You are here

IGF 2018 - Day 2 - Salle X - WS65 East-West Commitment as Multi-stakeholders

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: Good morning, welcome to our 90 minutes, workshop, East‑West Commitment as Multi‑Stakeholders. I know, a stakeholder is a very buzzword. And at IGF for years now. And, before I introduce our distinguished speaker, we have ten speakers today. And each of them will have three minutes speech, very brief speech. Their main point regarding multi‑stakeholders. But before I do introduction to them, let me, allow me to do a brief introduction about our workshop theme which is East‑West Commitment as Multi‑Stakeholders. East‑west does not mean geographic locations. We planned this from, for months and you know before we eventually came here. And we have several points and you know we want to address in today's workshop. In the area of Internet Governance, the multi‑stakeholder approach has been wide leave accepted in the international community and well reflected in the declaration, resolution and work practice of international organizations here. The Chinese president emphasized that Internet Governance should be multinational participation and multiple party participation government and technology community, private institutions, citizens should play those roles. So, in both the East and West people have realized necessary to avoid polarizing concept in terms. Internet Governance is complicated, dynamic should seek balance of related parties and each specific case here. But very unfortunately, and in the East and West, approaches could be so different from each other. We really do not have like a one theory sort of, like one size fits for all theories, for all of those developments and you know, formats here. So here we would like, you know, draw a wonderful interplenary and multinations from each, East and West, discuss what that means, multi‑stakeholder, in the 2015, 50th anniversary of the internet birth, and the next 50 years to see how things work out inspired by what we learn from those countries and who participated in this workshop today. Now I want to let you know, begin to introduce our today's speaker, and we all use the order, you know to, to let each of them, give us a brief speech. So first, before doing that, I have to say, you know, very gratefully thanks to the sponsorship and organizations and from communities ‑‑ communication, you know they sent their professor.

>> XINGDONG FANG: To come to here. Without the support, hard to make it here. I would like to say, those who come here to support us. I come from Pennsylvania State University in the United States. Today our first speaker will be, Xingdong Fang, center for internet and society, from university of Zhejiang. Our second speaker will be. Wolfgang Kleinwachter, academic scholar for decades. And speaker three will be, the founder of Asia Pacific networking group and Asia Pacific advanced work group, he developed the first internet in Asia. We are very honored to have him off to join us. Speaker four, the father of the internet in Brazil. And representing northern America. And, speaker, six will be, deputy director of cyberspace and research institute and, from China. And, speaker seven will be the former ICANN member of the multi‑stakeholder and advisory group and will join us, that will be, another special honor for us to have him here. Speaker eight will be joining us, later, very soon, and the director of the foundation and head of Geneva internet platform. Our speaker number nine from India, IT for change in India. Now, first invite speaker one, Dr. Xingdong Fang, from the communication school at Zhejiang.

>> MODERATOR: The multi‑stakeholder term is a buzzword, the fundamental elements of it which is development. Development can really help us to iron out the differences between East/west regarding Internet Governance. It is very important for us to keep the theory and approaches of multilateral or multi‑stakeholders approaches open, transparent and do not try to fix in one approach.

Multi‑stakeholder really means several several play a varying roles. In developed countries and the balance you know is much better in terms of government's role, corporate world and civil societies. Well in developing countries the balance between those major players are not well balanced.

