybersecurity month you could already check all of the coordination and who is the partner and what are we suggesting on the topics for each week on the website, which is CyberSecurityMonth.EU. Thank you.
>> JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you very much. Before giving the floor to the next speaker, we have a remote participant. I will give the floor to the coordinator, please.
>> REMOTE MODERATOR: We have a question from K.S. Raju Andrea Perogis, Africa ISOC opening chapter from Civil Society. What is outcome of NETmundial final draft and this meeting final draft? Are we going to have one open Internet Governance framework serving all Internet users? This premium rights issue raised as freedom of expression is treated differently in each country. I have a couple of other comments. Can I read?
>> JANIS KARKLINS: Yes, please, go ahead.
>> REMOTE MODERATOR: Okay. Also we have comment from a couple of questions, who creates jobs for people? Is it the enterprise or the customers? We have to keep ‑‑ and in the ICT age we must also cultivate the cyberspace. For us to do this we must first know where is cyberspace. Everybody thinks web is only about Worldwide Web, however, we have to recognize it has another meaning.
By understanding the cyberspace we can avoid being trapped. To all of you who are here today in the IGF meeting, I invite you to think about how we can ‑‑ I'm sorry, the message got interrupted. Yes. That's all. Thank you very much.
>> JANIS KARKLINS: So thank you very much. I think that answering those questions, they are open‑ended, and, of course, all of us who are trying to work to make this Internet Governance ecosystem as efficient as possible, and IGF is one of the places that contributes towards that goal. So we have two speakers here, please. Go ahead.
>> NORBERT BOLLOW: Thank you. I am Norbert Bollow, co‑convener of the Just Net Coalition. And I would like to comment on the theme of this year's Internet Governance Forum because it has really disappointed me. In all previous years we had a theme of Internet Governance for development in different variations and flavors. I'm not saying we must always focus on development. There are lots of other Human Rights that are good to focus on, but multi‑stakeholderism in my view is a tool. It may well be a good tool, or maybe it is a broken tool that needs to be fixed, but it is a tool that can be used for good or if it is broken, it may create problems, but it's not a goal in itself.
I say let's keep in mind what are the goals giving everybody on this planet the opportunity, the real experience of the Human Rights that is absolutely the kind of goal that we should focus on. So I say let's please for the next Internet Governance Forums focus on worthwhile goals again. Thank you.
>> JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you very much. I'm going now stereo. I need to use two microphones as the technician suggested. So Alejandro, please, go ahead.
ALEJANDRO PISANTY: My name is Alejandro Pisanty from the National University of Mexico. I will start again. My name is Alejandro Pisanty from the National University of Mexico and the social Internet of Mexico, the Internet Society chapter in Mexico. I would like to address what was stated by Mr. Castro previously. He has left the room, so I am asking to convey this to him or are you still here? The fact that you can report there was no consensus on network neutrality during the many workshops on the issue is a feature. It's not a bug.
It's a good result. If there is no consensus, the report itself is the outcome you need and will be subject that will continue for sure. Thank you.
>> JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you very much. Of course, we have to continue until we get the consensus one way or the other and we can get the consensus only if decision making is well informed.
>> MERVI KULTAMAA: My name is Mervi Kultamaa. I'm from an oraganisation which hosts United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development, STD. And I would like to remind that the CSTD is conducting a ten‑year review of the implementation of the WSIS outcomes and the IGF and Internet Governance are part of that ten‑year review. There is an ongoing call for inputs for all stakeholders to share their views and experiences of WSIS implementation. And please look at the CSTD website for more information. The deadline for submitting inputs is 15th of September. So there is still one more week time after you leave Istanbul.
The more evidence we get, the better the outcome of the review will be. So please share your views and experiences. We welcome all inputs. Thank you.
>> JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you very much, Medvi. I will ask Ronald Koren, the back of the room, please. You have the floor.
>> RONALD KOREN: (?)
