You are here

IGF 2018 - Day 2 - Salle IV - Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network

The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Paris, France, from 12 to 14 November 2018. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the event, but should not be treated as an authoritative record. 

***

 

>> MODERATOR:  All right.  Thank you so much.  Welcome to you all.  Welcome to the Internet practice and jurisdiction policy network.  It is four minutes after the time.  So we want to keep with this good practice.

I'm the Executive Director of the Internet and jurisdiction policy network.  I am very happy to see you here.  Thanks for taking the time to hear more go what Internet interaction is doing.  I see some familiar faces, but I am also extremely happy to see other actors that I hope will be excited about the continuicsna we address and also the methodology that we try to implement.  So without perter adieu, I want to start maybe with the first slide which is to basically say why.  You know that people have solutions to problems or to at least the problems that they see.  So they come to a place and they fight around their solutions.  They don't spend enough time to think about what is the problem that they're trying to address.  In particular, is there a way for them to have this as a common problem and radiof ‑‑ internet and tradition and we will explain in more detail later on what was graded in 2012 and we spent a is of the amount of time to identify what are the issues that need to be addressed when we talk about the tense between the cross‑border Internet and national jurisdictions.

You will see we have three problems that have corn create issues, but what I want to highlight is this general architecture of as have we guy that we're familiar with is embedded and bugging fully in the international organizations like the one that we are in today.  This international system is based on a fundamental principle of the separation of territory early base sovereignty.  They're a huge challenge in the ‑‑ they're a huge challenge and all the application it supports is cross border interactions not as a rare exception, but as the practical daily norm.  So in order to address the issues that come from this conflict between the cross‑border Internet and national jurisdictions which is what is the digital society that we want to build together?  Who sets the norms?  Who implements them?  Who enforces them?  We have to reconcile three objectives that are often presented as impeaching and we believe can be reconciled.  And as you see here, they have a cross border intermet that we care about, we need to reconsile the fight against abusers.  And the list seems to expand by the day.  Preserve human rights and at the same time, entering a vibe rapt digital economy.  When I say vibe rapt, it means it can work for small actors like big actors.  And I insist on this, I use the word reconcile rather than balancing.  Balancing always gives an impression you have to sacrifice anything.  You correct those three things together.

So that's the general landscape.  As you will see, we will present the work that is being done in three very concrete issues that are often in the press and that require a careful cores.  Those three topics are how do you insure when a crime is committed somewhere, you have authorities to have the capacity to Robbtain the information, digi‑related studies needed to conduct the conversation across boarders?  The second 1 is what are the rules that should apply to the take down or the reflections of content or major user generated platforms?  And the third one is under which conditions should or could a domain name in the DNS system be taken down because of the activity of the content on the site underneath?

So with that, I will give the floor to Paul who is the deputy director to explain a little bit more what the organization is about and the activities and we will then go among other things to the three moderatorsf the content Group discussing each of those issues at the moment.  Paul, you're next.

>> PAUL GHENT:  Welcome, everybody.  So for those of you who don't know the Internet and jurisdiction policy network, very briefly.  It is a multilife stinger holder.  It schedules many key entries.  From over 40 countries around the world.  This is to Republican able multi‑stakeholder corporations between those seconders in order to help them develop the necessary policy standards and solutions to precisely those three challenges.  If I can have the next slide, please.

The sectarian has three main missions.  Connect, inform and we try to surface to connecteddive tissue.  We have organized or painted in over 140 events since 2012 to raise awareness and to build this policy network as it is today.  And we also come to this in a second.  Since between the 16, the Internet and jurisdiction globalizing Global Conference that took place in number of this here to the left which is ‑‑ they will have to go over in a bit.

Next to connecting, another core mission is to enable evidence based policy and innovation.  Other mission is to inform the different stakeholders about the ongoing trends and initiatives so that there can be an evidence based dial up.  There's the INg observatory network between leading experts and from 28 universities to work from over 70 countries, there isn't if you have not seen it and I encourage you to visit.  It works since 2012 in an open access form with cases and examples that are fully so muchable for more than 300 countries today.  We will come to this soon.  We will also launch status reports on the state of youris diction on the Internet.  And the core mission is to advance the development of shared train works of policies standards and policy solutions in the three Groups putting the programs and data and content and domain sent jurisdiction.

It is structured which goes from establishing a common understanding of what is the problem among the different actors to defining then areas for corporation.  Within those areas of corporation, concrete policy options where the actors see it needs to happen, but also can happen come a pragmatic way.  Then come to operation solutions.