But how exactly we sort of like merge the balance or imbalance between developing and developed countries in terms of Internet Governance and development will be the key word. We would like to reach how the multi‑stakeholder approaches by doing exactly, the history of internet pioneers in the past decades. We interview those people who can make significant contribution to the internet progress in the first 50 years of the internet and say how they approach this and we could get inspired and they also could inspire us to find a new ways to go to a balanced Internet Governance. For those people who have not on the internet, 90% of them come from developing countries and should focus even more on those community and people and, you know, how they could play a role in the future balanced Internet Governance. Thank you.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Next, we will go to Wolfgang, how about you introduce yourself first. And start there.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Thank you, I am glad to be here, to talk about what is in the title, East‑West cooperation and collaboration. President Macron said yesterday, there is an impression in the world that we have two different internet, based on seas, the California internet and Chinese internet. And Macron offered third way, than the business dominated California internet and more state dominated Chinese internet and saying Internet Governance has to be based on the rule of law, regulation made in a multi‑stakeholder environment. I think this was the new touch President Macron gave in his speech. He was in favor of creating regulatory frame works but not in the traditional sense that the regulation should be made, dropped down by governments, but should emerge in a process with the involvement of all different stakeholders. I think this is really a very interesting concept. It is also a challenge for the future. Because this has been never done before. And since the ‑‑ since the world summit on the information society, we have experimented with button‑up policy development processes. I was a member of the United Nations working group on Internet Governance which also proposed to establish the ITF, Internet Governance Forum. In this group we proposed a definition for Internet Governance which includes three interesting elements which you know should be reconsidered looking into the future because this definition is really a very interesting, includes a very interesting and ‑‑ and far forward-looking language. The first thing in this definition was that. You need all stakeholders and Internet Governance elements in their respective roles. That means, government, civil society and the business and technical community have to play their role. No stakeholder can substitute another stakeholder. It means the business cannot substitute a government. The government, you know, has a special role, so civil society has a special role. And I think this is the challenge how to bring the stakeholders based on more or less equal footing into a mechanism where they can share policy development and decision making. I think this was the second element in the definition, Internet Governance is about sharing, sharing of principles, norms, programs, and decision making. I think this is really new and this is what Mr. Macron said yesterday, we have to learn to share decision making. This is complicated because governments have their own decision‑making procedures which are more or less isolated. In the best case they consult with nonstate actors. But here, you know, if we are looking into the 2020s, we have to go beyond this mechanism. And bottom up processes you have to have, you know, a new form of collaboration, coordination, communication, this has to be flexible processes. Where everybody in their, in their respective role, can contribute to an outcome which is not predefined. I think this is really an important element which is new. In internet policymaking. I was impressed by the Secretary‑General of the United Nations, Mr. Gutierrez. And, one of cochairs, Melinda Gates. Come up with proposals which go against our traditional understanding of the international law, defined in the U.N. charter more than 70 years ago. So, I think both China and some other countries put sovereignty as the key element in their, in their international policy. So, if you go deeper into the understanding what sovereignty means, I think everybody agrees that sovereignty is a key principle. And the whole system of the United Nations is based on the principle of equal sovereignty. And but if you go deeper, you could say, in the United Nations charter the concept is embedded into the other principles which include, international collaboration. So that means it is a concept of collaborative sovereignty, you cannot execute sovereignty by ignoring the interest of other sides. And you know, the challenge now of sharing, you could go of even to the next step and say, you have to share. With others. We have one world, one internet. We have how to learn to live together and work hand in hand. While we have different cultures, different histories, different approaches. I think if it comes to the internet we should try to define a common understanding which is based on this different, differences, based on different histories, cultures, accept this. Because nobody can, dictate another side, what they have to do. But we should look forward and going beyond our traditional institutions and mechanisms and be open for the proposals which are made in the yesterday by the French President. Thank you very much.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Next, we are going to, a professor from China.

>> Thank you. I will be speaking Chinese.

>> MODERATOR: It is my great pleasure to discuss a shared topic at a very special place. Everybody still remembers the day before yesterday and we remembered the end of the first world war in Paris. This event had to really show us we do have the shared point and for human beings. We are leaders of those people who are fighting the war in World War I and came together and in Paris and have tried to find a way to end the war and all other wars. The internet is really a product of human civilization. And it is contained the efforts from both developing and developed countries. I believe those people who believe multistakeholders and participants and have shared the same hope that let the internet be transparent and shared platform for all people. I still remember when I led a delegation of Chinese experts to visit the United States and discuss our shared concern and issues. At that forum, the two sides of experts began to blame each other and U.S. side blamed China to let limits on the internet. Was a Chinese expert, and blamed U.S. too much regulations on the internet? At that forum I made a speech regarding, you know, many say two people from the two countries and shared the same ideas. The government, the governments we have ‑‑ may have their own ideology agendas and cooperate in the world they may have their own business interest, but academics should overcross the gap between the two sides. It seems to me the multitasker ‑‑ multi‑stakeholder and multilateral approaches should seek to find common ground. Instead of just focus too much on differences. We all know like in sciences and not of research we are conducting in the labs and many of the research effort could end up to be a failure. In the cyberspace I think in the way of doing experiments regarding human civilization in the future. In this new experiment in cyberspace you can definite propose, another, approaches, principles, theories, and all of those, propose should leave room of development. So, my final words will be and let's focus on the shared future of our civilization instead of like a focus too much on our differences in the cyberspace. Thank you.

>> MODERATOR: I appreciate professor's discussion and I know his own words, especially I feel so inspired by his focus, shared community and we have in the cyberspace instead of focus too much on differences. Next, I would like to introduce, our speaker from Brazil.