>> JANIS KARKLINS: Ronny. I'm sorry, we do not hear you. Maybe you can turn the microphone that we can ‑‑
>> RONALD KOREN: Is this better? I was saying we speak of privacy as a right without there ever being any discussion of what privacy is. This needs to be affirmed. We speak as if there were one clear unambiguous definition of privacy and its implications. But that is really not the case. In fact, it's a complex notion and it's not always clear. It seems to me that in the next IGF we need discussion of what is privacy, what encompasses, what its limitations are for human expression. We can see the discussion on this suggestion and the right to data retention and the right for an exemption. We need better articulated discussion and definition of what is actually desirable. Thank you.
>> JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you very much, Ronny. Now, I'm turning to the next speaker, please, first microphone.
>> YASSER ALFAKHARANY: Thank you. I'm Yasser Alfakharany from Egypt and I would like to thank the IGF's meeting and all of the organizers and supporters of the IGF. During the IGF, you have discussed a lot of fantastic ideas and a lot of issues. Unfortunately most of these issues do not exist on the ground in our country, Egypt, I mean, exactly. Especially after the military Coup, after the military coup we do not enjoy most of what you have mentioned or what you have discussed during your IGF. We have no freedom of expression and no freedom, access to knowledge or access to information.
We are suffering from all of these freedoms. You can never express your opinion. If you express your opinion, you are about to be, whether to be killed or to be imprisoned or detained. Our Government deals with us as numbers. We are just numbers, nothing else. They do not deal with us as humans, that is why I'm very astonished you have discussed a lot of things which do not exist in my country and I hope and I wish and I call on our Government to reconsider over these freedoms and over these issues which were discussed during the IGF 9 meeting. Thank you so much indeed. Thanks.
>> JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you very much. Now providing the floor to the next speaker. Please, sir.
>> MICHELE NEYLON: Thank you, Mr. Karklins. I'm Michele Neylon, the CEO and founder of Blacknight Internet Solutions. We are a hosting company and domain registrar. This is the first time I have come to an IGF, and I wanted to say I'm very impressed with the level and quality of the content throughout the meeting. It was a pleasant surprise. I kind of expected something much heavier and more, I don't know, possibly boring, let's say, but it was pleasant to see so many people from the four corners of the globe who have strong passionate feelings about Internet Governance and who come from a diverse range of backgrounds, however, there were a few things that I did find made it difficult to engage at times.
Many of the panels seemed to be three to four times larger than they should have been so instead of being three, maybe four speakers, there were at one case I saw 15 speakers crowded around one tiny little table. By the time they had introduced themselves, you were 45 minutes into the session. By the time you got to any substance, you were at 80 minutes, and then you had ten minutes for the floor, this was a bit kind of, well, silly to say the least.
The other thing is, well, this may be something specific to IGF, I honestly don't know, but a lot of speakers don't seem to introduce themselves, so you are looking at a bunch of people standing up there or sitting up there talking away and you have no idea who is talking because there is no, there are no, there is no indication, there is no name tag and they don't say their names a lot of the time. That's all, just a couple of comments. Thank you.
>> JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you very much for your feedback. We will have also the online feedback Forum, and we would encourage all of you to provide your assessment how this event went. Indeed, we are always struggling with the number of competing interests including the number of speakers, so that is long‑standing issue, and we are permanently trying to address that. Hopefully one day we will be successful. Next microphone number 2.
>> IZUMI AAZU: My name is Izumi Aazu. I’m a member of the MAG and also a member of Civil Society, and from Japan or Tokyo. First of all, I would like to thank Turkey or the people of Turkey with such rich history and cultural environment, we learned a lot, and that made our IGF pretty rich and fruitful. I expect very radical changes for the next IGF in Brazil. I just learned that it's not in the big city like Sao Paulo or Rio but a rather Brazilian coastal city where we can meet easily with local people or older people, perhaps.
I was tasked to interview participants of IGF this time thanks to our colleague of the MAG Veronica Cretu of Moldova, a neighboring country from here. In addition to this online questionnaire, I see this personal interview very enjoyable with myself, but also gave the interviewees freedom to, say, explore some ideas, and I'm sure after the closure of this IGF ceremony meeting we will meet within MAG to bring together all of the findings and results of our interviews to improve like just a suggestion from the gentleman about a number of speakers, and not enough time for interruption. We hear these a lot. That's perhaps are the most common remarks made.