On the next slide, it shows basically the time line between the Global Conferences from the first one tod third one next year.  You see that the this of the Robert conference took place in Nairs.  They established areas for corporation.  Based on those and things to intersession of work and contact Groups, there was an input document which was the so‑called policy numbers that are available on all websites, if you want to read trim right now, coordinators will explain in detail that preparing based on the road map proposes for operational solutions that will be discussed in Berlin.

If I can have the next slide, please.  I want to take the opportunity to thank the government of Canada and also the institutional partners, the OCD, UNESCO, the European counsel who are supporters and with this, I would like to give the floor to Lisa who is the senior analyst.

>> Lisa:  Good afternoon.  It is a pleasurey to be here today and bridge some equal I would like to thank Paul and inviting me to speak todayas policy, I work with government of Canada and the department of innovation, managing the Internet Governance team to representing Canada at the governmental ‑‑ we think IGF remains a key place to build momentum for this type of global and bottom‑up multi‑stakeholder efforts.  We think it is also crucial not only to preserve this but empower.  This multi‑stakeholder collaboration and innovation because there is a real need to reinforce it.  The Canadian government had the pleasure to co‑host and participate with the Canadian registration and this took place in Oottawa.  The Ottawa conference brought about 250 global from more than March organizations and Aca deemia.

We know the outcome of the conference was a major milestone in the global governance space where participants adopted as Paul mentioned the Ottawa radio map.  The men ester of science and economic development.  There are key principles for Canada.  The Ottawa conference has expertise and has stakeholders in advance ways we can address this challenge when it comes to the core existence of borderless internet and national jurisdictions in a coordinated way and really driving to policy coherent.  That was a key message.  I gave a choice to each player.  You will know most online interactions and data flows involves location of users, servers or techic in at operators ‑‑ them raises liability, human rights, legal or operational issues among others.  The Ottawa Roadmap consists of work plans with common objectives and also structuring questions in the three work streams that were discussed mentioned elder, across border content takedown and access to use the data and third, a cross border main suspension.  They have been guiding the work taking place in Billing in 2019.  The object irv is to really focus on development of frameworks, of common stands and operational solutions.  It is ambitious the task is not AC, but by work together we are making good process.  I us wanted if highlight that our ‑‑ I wanted to highlight that we have various levels within the government and has also strengthend our collaboration across the various government departments including justice, Canadian.  This has insured interdisciplinary consideration of policy issues.  After the Ottawa conference, we exchange notes and we are participating at the expert level and the different contact groups.  We're also happy to have Robert Young, our colleague from global affairs as one of the main coordinators of the data condetective Group.

So in conclusion, we want to encourage everyone to continue to be aware of the linkages and cross cutting implications with across the different content Groups.  I think that is something very important.  We would also like to recognize the immense efforts that all participants of the policy network have been leading intersectionary to develop bottom‑up.  It collects solutions.  We think the multi‑stakeholder efforts are pivotable for doing the conversation and we have been trying to identify cong create and practical steps that can be implemented and that have the potential to scale.  So we think it is about finding imaginative approaches, integrating innovation and policy development and promoting procedural inter.

>> thank you very much other Luisa.  If I can have the next slide and Luisa mentioned already those key points.  I encourage everyone in the room if you haven't done so, you can kind the road map on the website.  I recognize ‑‑ there were six main outcomes.  One is a call for more legal certainty in cyberspace.  It was reassessed there is policy standards and frameworks and also insure policy coherent.  There was a renewed commitment to collaboration and join to action also happening in the multi‑stakeholder contact Groups.  We have come to optatives and work plans in just a second.  I want to highlight another outcome we want to announce if I can please have the next slide on the oheration of the forum here for questions ‑‑