>> Thank you. It is an honor to be invited to be on this panel. And we heard three very interesting, very intelligent speeches before mine. And just to go a little bit farther in the Brazilian case. we began the internet connection in the end of the '80s. We have some structures that are typical in Brazil and in some way, I think represents the spirit, original spirit of the internet. We got internet steering committee by decree, but not a governmental body. It is really a multi‑stakeholder I think. Even predating ICANN, Brazilian steering committee from '95. In Brazil, the internet is recognized as added value over the telecom. In this case we are not under the umbrella of the regulator of the telecom, the internet could grow and flourish in a very fast and easy way without any kind of bureaucracy or something like this. And I think, it was very good for the Brazilian internet, we, we have some good figures if we compare our growth with other parts of the world. Anyway, another interesting point I want to stress is we have some kind of synergy between the management of top level domain and we use the resource from the administration to foster. We hosted two IGF meetings, and also, this is good synergy, I think we can profit from. We use also the spare of this research to, to support the Brazilian computer, security focal point for Brazil, and also to get statistics for the internet. Be involved it IGF and other related forum. Just to point again, we had in 2014, in Brazil really a multi‑stakeholder event that produced two documents, two quite good documents on principles. And I think this is very, very important for the internet. Just to finish, with this short comments. I think we are in facing a situation where the technology is pushing forward in a very strong way. And we have to keep in mind that normally we have to preserve human values. We have to preserve ethics values, moral values. And of course, you have to get some kind of sustainability to this technology push. Unless we will be lost in an unknown future. We live in interesting times, this is not always a good thing. Thank you.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Professor, from Brazil. Next, I'm honored to introduce, Deputy Director of Cyberspace Institute of China.

>> Thank you, thank you everyone. It is very important to discuss about, and it is about trust. We talk about different kind of model. Such as, multi‑stakeholders. And multilateral. And others. Back to the original idea, we can discuss about and we can analyze how about the countries' relationships. Maybe it is a competition. Maybe it is cooperation. We can think about it. What kind of things? Every relationship we will have, but also, that it exists right now. How about enterprises relationship? In the same market. Maybe it is also competition. Maybe, some can share market. Maybe also cooperation. How about an institution? How about think‑tank relationship? We are all collaborative. What we can wall research. We can discuss about the same things. We can discuss different things. How about to the citizens' relationship? We can't make every citizen sit here. We want everyone to be our friend. Not our enemy. So, when we face to the united governance, to the society, cybersociety, we must think about, the different, different level for the entity. If we put the country, put the government, but to the enterprises and citizens, the customers, to the similar, it is very difficult. Because that is different kind of requirement. From the eastern to the western, each country, each area has their own demands in the governance. But today, we are face the same risk and the challenges. Such as, AI, as security, such as artists, and such as others, other new technologies, and, new products, that bring us new, new use. But also, at the same time. It gives us a new risks. So, when we think about this ‑‑ the same risk and the same challenges, what we can do? What we can deal with is the problems. I think maybe it's quite different for different countries, different entities, because they have different matters to deal with it because in development they stay on a different stage. They make their different decision making. And this different result. And at the same time, from the ‑‑

From the agricultural age we know strategy and resources for ourselves maybe is ‑‑ is the lands. And it provides us food. And in the industrial age, maybe the most we required is natural resources especially for the energy. It can support us in manufacturing. Right now, it is information age. We share the theater. So, when we share theater, we think, we know that the salt is quite different than energy. It can't disappear. So, we think the institution it changed. Things change. Though we think that we want to make some decision. At first, we must know what we need. When we face the same risk and challenges. We must understand not only in China and other countries, we must sit down and to discuss what we truly want to do, what do we want to truly need? Maybe it is cooperation. Or communicate at first. But at the beginning we must trust each other. We must know that, no trust, no cooperation. We must stop it. So, I think it is most important. Thank you.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Director Lee gave us an inspiring speech about multitask shoulders. And next, I will be honored to introduce our speaker, who is living in Paris France here now.