Last year we heard too many workshops, difficult to choose from. So this year we tried to reduce at least the number of workshops, although we couldn't reduce that much. And then we encountered some challenges. Why did you not accept our proposal? We only could make 100 out of 200 or less, so we had all of the unfortunate 100 proposals, we have to deal with that.
I even dare to go to yesterday so‑called, well, unofficially called Internet ungovernance Forum and like previous speakers said I wouldn't think it should be included inside the official IGF programme because they said we would like to boycott IGF in some legitimate reasons that they have been trying to fight with the Human Rights and the freedom of speech inside Turkey so they don't want to have some legitimacy of bringing this IGF to Istanbul which I have slightly different idea about that.
I would like to still come to engage to any country where any problem happens. It depends on what country they are. Journalists from Afghanistan came and interviewed and he would like to share the best example practices being experienced of neighboring countries, but for the first time coming it is difficult for him to take a microphone of anything. Same thing a lady of Africa, she wanted to share issues she is facing with colleagues across the globe and they have difficulty finding a commonplace. So there is a lot of room to improve, and I promise, I will take it to the MAG at least to the next IGF. Thank you.
>> JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you very much, Izumi, and we have messages from remote participants. Moderator, please? Seems we have a technical problem. I'm going now to microphone number 1, Subi.
>> SUBI CHATURVEDI: Thank you, Chair. My name is Subi Chaturvedi. I teach at the University of Delhi at a women's college, the Lady Sri University for Women. And we are often accused of overstating our own case. I want to start out by first thanking the wonderful Country of Turkey and the host country. There is a reason why the IGF comes to a different region and a different country each year. The idea is to make sure that we insure Civil Society and different stakeholder perspectives when we move to a region or different country. So when issues are discussed, it's important to have local people participating in these conversations and we owe it to creating enabling and facilitative processes that insure that the IGF remains the free, open, inclusive, transparent, bottom up space that it was meant to be.
I don't speak here as a MAG member. I speak on behalf of some of the most fascinating participants that I had occasion to meet yesterday evening in a workshop called Facilitating Youth at the IGF. The youngest was about 13 years old and they have some ideas which I would like to share. We would like to see more young people, and one way of doing that is also to not just give them workshops.
They were also grateful to the Secretariat for giving them the main room in the main session. This enables conversations and visibility and participants from not just the end users, but also the lead users as they would like to be referred to. There was also a request that they should be included as participants and speakers on some of the main sessions that we do so perspectives are refreshing and they can speak to people who make these decisions.
There was also a call for creating a stakeholder group, which is the youth on the MAG so that they can invite adults to engage with them and not the other ways around. We would also like to see a band that says I'm an adult and I'd like to listen to a young person. These are suggestions. And they would also like to have one young person enabled to invite another young person so that when we go on the road to Brazil, it becomes the youngest IGF ever.
Those are just some small specific solutions that we heard towards strengthening the IGF and we would like to see the IGF strengthened and it should continue. Thank you for enabling participation and creating this platform. That's all.
>> JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you very much. Actually that was one of the issues that was raised yesterday when I was engaging with the participants of Internet ungovernance Forum. They said you are too old to address issues of the youth. The Internet you are talking about is not the Internet that youth is talking about. We have now second attempt for remote participation. Let's give a try.
>> REMOTE MODERATOR: I'm going to read one comment from the Africa virtual hub. The Africa virtual hub is a completely online hub which is a meeting throughout the IGF in an online chat room in their DiploFoundation classroom as part of Internet Governance in Africa. An introduction, a joint project went Nenta and Diplo. This has been interesting as no physical hub was used or was necessary, allowing attendants during the day cross‑session comments, recommendations and strategies for the future, both of Internet Governance for Africa and for needs for quality of remote participation. And we also have Shelly that they are going to make an audio intervention if we can, the presentation.