Responding to this call and enhance the secretariats efforts to provide evidence based policy information, there was really a call for more policy coherence in the ecosystem.  It took hours at the Global Conference that assembled experts from all the different stake holder Groups to understand what are the different processes in the different areas, who does what?  What laws are adopted where and I think this was a very strong call to which the secretariate we responded to.  We'll launch the world's first data support from the road map.  It is trends.  The relevant factors who propose solutions to those challenges and it is based on an unprecendented data collection with the jurisdiction policy network in addition to ale view I invite people to participate in early 20 Penn that the world status report can be launched in time in Berlin.  If I can please have the next slide.  I want to mention that the outcomes were presented to various international organizations and meetings and we're very happy also that it was marcheses ‑‑ if I can have the next slide, which might be a little bit small, but in a nut shell, there are three contact Groups about 35 people that are dealing with each of the three programs that I mentioned earlier.  We have cross‑border user and on a cross border restrictions and on boss border dommain inspuckses.  The Groups and started working in July.  They would have a certain number of meetings and one physical meeting in stairs at the end of January or beginning of much, Moi Wim together well 120 people.  Together they have self‑working Groups that d NA will have some issues to go into detail on what can be farm riced.  This process will end in so that beginning of march and beginning of April and June, the conference willitage cake in Berlin and there will knowch ‑‑ I want to highlight one thing.  Paul mentioned a notion of methodology.  We are trying to navigate a very narrow path between documents what is, which was already useful, but not sufficient.  And going too far in the direction of something that would be Norma, we should we to be atal.  Here ‑‑ what if people were willing to move a little bit in one direction so that the other except make a little movement as well.  The end result will still remain voluntary, but this is why we use the expression policy standard.  It is like a technical standard.  It has no forcibility, but the fact that it works or not.  So there's a critical mass of directors, and it makes the system work.  Very difficult in the early days, things that worked resist.  Make things that are useful for people so that governments, companies, society anters can see and have a better understanding of what the others are doing and how they will behave and to make it fun for our friends from the ICANN community.  Think of it as neutral information.  This is the time time.  So the key horondon is Berlin, but it doesn't top inspect KWRAOP for the things that have progressed and if you guys were willing to test and implement and work to operational the proposals.

With that, I would like to move to each of the working Groups or the contact Groups.  I will ask Robert Young who has the legal council of the departmentf global aware in Canada and if you could ‑‑ yes.  You're on the next slide already.  And Robert, you have the floor.

>> Robert:  I will give my remarks in English, but happy to answer questions in either of Canada's official language.  I have the work of the at and the ‑‑ I liver in Ottawa and I forget about the road map.  When I walk to work every day, I cross over a couple of historic bridges in Ottawa Wau under which better reland Paul and I did some passing.  I am unaim to forget that I am supposed to do something in Paris for them, but also for the broader community.  That's worked out to simulate our work.

Maybe briefly remind you of the common objective for our data and jurisdiction Group.  It has six points.  I will read it and it is in the work plan and website.  The common objective was a definition of procedure.  Everyone ‑‑ there were investigations defining certain types of crimes with a clear nexus with the requesting country to submit structured and due process respecting requesting to private companies in another corpry to obtain the voluntary exposure of the user data.  We have begun our work and I am happy to tell you that it is proceeding well.  We are able to meet as a Group most of us with video and chat finks Republican aimd from four or five contents during every one of our calls.  I can't tell you how many time zones are involved.  I won't miss the numbers of our Group, but I think the list can come up here on the screen.  I invite you to take a minute and have a look on the Internet to see the folks who have volunteered to be members of that Group.  It represents all major stakeholder Groups.  Governments, Civil Societies and so on.

So let me take a moment before I talk to you about the work of the Group so far just to thank the members of the Group.  Quite a number are here at IGF and in the room.  We wouldn't be able to make progress on our work without their threadication.  Our work is proceeding and in eye very chordinal manner.  It is not withstand something very different and in times competing perspectives about priorities.  What should we determine upon how the problems should be addressed.  It make for rich discussions and the respectful approach means we are able to move forward in a meaningful way.  I think although I work for the Canadian government now, I spent much of my exitee working for the community of the read cross.  I think that Paulrin right cand me to play this real as Newt ‑‑ I'm sorry to report, there bench no one conflict in the jurisdiction Group.  They have been chordinal and respectful.  Rime not sure my experience is as relevant as might have been thought.  We had guiding questions.  We had 15.  So amongst ourselves, we decided to focus on four.  Areas where we think we can make the most progress quickly.