>> Thank you, my background is philosophy. I will like to talk about concepts. I still remember once, when Wolfgang hosted, a panel about universal principle. I talked about what this universal, what is ‑‑ what is principle? Right? So today I would like to talk to two concepts. One is what is a multi‑stakeholder? What is governance? What is governance? I still remember five years ago when I start, started as a member, we talk about multi‑stakeholder. We want to keep balance of ‑‑ government, civil society, private sectors, and technical communities. But I argued, actually, academia is different from NGO if you put them together in civil society. It's not ‑‑ I am happy that recent ‑‑ some of the recent documents separate academia and NGO to different paths. It's not just civil society. Also, once in a discussion about multi‑stakeholders, I argued even this four or five different groups, it does not cover the most important stakeholder. On the internet. That is internet users. I've mean those bloggers, those game players, those young users. Not among the four or five groups. Once I remember I talk about this, my idea about the internet users. In this multi‑stakeholder concepts. One of the most experienced IG scholars disagreed with me. He said, we all are users. I think they are different. I am happy several years ago when I was ‑‑ a member of strategy panel for, to design the future policy, discussed multi‑stakeholders. He also mentioned internet users should be a different part. So, on this ‑‑ on this, we can ‑‑ we can think, we talk about multi‑stakeholders, we mean, equal footing, bottom up. We mean democracy actually. The model is different. It is great, when we have democracy, bottom‑up. Different countries, different cultures may have different ideas. Like in the West, mostly people think the relation between government and people are kind of ‑‑ ‑‑ I won't say enemy, but they have interest conflict. They're different. But in eastern culture, like China, we think we are family. Government is the father. We also, father government as Chinese say. Relationship is different. They're not enemies. The multistakeholder model is so different. Then we talk about what is governance. In China, when we talk governance, it is mostly government. What government do. So, it is not like in the West. But suppose, just, you talk about war, suppose there is a war. This soldier wants to occupy the city. The commander said, okay, team one go East to, to, get into the city. Team two, go to South. The soldier, wait, wait, let's vote. Does it work? It doesn't work? Right? So, when we talk about governance, actually it is not just one, one concept, it is three concepts. One is opinion collecting. So, everyone may have different opinions. We collect different opinions. This one, one of the governments, governance, and another one is, making decisions. Just like that war. The soldiers want to make decisions. Does it work? No, the commander should make decision. The third one is action. How to do that. So, not just stakeholder to my opinion. Mostly works on ‑‑ on the opinion collection. collection of different opinions. Like widely criticized as people just talk. There is no action. But to my opinion, multi‑stakeholder is best, best process, just collect different opinions. But it may not be very good to make decisions or in action. The maybe, I am not very sure. But maybe ‑‑ the only organization Internet Governance can do is three things. Collect opinion, make decision, and action. That is ICANN. But ICANN is only focused on techniques. I remember when I was on the, strategy panel, I was a multi‑stakeholder panel. But another panel is ICANN's role, ICANN's role. So, in breakfast, I asked when he was heading, headed the ICANN. I asked him, ICANN's role is very, very clear. It is root server, domain names, and IP address. Why you want to talk about ICANN's role? Do you want to spend ICANN's role? You want to govern internet content? She'd, no, no, no. ICANN's role is still focused on techniques. So, in short, actually, when we talk about Internet Governance, the best way to show that multi‑stakeholder is collecting ideas, collecting opinion, other than making decisions or action. Thank you.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Professor. Now we are going to our Indian friend, IT For Change, from India.

>> Thank you. So, I just, I think a lot of interesting points. I think, visiting on a lot of things said here. Internet Governance is long past the time where it was technical management of the internet or decisions that the need to be made, standards and guidelines. The internet is written with complexities and more expansive than ever before. Therefore, when we think about multi‑stakeholderism, I think we need to also start thinking how this process needs to be political. And I say this, deliberately. It needs to be Democratic. We can't ‑‑ I just wanted to I think, sort of work out of the word that is in the concept, the idea that things should not be polarized. Agree. Meanings and concepts need new not be polarized. We can't cling to understandings and the in the net and governance and more. think the concept of democracy is important to the multi‑stakeholderism. This is not a new statism. The alarmist thinking of the trials. Not what I am drying to say. There needs to beef an imperative to seek various levels through expertise, the idea, whether it is through consulting or doing more Democratic, taking to new constituencies, closing the feedback loops. And ‑‑ this, this, does, these traditional modes do exist in education and health. I don't think there is any need for us to think the internet is different or exceptional in that regard. In fact, I think given the way the lines between things are falling away and become thinner and thinner. We need to think of the internet. As data becomes the foundational paradigm. We need to start thinking of exceptionalism. It is true that the internet is very cross sectored the new way. We need to think why do bases of experts and expertise, more diverse and informed. Multi‑stakeholderism will also mean inviting constituents to come forward to like the idea, this and similar ones. For example, just, thought of the e‑commerce bill underway in India. Because of the ways in which that affects the lives of small traders, producers, smaller entrepreneurs who may, their engagement with the internet and architectures of the internet may be very limited. But they certainly have a very, very clear understanding of how, e‑commerce and trade regimes discussed now at forums like WTO, etc.