>> REMOTE AUDIENCE: I'm from South Korea. One, where is cyberspace? Two, what constitution covers the cyberspace? Three, who the customers are that ‑‑ and companies in the Internet? Please take note not in the search bar. Think about this. If you dial the telephone number of the teacher in Italy, the operator of the telephone service is like a 411. (?) They are evidently a customer of a Mr. Fija. Just write numbers, customer automatically connects to Mr. Fija. The telephone evolves into a more technology, the Internet. Who creates this? Is it the enterprises or the customers? We have to keep our customers because fundamentally customers create jobs along with the enterprises. This catches everyone's attentions because these are issues that affect the current status of the economy.
Sadly most of us are not aware of this. We must also cultivate the ‑‑ where is the cyberspace? Everyone think about it is where.
By understanding the cyberspace we can avoid being trapped. To all of you who are here today in the IGF meeting, I invite you to think about how we can serve the economic crisis. Thank you very much.
>> JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you, and, of course, apologies for the quality of the sound. Please, I'm going now to the microphone number 2. Andrea, please. You have the floor.
>> ANDREA SAKS: My name is Andrea Saks and I'm the coordinator of the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability. I want to say something about captioning and captioners, and also address the issue that a previous gentleman made about not having speakers identified. It all ties together. You must when you are taking the floor, and it is a must for me, whether you are a speaker or asking a question, identify yourself.
And if you have an unusual name, spell it. There should be training of Chairmen on how to flip. I'm just going to give an example. You can say, okay, Mary, we would like to have your comment. Even if we only have a first name, we can then identify the speaker later when they go through the files. It is so vital for the records that we know who spoke and what they said. Also raw files of captioning should not go up on the Web until the captioners have had a chance to correct these names and possibly terminology that they may not be familiar with.
They are human beings. They don't know to how to spell everybody's name or every terminology that you could possibly come up with. So we have to help them so we get the best out of captioning. Also, as an organizer of a workshop and a Dynamic Coalition meeting, it is my responsibility, and I give this to every single one of you who wants to do this again next year, to collate all of the information that is written down and send it directly for the captioner.
IGF can't organize that. They don't have the staff. But you do. You have the time. You are organising it anyway. If they get it in advance, they have a better chance of spelling the terminology and the names of the people. It is your responsibility as a human being in this room to identify yourself so we have a clear, good record and don't post these files until they can correct them because we look ridiculous. And it's not their fault that they can't write everybody's name down.
And I also just want to, of course, advertise, as I always do, we have now to help with training a guideline, the DCAD Accessibility Guideline 2014. It doesn't have everything in it, of course. It's an ongoing document, a living document, and it's going to be posted. And I want everybody to take a look at it because it will have some of these pointers to make you better workshop leaders, better presenters, and also help host countries, most of all make accessible meetings not only physically but also virtually. And I thank you for the time.
>> JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you, Andrea, for your advice and guidance. I hope the Chair is excluded from the rule that to call name every time the Chair takes the floor, otherwise at the end of the day, you would hate me, simply because you would hear my name too frequently. So that said, I am calling for the next speaker, please introduce yourself.
>> NORANI NIMPLUN: Thank you. My name is Norani Nimplun. I'm from Netnote. You can tell that I have a name that might not be that common in many parts of the world. As someone who has been involved with the IGF from the start and I have been on the MAG for several years, not anymore. I think it is really encouraging to see the IGF improving and I think I'm not just saying that because it's the right thing to say, but I actually think that we are getting better every year.
It is fantastic to see the high quality of the workshops. I thought last year's IGF was the best, and this might be even better. I think that it shows that the IGF listens not only to recommendations from the CST Working Group on the IGF improvement but also listens to its community and is continually improving.
I think it's great to see that there is greater involvement in the programme shaping than from only the MAG, and I think that's a really positive step that we should continue with, getting more people of the community in to shape the programme. I think we still have a lot to do to increase our inclusiveness, and reach out to those who are not present here, but the many organisations that do great job trying to do their bit to contribute like the RIPE NCC finding people in their community covering their expenses to come here, like the ISOC programmes, like Nominet. There are many.