So based on our discussions today, I'm quite confident that we're going to be together in the contact Group, identified areas where we can make tangible progress.  So what I American to say is I expect we'll deliver concrete proposals to the larger community including you in order to be consider ther.  So I won't discuss all of our work work ‑‑ first is intepractice oprage requests.  I will say we use the firm requests, about our members say what requested often involve orders.  We know they're a multi‑use.  So the diversity of these is positive because it means solutions have been crafted by different actors to meet their needs whether a company that wants framework for incoming request, whether it's a government or something thatch ‑‑ so it gives us a growing collection of best practices.  The same time, in some ways it adds to the operable challenges.  At this stage, I don't think it would be easy.  Nor would it be starrable to try and develop request in orders, if it ever was possible and desirable.  Our Group is focusing on the development of a proposal that would harmonize rather than search warrantized on the issue of requests formats.  This is done through development of what we're calling for short tags.  We mean categories that can be identified common elements in the different kinds of orders and requests for data.  It means if there's a different system between one country and an industry and another, by having tags, it allows us to connect them and speaking the saint language even though we have the different system.

Second is mutual identification.  We all know trust is essential.

So the work we're doing in that work Group is looking at feasibility at points of contact.  Some method or methods are preverifying requests or orders in a sense country control.  We'll have to describe it that way, but that means we have some trust in orders that are acrossing boards and arriving at your door step.  The thieved carry of where I think we'll have something to say by spring, this is the vitalern of scale act.  It is sharing down a across border that can be called up for harder ruse.  Sometimes there are different approachess that are developed as different agreements ever made bilaterally, with partners and sometimes we have to recognize that those approaches might exclude others.  Scale ant challenges us how some things might be adopted to a separate setf stake holder.  I touch on them with some other issues.  There is ‑‑ we need to see how to make tents bigger to allow more ploy players.  With the diverse human talent in the data and jurisdiction count down Group, I want to share minnow mative and actual incomes by next spring.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you very much, highlight.  There are many initiatives that are already existing and they were addressed that took place just before this.  And the initiative in the counsel of Europe.  One of the key words is the question of interoperable and standards for requests is one of the key elements.  And scalability and how it can expand to cover as many countries as possible with respect 1:30.  There was the director of the institute and the ‑‑ also at humble institute for Internet and society and he is the coordinator‑for‑the content and jurisdiction contacted Group.

>> Thanks so much for that and thanks for all your support.  I'm from Berlin, not from Ottawa.  But be prepared.  We have some things there as well.

So the content and your jurisdiction contact Group started obviously as well as the others and the outcome of Ottawa.  It was a list of 13 different issues and questions which we all agreed should be the BASIS for the work and the outcome we want to produce for Berlin.  And the members of the contract Group ‑‑ can I have the slide, please.  That is extremely diverse as well.  All the Groups that Paul has mentioned are represented in this Group.  And just to show you how diverse this Group actually is, we have supporters of the network enforcement.  I believe we can make a difference when these different positions and stakeholder Groups come together.  Otherwise, we will not come to practical solutions here.  So I think this Group is the perfect bases when it comes to contact and jurisdiction issues.  My thanks to the work that was gone here and the members of the contract Group.  Rhyme sure we can come up with tangible cut.  I will only touch some issues of cause because it is extremely complex, as you can imagine.  The first one is the contact Group about taxonomies.  We have a process off the many issues that we had discussed in Ottawa.  Taxonomies are the most important things and you might think upon if you think go categorizing tampon types, it can be extremely helpful when you categorize them from the degree of harm.  We might develop tax anomies for policy makers, companies and things as well.  You have a tax conomy that's been agreed on with regardsf frame or eminent harm.  There are other things we are discussing with colleagues and working Groups discussing here.  Different types of actors and very often just talking about specific actors because it is so obvious.  You go there are many ‑‑ one idea that's been brought up in discussions is can we finally work out something like a principle ‑‑ there's a whole been decided as one of the extremely important issues that have come up ‑‑ we have a working Group to deal with.  One element that is discussed here is user notification and the possible notice and take down approaches and things like that are to be discussed here and, of course, often neglected element of appeals.  John‑judicial procedures allowing us to appeal will be discussed in this working Group.

To wrap it up, I believe we are in a good position and we are working hard to do that and again, my thanks to the members of the content ‑‑ contact Group.  Thanks much.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you very much.  It brings us to the third and last contact Group on the main jurisdiction.  I want to highlight one thing that's very important is we'll know there's an organization called ICANN that deals with most of the issues related to domains and this ‑‑ the domains and contact Groups are issues that are not within the ‑‑ there is no overlap and it is related to the question of should or not and when domain name be taken down because of the content that is under the activity that is underneath.  For that, I want to give the floor to Maarten Botterman who is director of GKNS consult, but also for those of you that would know him, director on the ICANN board.  As in the case of Robert Young earlier, this activity as coordinator of contract Group is considered as independent from their position of the ICANN board or in the government of Canada.  We are very appreciative of their willingness to play that role.  Maarten?