, are having, very, very important consequences for their livelihoods. Weave need to broaden constituencies. Reach out to newer people. Not about technical communities or people in it, and bringing in people from other different social sectors. Yeah, that's where I will sort of stop at this point.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much for your speech. I will comment, speak a little bit of, what's going on. Based on our discussion, I really think like we have a lot of ‑‑ global consensus, expressed to hear, regarding multi‑stakeholders. But it's not forget, there is not a controversial issues and regarding between the East‑West. framework, design. What role the government plays? And how policy advice could be effective leave put into decision making and more. One thing is very, very clear to us. We should not just simply adopt the term of multi‑stakeholder. And find a different ways of, or take actions to really just, realize, and what, multi‑stakeholder will be. So as a, one minute or two. I would like to introduce our, our history of internet. I got involved in the past almost ten years now. This is very ambitious plan. What we are doing, trying to document internet pioneers in the first 50 years of internet growth. What we document, what we preserved for cyberspace and human history. So far, 400 internet pioneers got interviewed. We used our own personal narratives to talk to us why they think like, you know, internet or cyberspace could be important. One way to learn how to keep the internet transparent. Open. And very conductive to the human civilization here. If you want to know more about the project or internet. I'll be happy to answer. Next, I would like to open the floor to everybody in this, wonderful conference's room. If you've have any question for the panelist, speakers. Or any speakers want few add up something more, and you know, please, please raise your hand. Yes, sir, please.

>> AUDIENCE: Thank you for the opportunities. I should introduce myself. I am from Indonesia.

I am doing my PH.D. at university of bars. So, my question is ‑‑ regarding the multi‑stakeholders, especially because between East‑West. We have different culture. Do you think the needs for region institution like European union or more example, like East Asia? It will be more important than before in each region. So, because like for example in, in our ‑‑ it is the economy where there are many regulations. There is no uniformity. Even in like a cybercrime. And cybercrime, just protection, the example. Do you think the need for each region for example? In Europe. In north America, in Africa. And for example. Asia is big. Some receive under of Asia we divide. So, when we want to create uniform team for example for policy and then, law and regulation it will be easier if we do that. If you've collect 99 to agree it will take time. And probably we will never agree to each other. Out when do you think. I am buying this. And also interesting about the, practicality of Internet Governance on the influence in national regulations. I think maybe this is the answer that we will answer the, the question that we will answer next session. Just a curiosity. Thank you.

>> AUDIENCE: Okay. The first secretary of the funder of the IGF, always argued Internet Governance starts at home. At home means phone the national level. The internet is a layered system. You have different layers. I always am that internet policy and internet regulation should be seen also as a system. You have different layers. You are right. That while you can ‑‑

Regulate a lot of issues on the national level. It will become more complex and more difficult if you want to harmonize this on a global level. It means you have to live with such a system where you regulate what is needed on a national level, you look for arrangements on the regional level like in the EU or the Asian countries you mentioned it. And then you have a universal understanding. I think our colleagues from China, made already clear to define what is universal SKWRUBDZ standing is complicates. Different cultures in history. In China, the government is seen like the father of the people. So, the question is, in the western understanding we say the government has how to be accountable to the people. Not top‑down relationship. It is as a culture. With 5,000 years of history that China hasn't experienced this con soap. But of also as a concept. It would be a big mistake. ‑R tried to push the history and culture to the other side. We have to learn to live together by accepting this. And what is universal. What could work? For everybody? And here in of my understanding, the fish principle is do not harm. Whatever you like, don't like. Do not interfere in the internet or other things which would create problems for the other side. Safe restriction is part of this if it comes to the government. And then you know, up on the national level, you will have different forms of multi‑stakeholder, collaboration, on the regional level. You've will different forms. In Europe, European commission believes itself, it is a multi‑stakeholder mechanism. The parliament and the council. And European. They say, no, top down. Need more involvement of the private sector. Civil, it is open for debate. And depends on the subject. Our colleague was right if you've develop policy for the military.

It's different if you've develop management for the system. It's the role of the government off to negotiate treaties for cybersecurity. But it would be wise for the government if they would consult before they sign the treaty which, with nonstate actors. They get the best understanding of what the role of private sector is, what the role of the civil society is. Today not everything is in the hand of government. So, a lot of things, we see it Microsoft initiative was launched. And activities of big corporations. They've own, manage, basic parts, relevant for cybersecurity, you cannot exclude them from policymaking. If it comes to a final decision, final loss, who has decision making capacity based on a certain multi‑stakeholder deciding process. A different thing. So far it is good we do not have one model. That we have, we have, a SRA rye team of different, different forms of multi‑stakeholder approaches. I prefer off to use the terminology. Which gives you've flexibility fee to adjust, you know, to form around the issue and concerning to, the special region or, you know, place where you, where you operate. Everybody should have a word in the process of development. It is now recognized fortunately, worldwide, and President Xi Jinping made this very clear in his big speech in April when he addressed the Chinese community. Thank you.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. I would like to invite feedback and regard with this. You have the honor.