I think also the remote participation is also improved over the years, and that is thanks to a lot of people working very hard with that. I think, and I know it's very hard for the MAG to evaluate and feedback, give feedback to workshop organizers, but I think this is something we can continue to improve, and especially given some of the comments I have heard about workshops being rejected. Maybe we also need to become clearer about them, why they are rejected, not ‑‑ it might be simply because they are not fully completed proposals.
I think the best current practice or the best practice initiative is a fantastic one. I think we should try to do more there. I think we should maybe even consider looking at other communities' best practice documents or procedures and see how that can feed into the IGF.
The areas we need to improve though, I think the very large panels where you have, I don't know, 15 people sitting on a panel, I think that hinders interaction. Another thing, another mistake we keep making is we put the same people on the panels, on the same panels throughout the week, but on the same panels year after year, and I think we need to be better at that. And then finally I want to say that we have heard very strong support for the IGF over the years, and I think we should continue to strengthen the IGF, and I would also like to express support for an extension of the IGF. Thank you.
>> JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you very much for your thoughts, and now I'm inviting Marilyn Cade to take the floor.
>> MARILYN CADE: My name is Marilyn Cade. I too say why I say it that way, and it reinforces what Andrea said. It's important for us to be identified, and if we are going to take the trouble to prepare comments to go to the microphone, saying our name clearly, and even providing that contact information to the transcriptionist will be very, very helpful, but that's not why I came to the microphone. I wanted to make a comment. I'm a first time MAG member, although I have been involved in the IGF from its beginning, and I have seen the evolution.
And I want to mention a couple of things that to me were very revolutionary here. I was privileged to work with a group that brought two very unusual organisations to the IGF, WAVE, The Women Alliance for Virtual Engagement and another group focused on Internet freedom. The IGF in my view has the potential of becoming the place to come to not only participate in the IGF, but to meet with others, to contact, to develop networks, and to share information and to expand. And at this meeting I saw many, many organisations that needed to have side meetings, and needed to interact with each other as well as being then present to participate in the programme.
I don't support putting the side meetings into the programme, but one thing the MAG might think about is a desk at which people who are holding side meetings that are open could be, there could be flyers or an announcement of how to find those groups, but making the assumption that if people are going to come here for those side meetings, then we will need to also take that into account in terms of space.
And I also want to say that making the IGF the place to come each year means that we need to as the MAG and as a community work on accelerating our planning on the programme in terms of picking the theme and making information available. I would also like to think, I want to lend my voice to those who are calling for the importance of the reauthorization of the mandate of the IGF and its extension. But I would also like to think that we might want to as the MAG and the community establish a six week period during which the IGF occurs so that the host country has flexibility, but the community has a window of time each year at which they can expect that the IGF will be scheduled, somewhere in that period.
I say that because that would also help the national and regional IGF initiatives to be able to plan their schedule. Thank you.
>> JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you, Marilyn, for your suggestions. Of course, MAG will be meeting today after the closing session and some of those issues will be addressed immediately. We have requests from the remote participation moderator. Please.
>> REMOTE MODERATOR: We have another comment from K.S. Raju, ISOC open Civil Society. Question to panel: All stakeholders should have same IGF. This was discussed last NETmundial meeting. The Government offices are not giving say to these sectors. For example, Civil Society farmers, doctors, teachers must be selected from each state of country to make IGF true open system rather than red tape Forum.
And we have another comment from Mr. Iftacar, Pakistan. I remotely participated in the different sessions of IGF 2014. Thanks to hosting organisations to organize such useful sessions on Internet Governance matters, particularly on IDNs to promote the local languages, cybersecurity and local languages, cybersecurity and eCommerce. I hope such events will also be organized in future. Thank you.
>> JANIS KARKLINS: So thank you very much. I'm going to microphone number two.
>> THYL KLERKX: My name is Thyl Klerkx. I want to address the few young people who are here at this time. I would like to say that the young that were there, and especially ones that were at an IGF or Internet Governance related event for the first time did a great job, I think, but what I want to ask of you is, please, for all of the people that have been at IGFs seven, eight, nine times and to other events, please think back to the first time you went to such an event and realize how intimidating it is to walk into such a room when you are maybe 18 or 16 years old.