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN:  My interest will be on that.  I'm very happy to support work of Internet and jurisdiction because it is a clear issue they need to address.  It is changing thanks to the Internet and, ah, enhance my interest.

So, this is really about how do we go along with this in the main suspension across boarders?  Very much a topic that you confronted this more and more every day.  So I'm very happy that you have working Groups going and bringing it together.  People who are seeking main takedowns who are providing the main take downs, the registries and registrars.  Because you can only find a good one forward if you work together on this.

In this, we distinguished very importantly that we need to look at first full taxonomies.  What is the common concepts?  What is the vocabulary we do?  Which words do we use?  Knowing you took it from a global level, you have different meanings and different things and different cultures and different jurisdictions.  So that's the first thing.  We have a working Group on that which is shared by the person in the room.

Another part is then if you look to notices.  How do you know ‑‑ how does a notice look if you want to effectively handle on it?  This means that it's good to have a common understanding of how this works.  Now, having in the working Group all day receive those.  We get practical feedback from those people.  Sometimes they just don't know where to send them.  We didn't think of that before.  That's a practical thing.  What is the content you need to handle on a very practical thing.  We see they're together with the practitioners in the field.  And those who think about how this is working across boarders and legal background, et cetera.  We came to concepts to help us forward.  When we have notices and then you know what we talk about.  The next step is due process.  This is in the end holding us liable and makes us act according to what is expected from us.  How does this work in international environment.  How do you deal with that?

Now, in the discussions that we had and ultimately also reporting back of those working Groups, it becomes clear of this which is really about and how do we get the right information?  How do people know where to send the notice?  What process to Phil is out and what contents requirements are there.  There are ways of automation with the processes possible.  Not having the illusion and everything will be automated.  This will be an important element to make this doable without doubling, tripling and folding the prices of managing Internet accounts.  So you really need ‑‑ we try to establish best practices for this multi‑fires and last but not least, the criteria for your notification.  You are involved in preparation for this more concrete in Berlin.  I realize amongst my colleagues because it may be 2020 to them.  I'm not sure.

[Laughter]

>> Some bridges.

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN:  With this, I can say I am very much appreciative of the Group work the secretariat is doing.  The people working as volunteers and they're really grasping the discussions and feeding back lists with suggestions, seats as they call it.  It becomes possible for this Group of volunteers to be rather effective and achieve the best possible and I look forward to presenting those results in Berlin.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you very much, Maarten.  It is achieving the last ratio time spent to results.  There is very little knowledge that is sufficiently shared around how the DNS functions and when it is appropriate to do something at that level because in a nut shell, when you take down the domain name, it has a global impact and it cannot be in response to a legality that is at the local level.  So there is a real tension in that regard.  And understanding of the techniques that are in place and conditions of the which ‑‑ they provide guidelines for larger communities.

With that, I will make just one comment that after Ottawa, we made a significant effort to extend the outreach of the policy network.  In particular towards Africa with interactions with the African Union and we are going to put great emphasis on the year 2019 in that regard.  But also there was Latin America which already was regionals on that we have interacted with significantly.  And in particular, we have the relationship with the economic condition for Latin America of the UN, which has become actually the additional institutional partner institutional support for the third world conference.  And we will ‑‑ Paul and I travel next week to Santiago in Chile where we organize with the Latin economic commission of Latin America.  A special session in Latin America on issues we're discussing today.

So with that, it's my pleasure to allow the joint ministry to have the last word before the questions as Germany ‑‑ Germany is the government partner for the third Global Conference of the Internet and policy network that will take place from 3 to 5th of June.

>> SPEAKER:  Thank you so much.