>> AUDIENCE: Thank you for the invitation. Let me take on the comment by the ‑‑ the chief university professors. And those who left previous comment. Looking back on governance ‑‑ Internet Governance, we finished the first page. Completing the first page. We have a multi‑stakeholder reason. Multigovernance. Now, Chinese colleague is sort of, next phase. What is the topic now? We are not really discussing any of the domain name or IP address. Whiff we have been doing since 1970, we spent the last 40 years. And pretty much finished. Now we are looking to the service skills. In cybersecurity, what is the multi‑stakeholder reason? Like for example, let me ask, it is an open process. Open document. Do you think really in surveillance they do open meeting and open document, your work? We had a discussion, they tried to come up with the norms. And they got stuck. And, what about those IOT, IOT governance? Parameter is total difference. You say East‑West. It's, it's much more complicated. Because IOT, most of those are users which is if OT device. Made in Asia. Probably over 95%. Bangladesh, India, they're making most of them. Are they really participating in the process? The IOT, each one, costs $1, 2, 3. We are asking why don't you update. Upgrade. So East‑West is not just traditional, China/USA. Much more ‑‑ complicated. Then to make it even worse. The date of governance, how do we do it? Then internet AI. Many of the issues, Google and Facebook. It is sort of arguing with the European ‑‑ commission. Is, because of those AI. How are we doing, multi‑stakeholder region. With the AI. We came up with the AI principles. Pretty good. Multi‑stakeholder approach. No chance. And so those are the areas, where we should move in. It is urgent. We have to have something. And whatever we did, in the past, the domain name and the IP address, it is pretty much over. People are talking. Even at IGF, how should we do the tradition. We aren't talking about those anymore. We are discussing now, AI, and the security, and IOT, data governance. What kind of model do we need? I guess it is much more complex than just East and West. East‑West is very important. West goes much more. Really good. I want you to move much forward but again, the challenge we have it is very urgent. Like for example, IOTE. it is being deployed. And we have ‑‑ it is all for security problem. We are not inviting people from Bangladesh and India. Making IOT device. They are making it. And there, they never showed up. Because they can't. Typically, a small company working with the five-time people. And making of those, $1, $2 apiece. They can't all come over here. They have to. They're the major stakeholder. Very different from the Internet Governance and IP name and address. I want to have this forum, this workshop. So, they move forward. Addressing each area. The security area. Data area. And AI area. And then I guess we could have a much more productive discussion. Thank you.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Doctor, very, very important there. And that also, makes us thinking not just the adoption of the popular term of multi‑stakeholder. But also the principle standard of engagement, diversity, probability in the stakeholder governance. I appreciate the concept you are mentioning. moving ahead. Not just realize, differences and problems. It's complicated. I will say. But also, dynamic. As long as keep the forum open. And ideas, approaches. We will find a way. How human civilization survived so many years. Next. I would like to invite anyone on the floor, yes, please. The first please introduce yourself.

>> AUDIENCE: Ladies and gentlemen, honorable speakers, thank you so much for your interest in speeches. My name is Roman Chukov. I represent the Russian federation. I shared several ideas which I've want to share here as well. As the global economy drives into a digital economy. Internet is the basic infrastructure for that. There is a crucial need for proper Internet Governance, and as we here discuss the multi‑stakeholder model it should of course imply the ‑‑ several layers of stakeholders. We should not forget national states which should have the state. We should not forget, technical community and companies who have also what is really important is that, serious societies should have this as well. As we see it in Russia. We believe mutual trust. Shared state responsibility. multipole art. Several initiatives have taken place. I believe that we need, some sort of global framework for global contact on fixed row of each stakeholder of all of the ‑‑ this event, and all responsibilities. So, this side. Also, the results are needed to develop. Rules in, in international information space. What is important to avoid cyberarms race. instead, we should contribute cyberconflicts in the future. And TPHOPT to discuss how we should conduct the civil wars. At one point I was hearing here. And what is really important is that we should continue this dialogue. In the next year. I believe that new COHORT will be responsible to add all these ideas to their agenda for the next years. Also, if you are interested in the topics. Please, also, reach out and we can discuss how we can together work on this. Thank you.

>> MODERATOR: Appreciate your input. Do you have any feedback?

>> Thank you. Thank you. I think two things. One is ‑‑ what? Another is how? Also, the former question. The internet users are all under different nations under different government. But the internet is global. That Avenue the problem. I agree with Wolfgang although ‑‑ Internet Governance is limited in ‑‑ in home. But you can add to others. I think there should be something global. Otherwise it doesn't work. Someone in China, hacker, hacked something in Russia. Or in the states. Then the law in Russia ‑‑

In the U.S., cannot ‑‑ what's to sue the hacker in China. What can we do? We need something? Something universal. I challenge the concept. We do need something universal. Or global. And another thing is how. As I mentioned, we have, we were talking governance. We have three parts. Right? So, we ‑‑

We get different opinions like ‑‑

In like something like, IGF. But the decision making and ‑‑ and ‑‑ action, up till now if we talk about global is still international. Although international the concepts of international is politically not correct. In terms of multistakes holder. we talk about action, decision making, we can start from international level. It means among different states, among different governments. Thank you.