All of those people that all know each other, and that all know exactly what it's about, that know all of the involved organisations, all of the short terms and the words you use, and please realize that when you walk in as a very young person you don't know what it's all about and you need guidance. So, of course, we need to make sure that the young people are there, but when they are there, please, when you see someone walking around, looking around a little bit lost, go to him, ask him what he is looking for, what he needs to know. Please help the young people to participate.
And I also think, and that's talking about this, it's important to realize how important the national IGF events are for creating more participation from youth because the threshold to go to an event in your own country is, it makes it much easier, because you don't have to take a week off from school, for example, which is a big issue for young people. And you don't have to travel, because a flight of 300 Euros may sound cheap, but it is expensive for us. And that's what I wanted to say basically. And I also ask for, I want to ask people and companies and organisations that are happy to help youth, please try to provide continuous funding to let the same persons come to a series of events and not just one, because it just takes you one or two events to even get into what it's all about.
This is now my fifth Internet Governance related event so I get the feeling that I, you know, start to understand everything that's happening here, but I really got to thank mostly the Netherlands IGF and RIPE NCC for providing me with funds to come every time and to get to know more people and get to know the subjects. So, please, let's all try to, if you can, fund the young people, but at least try to make them feel welcome. Don't laugh at them if they don't know all of the little terms and vocabulary and try to help them a little bit. Thanks.
(Applause).
>> JANIS KARKLINS: So thank you very much. I see that you have already gotten the virus all of us have here, the virus called Internet Governance virus. (Laughter). I will call the next speaker for microphone two who is the first in line. Please.
>> WOUT DENATRIS: Thank you, Chair, my name is Wout DeNatris and I will spell that, W‑O‑U‑T D‑E‑N‑A‑T‑R‑I‑S.
It's already up there, I see. I'm going to ‑‑ I have got several hats, as you know, at the table there. I'm speaking as a private person. I want to share two observations I had during this conversation. The very first session I participated in was on creative destruction, and I saw a lot of people on the stage crying with the bulls, preaching to the choir and everybody they were bashing, to use the word, were not in the room.
So, in other words, the opportunity lost, and I think something that may be taken up in the next year to have companies in the room also that actually, that actually work on these creative destructions, but also create new jobs which are not recognized. So how do we get the balance? How do you get Governments in there that may need to address this topic? That's one. The other one is to respond to the lady from, I think, Denmark that NILGF held a workshop on privacy and innovation.
And, yes, the private side was discussed there, but what I note is it was mainly focused on Facebook and Google, but I have a short story to tell that a journalist in the Netherlands hacked his iPhone, I think it was, but maybe it was Norm Bram and he tapped that through the laptop and back through the iPhone into the world. And he adopted an app from the famous store in the Netherlands, and the moment he said yes, 74 different companies entered his cell phone, tapped everything in the phone, photos, Twitter account, everything, and there were companies there that nobody has ever heard of.
So, in other words, if you talk privacy, who are we actually talking about? So maybe that's the topic to introduce for next year because the implications of privacy, whether good or bad, that's also to be determined, may actually be parties involved that we just don't know who are not in this room, and maybe no Government has ever heard about it, and we don't know where they come from. So perhaps that's a topic to continue in 2015. Thank you.
(Applause).
>> JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you very much. I'm turning to the next speaker, microphone number one, please.
>> LORENA SIMIYU: Thank you, chairperson. Lorena Simiyu, Uganda Ministry of Education and Sports. This is my second IGF I'm attending. I wish to thank the team which has organized the IGF 2014 and the Turkey Government. From the sessions I have attended I noticed that Africa has been mentioned to be brought on board in so many sessions to participate actively.
Uganda is one of the countries which should be included, especially the Ministry of Education, which I represent here today, and I wish to encourage the participation from Governments to support IGF and giving training through the ministries of education. And especially where you find that it can be placed in a second and other institutions so they are aware what the IGFs are doing.