>> PAUL GHENT:  Thank you so much.  It has been shown what the great work of Internet and jurisdiction policy network is and that is also the reason why we as a German government and ministry, but I would say the whole government are very much committed to the process and that's also why we are not only actively working in all the three work streams that has been presented here with our different line ministries and beyond from Civil Society from the economy sector.  It is also the reason why we have decided already some time ago to volunteer and be the host country of the next to third international conference.  That will take place in Berlin from the 3rd to 5 of June next year.  We see a line going from Ottawa to Berlin and staying there in Berlin to the next IGF in November.  So what we would really like to achieve and I am confident that will be possible to have very concrete tangible outcomes and results of the INJ conference in Berlin that we can feed into the IGF 2019 in November.  And that is actually also a little bit spirit we would like to see for the IGF in a general manner not for it to be a one‑time event every year, but to be somehow underpinned and fed by a process during the whole year into a sessional process.  I think internal jurisdiction and questions being dealt is with one good example of how this could advance discussions that come to concrete outcomes and tangible proposals and results.  We are ‑‑ we are committed.  We are very happy to be part of the process and very proud to be part of the process and, um, we are very much looking forward to host the Internet and jurisdiction policy that works international conference in Berlin in June next year.  And, um, hope to see most of you there and thank you very much for letting ‑‑ giving us the opportunity to be part of this great undertaking.  Thank you.

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN:  It's a mutual thank you because we're really happy to have the partnership with Germany.  Before we open the floor, I want to make a bridge with what we were saying before as a follow up to Taiwan.  It is happening with Germany and we are extremely happy about that.

A few years ago, those issues were by the Internet monks, but this was a very limited Group.  You might remember we were hoping from one conference to the next.  But it is much more people.  You see the government and it includes the ministry of affairs and ministries of justice, data protection, it can also concern the cultural ministries and the list goes on.  So I am extremely happy to see that because we cannot establish that in the preparation for the Ottawa conference, the connection between the different ministries in Canada is continuing in that regard and also between the people who participate in the different contact Groups.  I am extremely grateful because the ministry of economic and energy organize the last week in Berlin.  We were in Berlin for a discussion with the different ministries in Germany that I involved.  And the ministry of economy.  Also you work enough to invite a certain number of anters from the ‑‑ actors from the city.  It broadens the diversity, but also the diversity of actors in the business sector.

With that, we have another good 25 minutes for any questions that you may have to us, to the coordinators or to the respective hosts.  And the floor is yours.  I suppose there should be mics or you have at your table the mics.  The floor is yours.  There was one remote question that is too far ‑‑

>> It says how do corporations possible without digital trust on an international level?  That is from (?)

>> I have an answer.  Does anybody want to answer the question of international trust and what is the relation with corporation?  Maarten?

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN:  Should be interest to everybody in the end, but that doesn't mean there will be full peace and harmony in the world after.  But the invitation is in the open invitation to participate in this and that's all we can do.  It's on the table.

>> Maybe just add an observation from the global affairs.  We see trust is at a particularly low ap today.  But I draw hope that's been mentioned there.  There are common interests.  If we can have a space station in space that has two global powers that are cooperating even though they don't see eye to eye on earth, we can cooperate and build trust for cyberspace.

>> MODERATOR:  Before we take a question from the floor, my answer is that trust cannot be decreed.  It's something that is being built.  It is being built through interactions.  This is the reason why it is important to bring people around the same table.  Let's be honest.  A little bit nudge them into seeing them they have a problem in common rather than with each other.  It is through the provision of a neutral and safe space.  Let me explain.  In many situations, people when there is mistrust and there is still mistrust between companies and government too often, in those cases, people say as long as you don't do X, there is no way you're going to do Y.  You can stay like this for ages.  Corporation and trust are actually sort of spiral.  It can go down when trust is being destroyed or it can go up when it is built progressively.  For those of you familiar with guarantee, corporation is also something that is a decor of a situation and you know that the only reason they do is because there is no communication between the people making decisions separately.  The whole message that we send is that before you get to corporation, you need communication and knowing what the others are doing and planning to do because in those cases, people are working in silos and they're trying to solve the problems under the pressure emergency with enough taken into account of what is the ripple effect.  So communication, then coordination and then in the end, potential corporation.  But if you try to us, right of the bad one there is not trust and I think the feeling that is in the working Groups and contact Groups is also the result of the web that has been conducted since 2012 progressively engaging different actors and convincing them there is an interaction.  I saw a question in the back.