>> MODERATOR: Okay, thank you very much. Professor, please.

>> AUDIENCE: I think, the professor's idea, righting now with this very complex eco system. There are so many things so different when compared right now off to the original multi‑stakeholders concept appeared. 20 years ago, there was a little people, access to the internet. Multi‑stakeholders, most based on the technical area. Right now, it is completely difference. And it is a lot of other area. Although I think that, technical approach is a key factors. Also, very important to show the other challenges. But right now, there is a, human beings access off to the internet at least. This is really cyberspace for all of the human beings. So, not only between the East and West. Not only a difference of the area, not only for the cultural, we face the same risk, risks. And the same challenges from the IOT, from the AI, from the, from the, it is the same. It is no difference. Different culture. Different history. Every difference disappeared. We face the same things. So, when they face the same things, we must know how to make the new mechanism to face this problems. In the past, when we think that ‑‑ back to the war surprised in a different part because of the geographic, because of the physical factors. Right now, it is uniform, together. And we must think of the complexity, it is weakness and, there is, don't have enough competitive off to face this, to deal with the problem. So, we must think about it. I think the problem is so complicated we must ask different levels together to think and do the research in this area. Not just government to government, it's in the private sector, to self-society. To the experts. Every person must think about it because things change. And, when we face the machine, has more intelligence, as AI's development we know there is a new risk for all human beings. Not for the data. Not for the ‑‑ the machine.

But for ourselves. We must think about it. Because our cybersurprise, must think of things change. When weave think about your inner garments, not only for, resources. Our resources about everything. Because of the cyber ‑‑ cyber, of our life. It every changed. So, we must think it, deeply.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Dr. Li. I would like to get feedback from our colleague from Brazil.

>> What the speaker said in ape very good way. We have some common structures and technology that of course affects all of us in the world. We are striving to support this ‑‑ this one internet. This one thing. Of course, over this layer. We have several other layers. Some of the players are cultural. Some of the layers are security related. Human related. When we are talking security related things. This is of course again, a common ‑‑ preoccupation, all of us are exposed to the same thing. But in the cultural level, what the internet did was to expose us to other cultures. All of the citizens of the world are now exposed to all of the cultures. Of course, we have to preserve the, the local things, the multi‑stakeholder is a good way to do this. It is inevitable to have this exposition. And of course, this exposition brings tension and brings new things that is difficult to, to ‑‑ to preview. If we don't put some kind of ethics in, expansion of the technology, maybe we will be facing challenges from, artificial intelligence and other things that we are not ‑‑ not seeing in the rather right now. But can cause us quite big harm. Thank you.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Going back to the floor. And, anyone. You have, yes, please.

>> AUDIENCE: Given the complexity, the Internet Governance, do you think that ‑‑ the concept on how to govern the country or the region it will slowly, we will rely on the technology because now for example when we use it, we actually trust machine more than humans. institution by the institution. I was wondering if it is too much by the people. President Macron, to have unity of the cybersecurity. When I read from the news, the news, some countries, apparently reject this idea. It may be national interest. Or maybe it is because of the ideology. Some country now have the leader which may be a bit conservative, or maybe they're more just pro with their national interests. Often, we will give really huge problem for the rest of the, for the world, example, trade war, if we will rely on, for example, artificial intelligence, to run the government, don't know how it will be implemented. Maybe the possibility fee for this because sometimes we cannot trust to watch either other. What do you think about this? Thank you.

>> MODERATOR: You can go first. You have something? Yes.