So I encourage participation of the ministries of education. They shouldn't leave it to the IT ministries only, so that people can all benefit because I know that only attending IGFs, national IGFs is not possible. But when it is put in a class, the students will understand what it means and they will eventually participate fully. Thank you very much.
(Applause).
>> JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you. Now, next speaker is microphone one, and since we are getting close to the end of the session, I would like to see if I can draw the line under the list of speakers, meaning to provide the floor for two remaining, or there is somebody who will be rushing to the microphone to have intervention. Yes, I see a gentleman on that side. And I'm drawing ‑‑ we will have three speakers from now. Please, microphone number one, microphone one.
>> ANDREW SHLHERBOVICK: Thank you, Chair. My name is Andrew Shlherbovick. I'd like to thank the Government of Turkey for the excellent organisation of the IGF, and I'd like to thank all who are involved in this organisation meeting. I know well that it's difficult to organize these kinds of multi‑stakeholder dialogue, and I hope that this dialogue would be extended and continued more and more next year. This year I could see some alternative for places like discussed Internet ungovernance forums, and other unofficial places to discuss, but I think maybe those feelings of people who like to get involved in the Internet Governance are understandable, but it could encourage them to be involved in the Internet Governance platform with the Internet Governance work.
And I hope this is one of the best places to discuss the Internet Governance issue. I hope it would continue its work for the next period of mandate and see you in Brazil 2015. Thank you very much.
>> JANIS KARKLINS: So thank you very much. Next speaker, microphone number two, please.
>> BIANCA HO: I'm Bianca Ho, a Net Mission Ambassador. I'm glad to see Subi Chaturvedi made comments on youth. I actually moderated workshop 173, so I'm very thankful to the IGF to put us in the main session so we could have multi languages. So we also had a woman who participated in Spanish and it was helpful to have the translation. The other thing I want to stress about workshop 173 is that it's a collaborative effort of YCIG, so I was glad to see actual things going out of that YCIG. So I'm standing here to add on top of their comments actually specific things that IGF Secretariat could provide to us.
There are two things we ask for. Number one is have a KPR for youth participation. For example, next year we can do a statistics on how many youth have participated in the IGF, and then next year we try to improve that year after year.
The second thing I ask for is to give online space for us to create this resource pool. This is what developed Internet policy discussion among youth for sharing info. The other thing that I see is a lot of workshop organizers have been telling us it's very hard to find youth on panels. So it would be a good place to start have the youth gather together and whenever someone wants to host a workshop on a specific issue like net neutrality, they could find youth to speak on their panel and it would be very convincing. Those are the two things I'm asking for from the IGF panel.
>> JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you very much. Please don't leave the microphone. What is KPR, please?
>> BIANCA HO: Key performance indicator.
>> JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you. I was not shy to ask the question. Thank you. And the last speaker will be speaking at the microphone number 3, please.
>> ABDIFATAH HASSAN: My name is Abdifatah Hassan. I am from Somalia and ‑‑ I am very sorry that time is not enough so that I would also like to thank the team work of the IGF and to the Turkey Government and all of the organisations that supported here the meeting. So I have one question. Who supports IGF and Internet programme development to Government? Thank you.
>> JANIS KARKLINS: So thank you. I think we will answer your question individually. Thank you very much for all of those who took the microphone during the open mic session.
The suggestions which were expressed have been duly noted by the Secretariat and we will include them in the reflection list that MAG will look at during the concentration of success stories and challenges we encounter during this meeting. And as I mentioned the MAG will meet immediately after the end of closing session in the Galata Hall, Rumeli Building. Those who are not tired yet from listening, you are most welcome to come and listen. We will be exchanging our first impressions about the event.
We will be talking about timetable of preparation of 2015 IGF as well as modalities of that process, and we will be discussing the renewal of the MAG, how to better coordinate the process. So these are three questions on the agenda. Those who are interested, you are welcome to observe that MAG meeting. With that I would like to draw to the end the open mic session, and I would invite you to be back in the room in ten minutes when we will start the closing ceremony of the IGF 2014. Thank you very much for your participation.
(Applause).
***
This is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the IGF 2014 Istanbul, Turkey, meetings. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***