>> AUDIENCE:  I covered at the beginning I came just a tiny bit late.  I was wondering if anyone had any insights on data embassies?  There was proposed legislation that I became involved that basically my reading was sitting jurisdictional issues to the home country of a business in order to attract foreign director investment in a particular country.  I'm wondering if this type of proposal is something that would advance trust among nations or lead to tension.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  Any other question?  No.  I like your question very much.  I will ask people on the panel to see whether they have an answer, but I would like people in the audience or in the room who are as knowledgeable about those issues.  Anybody in the room?  Is there anybody in the room that is from Estonia?  Who knows why I ask if there is somebody from Estonia and from luxum berg?  The story is the following.  If I say anything wrong, tell me.  Estonia, for whatever reason wants to make sure public data is secure in any kind of situation.  Instead of having an answer that saysd solution to data sovereignty is the localization in my country, they say no, no, no.  The solution to our security is to have a back up data thing somewhere else.  And they struck a deal with luxem berg to have a representer toy that is actually one of the things that I understand can be labeled at that embassy that allows Estonia to back up everything in a safe environment data center in luxem berg that is under that.  I think it is a very interesting question to explore.  This is a landscape changing a lot.  It is a tech embassy door to Silicon Valley.  When you talk about the Cloud, there's a Cloud act.  But the Cloud as such and the collection of data centers around the world, that might be a very interesting discussion about is there a regime for the Cloud that is emerging that says think of it as a global network of data centers and nobody cares or should care where they are located really.  What we need is what is the authority of any actor to access this information irrespective of where it is located.  And second, what is the extent of one particular sovereign government in the dat centers in this country?  That's a simple formulation.  I don't mean the solution is easy.  Is that what you meant or is there another concept?  I am not able to at the moment.  The jurisdiction would rest with the country of origin of the company.  Let's say the U.S. and that in order to attract those companies to come to country X, they would agree that all laws subject to interaction of citizens of country X would actually be under the jurisdiction of the U.S.  Is the formulation that I saw described to me as data embassy.  Sounds like what you are describing is better named data embassy.  I am describing what I saw.

>> MODERATOR:  Very interesting.  A quick remark and I want to say to people this is a comment that may look pedantic sometimes.  For those of you familiar with the manual count, there is the concept of the critical imperative which is basically if you want to know without any reference to any supreme being or morals or whatever whether it is something you been to do or not, just imagine who would happen and how we do if everybody else were doing the same.  If you don't like the results, you don't do it.  If you like the results, it might spread.  In legislation, this is a test case like rubber hitting the road that should be done.  Every time a policy is by the company or government, you should have the account test.  What would happen if everybody were doing exactly the same?  In that case, we would know more about the proposal.  I think it might be interesting to apply the contest on this one.  Any other questions?  We still have time or were we so clear that there was no ‑‑ yes.

>> AUDIENCE:  I think you might have a remote participation question.

>> MODERATOR:  Sorry.  Is there ‑‑ thank you.  Can you read it?  Because I can't.

>> AUDIENCE:  I can incorporate ‑‑ the corporate that is run under the U.S. jurisdiction, can I deprive other countries of the right to access and digital resources like CCLD services on the legal verdict after ‑‑ wow.

>> MODERATOR:  Maybe ‑‑ ICANN is.

>> AUDIENCE:  There are other countries on the BASIS of the legal verdict of American courts.  There are sanctions of digital resources like IP addresses and based on OF8 policy in U.S. government.  Is it against the human rights of international.  There are countries and victims of destructive cyber attacks and that was in 2010 with international course filing digital case.  There are procedures for these cases in cyberspace.  And then there was another one.

>> MODERATOR:  There was also another question from the gentleman over there.

>> AUDIENCE:  I would like to know if you in the three hours that you have mentioned are taking the positions and if you have some capacity building (muffled voice) thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  I am not absolutely sure that I understood the part before capacity building.  I don't see it very well.

>> AUDIENCE:  Sorry.  Have you taken into account the position ‑‑ what's the thought from the view point with the supreme court.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you very much.  I will briefly respond to the previous question which is, of course, a very delicate question.  That is out of scope of the process that we're doing.  This is something entirely within the discussions within ICANN and we're trying to provide a space that adds an environment that allows the issues that are not within the ICANN distinction to be addressed.  An additional point is that although the title is Internet, it doesn't mean that we have the capacity to address every single jurisdictional challenge.  This is why the focus was an increment with the members or participants in the policy network to focus on very concrete issues where progress could be made.

The second thing which is where the judges are is a very important one.  Interesting enough, when you talk about governments, you think law enforcement agencies and so on.  And the challenge for judges depending on whether they're in semi‑low countries and you apply the existing law and the spirits and in many cases, many situations, the cases are different or the application of the existing law is raising new questions.  Second thing is and this is not a lack of respect for the judges.  The notion of training judges is not well received usually.