>> AUDIENCE: On your comment. First, AI, I have two things. AI and security, okay. AI what we have is AI principle. Develop the 2017. That's what we have in the world. And they're going to have our next meeting in the next January. And they may do some revision. That's all we have now. So that you must start from that point. You may like it. You may not like it. But, that's how we start. Problem, talking multistakeholders. Three years ago that meeting, there were nobody from Asia. And it's, it's much worse than East‑West. So, I am kind of, we are kind of pushing them. For next revision. Let's ask Asia to participate. Okay. That's, I recommend you to read it. And then if you are interested I think it is beneficial AI in the next January. Second in the security area. I guess we have to come up with ‑‑ with some governance model on security. One thing we have to be clear. In security. Because, cyberwarfare, okay, DOD, military is the stakeholder in any country. They have sort of a ‑‑ this is your making. In each country. Like we just cannot say, okay, this is global. It just doesn't work. And the surveillance. Again an intelligence organization. A major stakeholder. And they have, their own logic. From the civil society. Okay. And so, we should come up some good because governance model on a security area. Otherwise, I guess, we are going to get stuck. As we are facing these norms. That's several years. And we have to ‑‑ come up with something that which can be accepted globally. Since we are not going anywhere. If you've don't believe, ask the U.S. government in particular DOD and NSA. Or likewise, either China or Russia. Ask them ‑‑ military organization. On intelligence organization. What's the best way? To have the global, governance model, on the cybersecurity. They should talk to each other. Of course, I'm not that pessimistic. 10 years ago, U.S./china sent up a joint workshop to come up with a security document. Which was pretty good. And so the ‑‑ what I want is, okay, since we had a corporation in the U.S. and China, let's base it on that one, progress, if we can progress any further. Because that was, I guess, about 10 years old, right, that document. East‑West instituted in the USA and ‑‑ and in China, what was it? And under the foreign ministry. Can we go any further on that one? Russia can join. And it's even better. And if the other country could join. It is even much better. So, something I guess we must come up with something, something tangible. Say within the next five years. Otherwise ‑‑ it will be terrible.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Thank you very much. I would like to turn to my colleague, Wolfgang.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Thank you, if I take your argument to the extreme. Sooner or later, probably president or prime minister can be replaced by Robert. If we have good -- he could be a good president. Why not? But you know we are here in UNESCO, don't know if people remember or know the text from the UNESCO constitution which starts that, because war starts in the minds of man it is the duty of our generation to start the preparation for peace in the minds of men. So, I think, this institution, UNESCO is also for education. The E stands for education. I think this is a key challenge. We have to enable the citizens to people who say understand what is going on. That means we need a new way of enlightened. That people understand AI, that people understand the complexity of the issues. People will be able to contribute from their point of view of policymaking. You know, to discuss only in an abstract way about Internet Governance, it's not enough. If I have argued a good Internet Governance starts at home. I would add, good Internet Governance, people understand the complexity of the internet today. Thank you.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Who else? I don't have any either. I have to see hands raise up over here.

>> AUDIENCE: Yes, please. Hello. I am studying in Berlin. I have two questions. The first one, professor mentioned that the, the civil society, technological companies in China are just for collecting information. And I'm wondering about that? I thought about the ‑‑ the father government law of China to do this. Because I think, in that government, it solves, it its feature. And how do the ‑‑ do the government led model to govern this and the second one, do you know about the relationship between the Chinese government and the BAT companies. Because we heard, heard a lot of social credit system in national media. And I'm wondering about the relationship between the credit system, the Chinese, official system of the ‑‑ thank you.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you for your questions of it is true, major media, especially traditional media, in China, is maybe controlled by the government. That's why we need the internet. Where we have social media. You may say there is some, government control. Basically, the internet is open system. I suppose you are Chinese. You've can read. Or something like that.

>> I talked about the topic many, many times in the past. This isn't government control. This is the internet anyway. People still have that some way to get that wrong. And it is their opinion. In some cases, actually, in China, the ‑‑ online public opinion play an even greater role than in the West. Like, you can change, law case. Can't change a government decision. So that, sorry, I would like to ‑‑ quote a friend of mine's saying. When talking about government controlling China. She asked, let's think what if there was no internet in China. Professor. Please introduce your sister first.

>> AUDIENCE: Hello. I am PH.D. student in Romania. I agree on this topic with Professor Kleinachter. Regulation, information security. That's home. I would like to offer you my argument on this, student in international relations. So, first all we need to recognize that states are not, are unequal in the ‑‑  regulations, label, they, they have adopted. We need to recognize that the states are passing process of development, and the way to ‑‑ to develop is to learn from other states. As well, states are still accountable for the security of their people. So the multistate approach is for me, is a part of this ‑‑ so the multi‑stakeholder approach is for me, is a part of the state to ensure security. As well, professor mentioned the regional, the regional ‑‑ format. Could you, could you ‑‑

Please offer more insight on these? For example, European union? What is, how you assess the role of the European development of states. For adopting. Getting the same level of regulations on security, information security, thank you very much.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: I think all European institutions have harmonized approach to security. A security agency based in Greece. We have a cybersecurity package where the member states of the EU, more or less have a harmonized approach close to cyber issues. Also, part of the military strategy, within the EU, NATO, Romania, and many other European, EU members are there. We have a European cybersecurity legislation. Which is, also translated on a national level. I don't see contradiction. We have the headquarters in Vienna which has elaborated. This is also mirrored by the Asian countries and this regional approaches are very helpful because they pave the way for a better universal understanding. If I said you, know, good Internet Governance starts at home. It should be understood. That means they have to be framed with, within the recognized principles of international law and human rights. should not try to violate the framework.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you very everybody. Appreciate your attendance and the patience. And greatly appreciate your input. Thanks, everybody. 

 

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