[Laughter]

Which is perfectly understandable.  However, I think and this is something we have thought about for a long time, but I have not implemented yet.  If anybody is interested in trying to build on the actions that are already ongoing in terms of processes involving judges, I believe that there is a time right for serious discussion alongd judges in a free and open manner to think about how they handled this and the fundamental question which is:  Are we going in a direction where judges will not only implement their own national laws or the national laws of the country they are in, but they will begin to have decisions.  They already moved, many of them in the first bucket of personal jurisdiction.  For instance, accepting they have jurisdiction that provide services in the country.  They're providing services is becoming the middle ground between accessible or driving operations.  Whether something is an impact is an interesting case.  Under the case on the right to be deemed, they have neutrality application.

>> SPEAKER:  We have discussed this role of judges intensely.  Paul mentioned that.  They have not had the voice they deserve and the Internet Governance dialogue so far.  What we do actually and now content Group is we check our results in terms of how helpful they can be for judges.  Take again what I mentioned like geographical personality.  If we come up with a taxonomy there, that can be helpful for judges when they decide if they apply the law, the national law this way or that way and therefore can graduate the external effects.  And so we have the perspective of judges about we work in this working Group and you are quite right.  I believe that we could have even more dialogue with judges themselves in the Internet Governance.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you.  The person was asking the question about ICANN and the jurisdiction is reposting and talking about attacks or things like that and so on.  I am sorry, but the topic that we're addressing are out of scope of cyber weapons or the whole question of what is within the remedy of ICANN.  It is unfortunately not in the Rem it of this space.  It wouldn't be appropriate for me in this position to have any comment in that regard.  It's a journey.  You have a question?

>> SPEAKER:  When I came to this network, I had exactly the same question and Maarten can certify that.  I said I don't understand.  Why would they address everything?  We have to think about now.  Why would they speak about that and everything is done and they should be out of our work.

>> MODERATOR:  This is something that's important because they are not to duplicate.  There are things to do outside of ICANN.  I think it's important.  Please.

>> I would like to add one comment in regard to what was being said before about judges.  Just to inform that in Brazil, we have had very interesting experience.  This has been remote by CGI and the President's committee.  There is part nerring with judges and ‑‑ narter inning with ‑‑ partnering with judges and making sure they do the training and capacity building.  And then the goals there they provide the workshop or make sure.  It's important you are correct to make sure that the demand comes from them.  They are only the event.  Otherwise there might be some resistance.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you very much.  That was the Ambassador from the issues in Brazil.  It's the last question, but please go ahead.

>> AUDIENCE:  It's a comment.  I want to build on the judges of training.  I work in the university.  You and I met for the first time in a counselor of university.  They have a training on judges and within the eastern partnership.  I am not sure we have the council if you're here in the room, but this is to build upon the Brazilian experience.  Training judges together with national judges and human rights and Internet clearly the question of Internet is within that.  It will focus as the case for that.  There are initiatives that address the issue that is very significant and has been addressed here, but that is just a complement.  Thank you.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you.  You are absolutely right and I know also from other discussions that UNESCO has had problems regarding judges.  Neigh organize a very, very interesting seminar 4 from the counsel of Europe in Cypress last year.  It was extremely interesting in that regard.

With that, we are thin on time.  I don't want to finish this session without thanking people that took the time this morning to be here.  To Luisa, to the coordinators and also to the facilitators of the working Groups that are in the room and to all the members of the working Group s and con tant Groups that are also in the room and those who are not here because as we said before, nothing would move forward if the spirit of corporation went out shared by them.  And, um, with that, please go to the Internet and jurisdiction site which is Internetjurisdiction.track.  The second is the policy oppositions document that Paul mentioned that was priced as input into the Ottawa conference.  And the third one is the relevant part for each of those three tracks that you were doing.  By the end of March, you will find a fourth level everf documents that will meet the resultness in the preparation of the building conference.  The building conference is by invitation and we are voluntary limiting the amount for various reasons, but also for manageability the number of participants about 280 people.  So there was already a significant WHRAOES ‑‑ but we will open the coming months.  There are expressions of interest and in advance, they will not be able to honor every single request, but please if you are interested, don't hesitate to connect with us and to in due time apply or express your interest in the conference, if that is the case.

With that, I am happy that you attended this session.  I hope it was instructive and I wish you a very good rest of the IGF.

Contact Information

United Nations
Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Villa Le Bocage
Palais des Nations,
CH-1211 Geneva 10
Switzerland

igf [at] un [dot] org
+41 (0) 229 173 678